Compulsory performance subject at GCSE

My DS is about to start GCSE Drama, despite the fact I’ve never seen him act on stage! The school productions have been musicals and he says he’s never wanted to be in them as he can’t sing. But he has been involved backstage with sound/set building etc, so I think he’s hoping to do some more of that.

AQA GCSE drama is a good option.

The assessment is 70% academic - 40% written exam, 30% on the devising log which is a written piece of coursework.

The other 30% is practically assessed, but as pp have said can be set design/lighting/sound/costume/make up. Checking that the school offers the tech option is important as not all do- and those that do might not have large numbers doing it which will mean your DS has to be quite independently motivated to excel. Find out if the department has a technician- this can really help. Also get hold of the tech design text book (Amazon) which will really help if the teacher isn’t 100% confident.

The writing is different to English, in that the accent is always on performance (or design) in a practical real world sense instead of analysing language and literature. That said, at this stage, aptitude in English is a good measure- and in my experience they are very few grammar school students who couldn’t be taught to do well at gcse drama if they wanted.

My DD did DT (design and technology) because she likes art but isn't arty. (Can't draw!)

She loved it , and got a 7 or an 8
Can't remember now

At my state school drama and music have just been cut due to low numbers choosing it as an option subject. This is particularly hard for me as the drama teacher and I am on track to have the best results in the school.

Anyway, my opinion on drama is anyone can do it if they are willing. It’s as much about attitude as ability. I have taught every type of student including students with autism. I once had a mum tell me quite definitely that ‘her son couldn’t read expressions and communicate feelings on stage’. I can assure you he could and his grade 8 proved it.

Yes, students can do a technical option but check because some teachers are not confident offering it.

40% is from the written exam plus there is some writing attached to the practical elements. If he can write well (which I am sure he can) and has a willing class it is a possibility. If he does drama now - he will have an idea of what it’s like.

Tbf it's quite unusual not to have to take a team sport for PE GCSE. Both AQA and Pearson/Edexcel ask for it. What board is this @bennybannsider ?

I want to add that I agree with those who think that this broadly a good idea, despite the horror I expressed at anyone being made to do art. I don't think that's a good idea; but I do like that the school is supporting creative subjects as they are in danger of being pushed out by a) the Ebacc obsession and b) schools' tendency to reduce numbers of options as the exams now have s much content.

So yes, to be supported - but hopefully in a helpful way. And perhaps allowing some, for whom it really is not suitable, to choose something else.

I'm aware. PE and an artistic subject are typically compulsory as graded courses (with theory) in the US, but the whole system is different because it's not focused on 2-year courses culminating in a single grade like GCSEs.

No need to get into a comparative analysis, regardless. I was just acknowledging my own bias.

US high school students are almost always required to take both an artistic subject and PE past the age of 14
PE is also a compulsory part of the national curriculum until the end of KS5 in this country and plenty of schools require some as part of their 6th form curriculum too - it's just not compulsory as an examined subject. GCSE and A level PE are substantially theoretical.

I think it’s better to specialise early (and it’s not as if doing 8-11 GCSEs is actually all that narrow!) than forcing children to do these subjects that, without an innate aptitude, are difficult to do well in.

Personal opinions aside, have you asked the school if he absolutely has to do one of these subjects? I’d definitely write off Art and Music, they’re hard going even if you love it. PE might be better than you think – if he likes science he might enjoy the theory side, and he could probably do a non-team sport. Depends if he struggles with all sport or just team sports.

Drama might be good if he doesn’t need to focus on performance.

Completely agree - we are a real anomaly internationally in pushing children to narrow their curriculum and specialise too soon.

Glad to read of a school that values the arts, hope OP can work something out that is best for her child.

DD's school have a compulsory visual or performing arts requirement.

But they can choose from Photography, Fine Art, Graphics, Textiles, Music, Drama, Design Tech or a BTEC in Creative Media Production. Not sure PE is included under that.

So pretty much something that will suit everyone and I suspect they are reasonably flexible if you absolutely hate all the options.

I'd definitely speak with the drama head and find out what options are for offstage work. I also wouldn't rule out art automatically; find out what medium options there are and encourage your DS to explore them.

I know that having a compulsory subject like this will be a bit of a marmite idea, and perhaps the American expat in me is coming to the fore here (US high school students are almost always required to take both an artistic subject and PE past the age of 14), but quite frankly I think this is a good structure, especially at a grammar school.

