DD not being allowed to do Triple Science, really wants to, anything we can do?

Ah I clearly read the site wrong! Happy to be corrected.

Quick correction: combined and triple both have 6 papers (2 for each science), but the triple papers are longer (1 hr 45, 100 marks, rather than 1 hr 15 mins, 70 marks).

Same as mine although our school do 1 intervention after school for an hour and an hour incorporated in to tutor time through out the week.

At my kids' school the same number of science lessons is allocated to kids doing combined as to kids doing triple. That's despite needing to sit three papers for combined, and six for triple. So they have to move much faster through the curriculum with the kids doing triple, hence why they don't let children do triple unless they assess they can keep up with the pace. No comment on whether being on a 7 flight path would be enough at my kids' school - I don't know.

I don't know is this if applies to OP's child's school though.

DD is at a (single-sex) private school, and they just offer the three sciences as separate options. The girls can choose which/how many to take - though I don’t know how easy it is to take only one. They seem to get good take-up for Maths/Further Maths/Physics A levels (not sure about Computer Studies).
I would have been very happy to do Double Science at GCSE, as I suspect many more Humanities/Languages-oriented people would also have been.

I was at a grammar in the 90s and we all had to do triple sciences and two languages. I think that made sense as a requirement. I agree with the existence of double science as a thing though. I think this just gives schools more choices.

The number of girls choosing to study physics, computer science or further maths A-level continues to be far smaller than the numbers of boys.

I was at Grammar at the turn of the century, and those who had the aptitude and wanted to did Triple (1 or 2 classes), most did double. Keen linguists did 2 (or even 3) languages... everyone did what they were good at.

I was a bit surprised to find that Triple is the standard option at DDs Comprehensive!

@JoshLymanIsHotterThanSam , thanks for sharing your son's experience. Well done him!

@clary I’m a linguist and I’m clever . So am I! But still manage to misread sometimes! 😂 . Lucky you, I do know lots of people with that attitude, mostly idiots parents of sciency kids for some reason 🤔.

I think I was more upset about having the possibility to do all sorts taken away from me, IYSWIM. The end of an era of possibility.

Oh @stickygotstuck noooo I did what I wanted to do really. Just feel that I lack physics, and double is a great way of getting a wide science knowledge without using an option (if taking triple uses up an option, which effectively for me it did.)

I was also more than happy to drop art, needlework, cookery, RE and geography at 14. My own DC felt the same (different subjects obvs).

I don’t know anyone personally who thinks that scientists are smarter. I’m a linguist and I’m clever. I did almost take maths A level tho 😂😂

I wouldn’t worry too much. My selective grammar educated DS was not picked for triple science (his school selected who they put forward for triple). DS got a 99 in double science (or trilogy as they call it now) and is doing A level Physics, Maths and Further Maths. The double award has no bearing on A level possibilities.

Thank you @clary

Your experience confirms that so many people end up doing something else rather than what they want to.

FWIW I am all for breadth rather then depth. In fact, I think it's plain wrong to ask a 13 year old what they want to study going forward and what to drop. Nothing should be dropped at that age!

I was very sad to leave school after A levels because I'd have to "specialise" and leave behind other subjects (we all did 9 A levels though).

@yorktown your DC's school seems to have a more reasonable approach. Why put anyone off?

As an aside, I am sick of that frankly weird attitude that kids who are naturally good at science are the clever ones and the humanities kids are the not so clever ones. That's not the case at all (especially if you knew some of the scientists I know!), nor is their work more valuable.

I am sure this is true. However, OP DD is predicted a 7 so I don't think anyone would be expecting her to take a foundation paper at this point.

At my DC state school, anyone performing reasonably well is allowed to do triple science - it is timetabled as an option, so no condensed learning. This does mean that kids could pick a Foundation paper if one of the sciences was particularly sticky. For some reason, this has been biology among the kids that I know.
I don't know if the OP has said that it is a grammar or selective school.
I am a massive supporter of science and especially women in science, so would be reluctant to put off someone who was keen. They can of course do A Level without it, but in many schools, this will mean joining with the kids who've done triple so they are at a slight disadvantage.

