No GCSEs at Latymer Upper

No, actually I didn't.
I think people imagine that GCSEs are somehow something other than learning by rote which does nothing other than display a good memory and knowledge of what each exam board wants. This is not ringfenced information that only private schools have. One of the best schools in the country has decided to deviate from that rote learning to try to get more interesting and varied applied teaching to it's pupils and I can't see why Oxbridge would take issue. It seems sensible given the changing situation the workforce faces with AI.

Wouldn't like that at all. If you did all STEM A levels it's good to know the child can write an essay evidenced by the GCSE English or History grade and if Humanities A levels that they can add up!

To be honest Latymer Upper was on our radar for 11+ but their GCSE reform has made me completely rule it out although I am sure it will still appeal to some families.

I take it you went to a private school?

To be honest there are ridiculous opinions on all sides! Snide remarks about state schools, snide remarks about private schools and snide remarks about Latymer who are perfectly entitled to do what they want exams wise. Noone has to send their child there!

But not everyone wants to send their kids to private schools, especially if you live in a poor area, where there aren't any for miles anyway! If a family decide they'd rather live on the same road as their parents, cousins etc and pay for tutoring for their kids to be best in their year rather than send them to a school where they'd not fit in, why does that make them more or less educationally privileged than someone with parents who don't care about their kid and sends them away to board? It's an odd way to determine if someone will get a first at Oxbridge.

That's a very interesting point, at least theoretically. Between two families with similar income in a similar postcode, one chooses a private school while the other chooses a local low-performing state school but hires intensive tutors for every subject. I think the family taking the state school route will have more disposable income and therefore be better off financially, and the exam results might be better because the tuition is more one-to-one and specific. Although the overall learning experience would be worse than in private school, the chance of getting into Oxbridge might not be lower. It could even be greater, because of the contextual offers. It's a bit like playing the system, although practically, I'm not sure if it is very common.

JFC the ridiculous opinions on state schools on this thread are truly shocking! DS is currently on track to get 9’s for all his GCSEs at a state school. Oh and he’s not an entitled wanker either.

Why are they doing this?

Did your child go to the secondary school in UK?

Unfortunately, Badeles has never sent a student to Oxbridge :( so it shouldn't be a criterion.

Eight subjects once per week at £50 per hour, term time only is nearly £16000. £50 per hour is fairly minimal for tutoring. Why would you subject your children to a rough school and all the disruption and stress that causes, the wasted time when you are not studying every day because of disruption in lessons, in order to pay the same amount as many private schools cost in tutoring? And remember all those private school pupils get excellent teaching and studying in their school day including laboratories and other facilities, extracurricular activities, supracurricular activities, supportive peers and times to study in their school evenings.

My point was more that you don't have to be poor to live in a poor area and 1:1 tuition for each subject (and it is never just once a week lets be honest) is better than sitting in a class of low achievers in any school, private or state. GCSE's are as poor an indicator of intelligence as the 11+.

The chances of someone in a comprehensive in a rough area affording 1:1 tuition is every subject is very slim. And if you think 1:1 tutoring once a week in each subject after the end of a school day in a rough school, where every lesson is disrupted and you feel you have to hide you ability to get by, is anyway comparable to attending private school then you live in a fantasy world. Not to mention the fact that the private school has teachers experienced with loads of Oxbridge applicants vs a rough school where only a few get into any university and no one has a clue about Oxbridge.

So if you live in the best house in a rough area with no grammar and pay for 1:1 tutoring as a cheaper way to get good GCSE's than private school you are even more likely to get to Oxbridge. Never quite understood why private 1:1 tuition is seen as any different to a class of private school kids, personally.

Oxbridge realise grammar schools offer advantage too so contextualise exam results against those of the school.

Oxbridge must be realising more millionaire's kids go to grammar schools now over private and realising the GCSE comparison is a terrible "leveller". Short of sifting through parents with offshore accounts and asking for earnings they are unlikely to discover much of a difference between kids of parents getting private tutoring all through school and those at a boarding school.

So the key point is they’ve basically scrapped most traditional GCSE revision and replaced the standard exams with their own GCSE equivalents.

I don’t know all that much about GCSEs, but from my background and what I’ve seen of the content, it all seems so straightforward that top grades should be achievable without any extensive teaching or extra revision.