It's good for students to take courses that don't come naturally to them and I think there's value in continuing to push breadth through to 16. It can also be a fantastic life lesson for many of the more academic children to have a course where they don't aim for top marks and just try to enjoy it and learn some new things while exercising good time management. Learning that "good enough" is sometimes the smart goal in an area can be a struggle for a lot of the higher-achieving lot. If your son is at a grammar school he's unlikely to be struggling to get strong GCSE scores in the courses he needs for post-GCSE, so I might frame this course as one where he's aiming for a pass, enjoyment in lessons, and no unproductive stress.

Shocked? Really?

To answer your question, no, it's not common at all. Nationally there is a decline in the number of pupils taking creative and performing arts subjects as schools have had to narrow their offer. There is a real problem with talented pupils in disadvantaged areas who are unable to take a GCSE in their preferred creative subject.

As Pp have said performance can be production based; depending on the school set up they might not be able to offer lighting but could do set design. Group work is required for the performances which are irrc 60% BUT a lot of that mark is also production log which they write individually about the process of rehearsal and performance. Google some AQA exemplars and I think you’ll find some but teacher should be able to help

we’ve had very shy students, asd and other ‘difficulties’ do extremely well with the production tasks and they’ve sometimes been surprised with how much performance they can do in a safe space over time with practice which is often one of the joys of teaching drama!

DS1, just finished year 11, went to a State Grammar with the same rule - they had to do a performance option. He is rubbish at PE, hated art in years 7 to 9 and whilst he enjoyed music, was not really good enough to do it as a GCSE - leaving drama as the only choice and it's been fine. Team work is the biggest challenge, but for their final assessed piece they were able to choose who to be with so he was able to be with boys of a similar level of talent and motivation. He has enjoyed it and doing something different has often been a welcome respite in the school week. I agree with other posters see how it is assessed and whether their is capacity for a back stage role - at DS school there was only one class in his year doing drama and they were all assessed as performers.

AIBU to be shocked that this is compulsory to do a "performance subject"?

My DC are now in their mid/late 20s and I certainly don't remember a "performance subject" being forced on them. The only thing that they were vaguely forced to do, that my DS really objected to, was a modern foreign language.

Does it vary by school or is this a lot more common now than it was ten years ago?

It's a good idea in principle but I think they should have included subjects like D & T and Food Tech to give other options.

That's tough. I agree that it is good that a school is encouraging these subjects but I don't think it should be compulsory as not everyone has these aptitudes and they're courses that tend to be quite time consuming and likely to need quite a lot of out of school work.
I agree drama sounds the least bad but PE might not be totally out of the question either as a lot of it is theory. Though obviously they do have to do competitive sport including at least one team sport, the focus at GCSE is on improvement. Normally I would quite strongly discourage a non sporty child from PE but as you're between a rock and a hard place it might be worth at least reading through the specification - it's quite different to regular Games lessons.
I would raise your concerns with school. Your DS can't be the first ever pupil I this kind of situation and I doubt they will want pupils to be entered into subjects they are destined to get low grades in.

My son's doing PE. (Different exam board, not sure how much difference it makes.) He does fitness testing in school as one sport, goes to a couple of competitive orienteering competitions organised by schools, and does his main sport (his does have to be competitive which is probably difficult to organise for swimming but doable for running.) And does human biology/ nutrition in the classroom.

The thought of GCSE drama would terrify my son. But pe suits him. He is bad at team sports so he doesn't do one, and that's fine.

I am a massive advocate for arts and performing arts in schools but I think this is a terrible idea.

If he is good at English drama should be OK. I did Drama A level and I am a dreadful actor. I was good at writing about plays.

i definitely would warn against art.
Even talented pupils find it extremely time consuming.
Hopefully the school can accommodate children in drama in one of the behind the scenes aspects .

Have you looked at the spec? https://www.aqa.org.uk/subjects/drama/gcse/drama-8261 Performance is only one of the specialisms available to students. They can also demonstrate 'theatrical skills' through lighting design, set design, costume design or puppetry design. I think there's a good chance that one of these might suit your DS.

I have to say it's fantastic to hear of a state school which is still able to champion the arts and protect their place in their compulsory curriculum.