@stickygotstuck you have had some good answers to your question. I am so sorry that your DD feels like that.

Here's my perspective FWIW - I really wish double science - as in, two quals and three sciences - would have existed when I was 16. Instead I had to choose (O levels as I am old) - I wanted to do loads of languages (my passion) and also history; we all had to do biology so then I had to choose between physics and chem. I chose chem but have always felt that my physics knowledge is lacking. So double would have been perfect for me - smart but not a scientist, but wanting an all-round education.

Incidentally this was in the late 70s and plenty of students at my school took physics O level (it was an all-girls school) tho I have to be honest and say that in the sixth form of 80 students, about three did physics A level. Guess what subject 60 of the 80 took? :)

@stickygotstuck ,

Physics is still an issue in mixed schools. Hard to know why, really.

When I taught at a girls school, I managed to get decent size girls’ 6th form sets.

When I worked at a mixed school, we had one or two girls every year who pursued Physics, it was really sad. I was always close with girls saying they enjoyed it and wanted to continue but then, come the autumn term, it was nearly always Maths, Bio and Chem.

For girls who like StEM, I honestly really favour single sex education.

@elozabet thank you for the explanation. Who'd have thought snobbery affected Science!

The school actually makes no attempt to explain anything at all. DD just came one day and said that she was doing 'Combined Science, Top Tier'. I had no idea what that was (I wasn't educated in the UK). I asked around, found out all about double/triple Science, still makes no logical sense to me.

Little Anna really likes Science and is very sure she wants to do Science at A level (well, as sure as a 14 year old can be), so it would be better for her long term if she did Triple Science at GCSE. However, computer says no. Meanwhile, little Juliet who wants to be a lawyer is stuck with doing extra hours of Science which she is not keen on at all, but happens to find easy.

I am gobsmacked that as recently as the 80s some sciences were only offered to boys! I'd have been stuffed - loved Physics, not that keen on Biology.

It is good to hear it reiterated that double does not preclude Sciences at A level.

stickygotstuck
Your daughter's school has obviously done a really bad job of explaining triple and double.

Triple takes up a lot of their timetable so if you don't love science, it would be a nightmare!

I did O levels and we could pick the science (s) we wanted to do. I went for all 3 ( being a science geek !) but most girls picked just biology.

Even worse, many schools only let girls do one science as 'sciences were for boys'. My best friend had to get her dad up the school to argue for her to be allowed to do all 3 sciences. This was pretty common in the 80's and one of the reasons for the introduction of double science.

Double science is a great compromise. Plus perfectly adequate for going onto further study in the sciences.

To answer your question. The double science was introduced to encourage students to take all 3 sciences particularly the girls. Prior to its introduction, girls would traditionally take biology only and avoid physics and chemistry. So they introduced a combined science so all 3 sciences were continued to age 16. This was introduced around 1990 ish.

Many state schools just did double science (worth the two GCSE's) but many private and grammar schools continued to offer the 3 separate sciences which meant they studied each science in greater depth, which prepares better for A level.
So then there was a push for all state schools to offer the separate sciences (aka triple science) so all students had the option. Some schools just offered triple in the time it took to deliver double science ( which is tough as you need to get through the content pretty fast to complete all 3 specifications). Other schools offered it as an option subject : so you use the time allocated for double science but also one of the option blocks to teach all 3 specifications.

If doing it in double science time - you needed to be bright enough to work at the accelerated pace, but the 3 sciences are no harder ! There are just more content/more topics.
I think triple science gets the impression of being harder as so many schools try to cram it in the time allocated to double science.

There's no need to do triple science as you can go onto science A levels with double science but it is preferable if planning to do science at A level.
Options are limited at gcse and many very able atudetns want to continue with a broader base of subjects so opt for double rather than triple so they can continue with things like music or art.
Most schools suggest a minimum predicted grade of level 5/6 as if you're not going onto A level, you really don't need triple science. It should be a snobbery thing !

@Newbutoldfather thank you.