I get the idea is well‑intentioned, but personally, I’d prefer they didn’t get rid of the actual exams. I’d rather my child still sat the standard exams even without much revision. I’m happy to take the risk of a slight downgrade, from a 9 to an 8 for example.I know we could enter our child as a private candidate, but I’d prefer them to do minimal revision through school and take the exams there instead. It just feels more straightforward. As the school has just replaced GCSEs with other exams instead of removing them entirely, if we enter for GCSEs privately anyway we’ll have to take exams twice, which I find really annoying.

So I’ve just had a chance to go to the source, the discussion of the reforms on the LUS website. I encourage others to do the same.

LUS will continue to require a minimum of six twi year GCSE subjects: English, Maths, a language, a humanities subject and two science subjects. Because there will be little exam revision per se, it is expected that the two year courses will cover more than the standard GCSE material.

However because the GCSE grades are used for so many purposes, English and Maths GCSEs will continue to be taken as usual.

In the other subjects LUS will give its own assessments at the end of Y11. It has been consulting widely to make sure these are accepted as, at least, GCSE equivalents whilst also meeting its own pedagogical aims.

In addition to these six subjects it appears that Y10-11 students will be taking more subjects and/or doing modular 10 week course units on a variety of topics, pursuing independent research, etc. Assessment for all of this appears rigorous and partly innovative, developed in consultation with domestic and overseas universities and professional societies.

During Sixth Form, LUS pupils also do the Latymer Diploma with research, service, leadership and sporting components.

It could go wrong. It will take a lot of effort to keep standards high. But it holds promise.

Not an IB (which I strongly support and LUS do not offer), but more holistic than the traditional British model.

The literature I read does not suggest that LSU is narrowing their curriculum at an early stage @poetryandwine

Good to know. But without the requirement of a wide range of GCSE subjects, students, parents, and teachers would have much less incentive to invest time in subjects unrelated to a child's future A level choices. For example, a humanities-leaning student would be very reluctant to attempt triple science, while a STEM-focused student would likely try to avoid history or English literature altogether. Of course, they still need to learn in class, probably with a deeper learning experience as you suggested, but you’d have to agree that the effort put into non-core subjects simply can't compare to the intensity of preparing for an actual exam. Is LSU an IB school? Scrapping GCSEs would definitely align better with an IB school model, which is naturally broader and could easily serve as a more holistic alternative.

My post just above was for @DandelionsintheLawn

The literature I read does not suggest that LSU is narrowing their curriculum at an early stage, contrary to the possibility raised by you and @swdd, and perhaps by others earlier.

Do you really think that universities would fail to notice this, or to be savvy to its implications? No admissions tutor in the land is interested in providing further advantages to privileged pupils. LUS have said they have worked with universities on their changes and I imagine that is the only way they have brought parents and pupils along. What you have suggested would backfire.

Gently, my guess is that LUS think their pupils need something like GCSEs, but more challenging, and that is what they are aiming for. Or, as @Onlyfornow says, GCSEs have been ditched so pupils can actually learn more in their GCSE subjects before specialising. In that case LUS will be creating extra work for themselves in order to provide meaningful referee reports for university applicants.

Whether the new system will work is anyone’s guess.

When you look at medicine application, lots of universities require that A levels are taken over the usual time period (2 years). If you take an extra year at college to get better grades this is looked down upon as it is considered that you were unable to achieve the grades within the period intended. If the focus here is to give more time to get better A level grades then it does seem to be gaming the system. Ultimately this leads to universities focussing further on widening access, progress 8, school contextual considerations etc to try and remove the advantage given by such gaming by privileged private schools.

Don’t worry about it. My kid is now at UCL having gone to a school that ditched GCSEs. They’re also surrounded by lots of kids from countries that didn’t do GCSEs either. France and Germany don’t etc etc. We should have ditched them as soon as we made education compulsory to 18. They’re a waste of time and they kill love of learning.

After all, much of the point of the change appears to be to prepare students better for A levels by giving them a deeper learning experiences earlier. @poetryandwine

Seriously? I already think A levels unnecessarily narrow a student's vision, whereas the whole point of GCSEs is to provide a wide range of subjects across both the humanities and STEM. I cannot imagine narrowing down to A level studies even earlier than that.