Year 9 and Year 10 GCSE students - unfairly treated by Ofqual?

It's very unusual and ofsted advise against it for all the reasons listed above.

Ofqual aren't at fault here.

@barbosska, you're not in Harlow, are you?

It's the school's fault for doing it this way. They are meant to be studied over 2 years and sat at the end of y11.

How do students cope taking A levels in subjects the took the GCSE for in Y9?

I feel your school has tried to bend the rules a little too much and has got caught out. I don’t think it is a Ofqual who have disadvantaged your students there...

barbosska -you’ve said you observed your DD sat 11 GCSEs last year and it was a ‘nightmare’-why given a lot of DCs are in similar circumstances each year?
Also, in Yr9 you’ve stated that your DS achieved 3 GCSEs which were graded at a 9.
How many was he planning to sit at the end of Yr10 and then Yr11?
As other posters have pointed out,, your DS’s school is not the ‘norm’ but I’d be interested in knowing how you can assert that a DC gaining a 9 in Yr9 under the ‘system’ your DS is being educated in, is more capable than a DC whom gains a 9 in whatever subject whilst sitting 11 GCSEs in one sitting at the end of Yr11?

OP,
Can I confirm does the way your school organises things mean that students are not doing maths and English for all of year 9, 10 and 11? Do they have a year or more when they are not taught these or are these always taught?

Some small schools do this because of staffing. I know some tiny schools that do it this way as timetabling leaves no other option.

So, basically what you are saying is if someone gets 9 in, say, History GCSE in Year 9, he/she is less capable then someone who gets 9 in Year 11, right? Is this not the other way round?

Well, how would that person progress to A level in history having had a two year gap since sitting their history GCSE? It's already a hefty leap without any gap.

Even if they get high grades it disadvantages them when it comes to the next stage.

Agreed @titchy

This sounds like a pretty cynical attempt by SLT to get round the system for their own benefit.

Year 9 students are not mature enough to take GCSEs. Putting them under that strain is ludicrous. What happens to the ones that don’t pass in Yr 9? Do they have more to take in Yr 10 and even more in Yr11?

The head wants their arse kicking.

So, basically what you are saying is if someone gets 9 in, say, History GCSE in Year 9, he/she is less capable then someone who gets 9 in Year 11, right? Is this not the other way round?

And did every single kid get 3 x 9s in year 9? No. So the ones who didn't have been short changed. They would undoubtedly have got better grades with two years maturity.

And most kids that only ever sit 3 subjects at a time will struggle when suddenly they're expected to do three times that at A Level.

There are also a handful of uni courses that your school has ruled its kids out of - unis expect kids to be able to cope with 8 subjects at a time.

I know when you're happy with all other aspects of a school and your children seem to have done well, it's hard to hear they're not serving their students well. But it is true - a significant proportion of your school's kids will have had opportunities removed by virtue of this practice.

can't spend time recapping what they need for the 3 they have and learning 3more. Not enough hours in the week.

They’ve gained from now to the end of June to start teaching new content that would have been spent sitting exams.

The world is being "unfairly treated" by coronavirus, go figure!
Yr 9 & 10 may get a chance to sit an actual exam next year, life's not fair which in itself is a valuable life lesson.

Of course it’s much, much easier to do GCSEs in batches of 4! Come on!

Your school ignored repeated guidance, took a gamble and in this very specific circumstance it hasn’t paid off.

I teach in an SEMH secondary school and we do a 2.5-3 year GCSE because I (English teacher) only get 2 hours of lessons a week with each year group. We have to constantly justify this to governors, Ofsted etc.

Schools are absolutely not supposed to do this and have been told so in no uncertain term. If the school have chosen to do this they have made a very poor professional decision that is a pretty thin attempt to game the system and overall robs the students of learning experiences.

The students will not miss out in the long run and will have just as good a chance as any other Yr 9 or 10 student in the country.

The problem is presumably they've already started this. The year 10s won't have studied 3 of their subjects so can't spend time recapping what they need for the 3 they have and learning 3more. Not enough hours in the week.

The only reason they’re going through with this hastily bodged together mess of teacher assessment for Y11 and 13 is that they NEED their results for their next steps.

Y9 and 10 don’t NEED their results. It would be totally ridiculous to go through the whole predicted grade process when they could easily sit their exams in another series. If they might have to ‘keep subjects going alongside others’, well that’s what every other student is juggling.

Also our school compensate by either doing a short fat or a long thin. Short fat is 5hrs a week for one year. Long thin is 2hrs a week year 1 and 3hrs a week year2 so teaching hours is the same for both courses.

Well, if it's not gaming the system then what's the problem with having to do it the normal way. You've said it'll disadvantage them to have to do them all at once, i.e. they gain an advantage from spacing them out in this way.

Ours do 1 gcse in y9 1 in y10 and the rest in y11. They are also taught in mixed years. So all the y9, 10&11 students sitting history are in the same class. I believe that since y11 students will be allowed to sit their exams autumn term if they disagree with the grade they are given this option should also be given to y9/10 students which will at least take the pressure off for the summer. Perhaps you should contact the school for clarification.

Yep. I would agree with Yinu. If they have only studied crammed 4 subjects they are less capable for someone who sits them later.

Agree it’s very poor to do GCSE’s like this. I’d imagine the reason for it is primarily to push up results. I think it should be banned rather than discouraged. It does seem unfair but also it’s not stopping them moving on with their education. The school might stop doing it, as now what are they going to do?