I did see your bit about the top private school. But they are also doing investigation work, so extra work which should benefit them all at A level.
DD's school is doing no such thing, just 'stealing' some Science hours from 'us thickos' (DD's words). She is actually in set 2 of 4, I dread to think how sets 3 and 4 think of themselves.

Thanks for the reassurance about being able to do A level Science. DD is actually doing Momentum at the moment, interestingly.

I will need to email the Head of Science to put my mind at rest. But DD wants to move school for A levels, unsurprisingly, so I guess I will need to ask the alternative schools too.

@stickygotstuck ,

Hmmm, that is an interesting question! The concept of double award is for pupils to study all three sciences in the time allocated for two GCSEs. If you don’t have it, all students will spend about a third of their time studying science and, if you add in maths, maybe half their lessons. Heaven for some, like me, but hell if you hate maths and science.

I think the way it is presented is bad, though. It would be far better for the default to be double and triple only taught to those who were wanting to keep A level sciences as an option. It shouldn’t be sold as a better option.

It is definitely useful to study the whole triple content for A levels, although not necessary (more below). In Maths, they have the optional Further Maths paper for really strong mathematicians, although many schools don’t offer it. Again it is really useful for A level.

Did you see my post above about one of the top academic schools in the country choosing double award?

I have taught many double award candidates at A level. Some have done really well. You just need to teach yourself roughly 30% of the syllabus over summer. In physics, this will include Momentum (important), Charge and some of Astrophysics (in the board I taught).

Comfortingly, due to the nature of the spiral curriculum, the introduction to every A level topic is a brief recap of GCSE work so, if a pupil has ability and a good work ethic, double award GCSE really isn’t a handicap.

I'm another one who doesn't understand the need for the distinction between double and triple science. Double science should not be a thing. Many of you think it's fine because it's been like that for ages. To me, it feels so wrong. Like it's for the benefit of the school only.

And I'll tell you another reason why it's a terrible Idea: it sends the message to so many, many kids that they're not good enough. In fact they are so crap they're not even worth teaching them the whole content. This was said to me recently by Y11 DD. And as we all know, this is what children need in this age of anxiety, insecurity and general mental health misery amongst the young.

DD also has an extra hour of English (which she does not need as a predicted 9 student).What she could do with is that extra hour of science to get better. Every time that lesson comes around she feels angry and shit at the same time. I do think the schooling system in England is beyond broken but that doesn't help DD or the thousands who feel like her.

As it happens, DD will need A level Physics to study what she'd like. I do hope PPs are right when they say it is perfectly feasible to do A level science after double.

@avidhorizon I too would be interested to know which school. Begins with F?

OP hasn’t been back to update.

The key question is why her daughter is keen to do triple, which several teachers have asked.

If she wants to do A levels or is genuinely passionately interested in one or more of the sciences, then she should press for it. But the predicted A level grade for someone who achieves a 7 at GCSE is a B or worse (median).

As I said upthread, other than offering an ‘extra’ grade, there is little advantage to studying triple over double. It is broader, not deeper. One of the top private schools (where virtually everyone expects 9s) deliberately chose double a few years ago in order to do deeper study beyond the syllabus and more investigative work.

Given that most schools undertimetable the sciences, I think, on average, double award is the sensible choice for this type of candidate.

Seems a bit unreasonable, I would ask why this is the case, if a 7 is a lower “a” that should be more than enough to get her in. It may that be you have a cohort thats very strong on science so they can filter out any non 8’s and 9’s.

In my old school only the top set in science got to do separate sciences (higher paper, was non-negotiable, grammar), but there were definitely b’s (me for example). I think we did have people doing foundation but it was the bottom set. But this was decades ago.

I meant the GCSE "science" as a single qualification combining all three subjects, is no longer available AFAIK (it used to be). Obvs it's possible to just take biology GCSE tho it's unusual in schools.

But I and other pps were trying to correct a pp whose info was out of date.

This is the norm in all schools. It’s effectively another gcse if you do triple, so gives students choice to choose something else along double science

No one does a single science GCSE anymore AFAIK.

It's quite common at FE colleges to do GCSE science, usually biology alongside Level 3 course for students who want to go in to teaching.