GCSEs in England: which subjects / how many are compulsory? What can each school force kids to take?

blimey 18! DS2's PE A level had about a dozen students. His other two were maths and biology so obvs more popular (in fact two groups).

Tbh anything other than maths, core science subjects, Eng lit and psych runs with a lot fewer than 18 at the DCs' school. There are only about 120 in the sixth form tho as a rule.

Obviously it would be no worries for the typical MN child because they would consistently and comfortably be in set 1 😁

Where it is possible, DD's school is very commited to running subjects both at KS4 and KS5 both to make sure they are available and to ensure subject preferences can be honoured. It is one of the things that i have been most surprised about. They have run GCSE classes with single figures not just the MFL mentioned above, but also music & even more surprisingly geography! There were multiple geography GCSE classes, but some students could only be accomodated in one timetable slot due to their other options. DD isnt in that class but thinks it runs with 8? At KS5 BTECs and A levels regularly run with say 3 or 4 students. I dont know what the floor number would be - it must be such a strain on resources.

They are a community comprehensive and for many students they are really the only practicable option at either KS4 or 5 - transport isnt great in some areas of the catchment and can be very expensive. They therefore commit to both vocational & academic options & English & Maths resits.

At various points during KS3 they set for maths, science & MFL. At KS4 MFL sets are dropped due to low uptake but continue for maths & combined science. Separate science is largely self selecting, but not exclusively so. Nothing else is ever set.
I've said lots i like about the school, but one thing i like less is the variable & opaque setting arrangements. Departments seem a law to themselves. Some seem to take a holistic (subjective?) approach others seem to simply order the exam results and draw and draw a line between sets. Sometimes moves are discussed in person or students are warned they will be moved if performance doesnt improve at next assessmsnt point. Other times the first a student knows is a different group number on their timetable. It seems a very inconsistent approach & students need to be robust & take it in their stride. There is plenty of movement though - which is good - but you cant ever get too comfortable.

I was told 18 to break even, some years ago. That's an average so you can have Economics with 28 and Music with 8.

On the subject of setting, it can also depend on what teachers you have and how many students are taking a subject.

When I did my PGCE one A Level class only had 3 students taking the subject, obviously with such a small number you can tailer to the needs of the individuals.

If you only have one teacher who can teach a particular subject then you are not able to have sets for that subject unless it is taught in two different subject blocks.

Some will (like I say, DD was one of two; one person took music A level that year) but yes, increasingly it is an issue. There were only four in my German A level class back in the 1980s but IIRC there were two A level classes in French (which everyone took for O level; not many took German).

@RampantIvy I think schools still do try and run them. At dd1's current school, in the year above her they combined German y12 and 13 so had a class of 6.

In her year there are 11 doing it though, which she's happy about, although 8 are native speakers.

ETA this may be the one you're thinking of @clary as I mentioned it on another thread.

that's a pity @Owlbookend

At dd2's comp, in a year of 180, about 70 are doing either Spanish or French and a handful are doing both.

Only maths is set but I think most schools seem to divvy up languages by teaching one to half the year and another to the other half. Then they either switch or in dd2's school, the stronger children do two languages for the next couple of years of KS3 while the others do extra literacy.

I took French A level in 1977. There were only three in my year who took it. Am I right in thinking that schools won't run such small A level classes now?

In DS2's A level year (2019-21) his school was the only one in the city (out of at least seven or eight sixth forms) to offer German A level.

In DD's year French was the only one that ran, with two candidates (one was DD). MFL has to suck up very small classes I think (tho I did read a post recently about an MFL A level class in the teens which is heartening). DD said at least with just two of them, she got lots of speaking practice. I love German too and am very sad to see its fall from favour.

Of course not, but there's selective and there's selective.

My previous school, students could take Economics A level with a 5 in one English and a 5 in Maths (they needed 5 x 4s for sixth form entry generally iirc). That's very inclusive. A few got Us.

For a superselective grammar you might need to average 99% in entry tests at age 10 based on non national curriculum material!

Yes - we also used to have compulsory MFL, but the progress stats weren't great. A lot of kids just seemed to not like/value it so it got dropped.

Yes - you guessed right. It is German. It is a French or German offering in KS3 (kids are assigned to what they start in Y7). I do find it sad. My mfl gcse is German & it suited me much more than French. It used to more common in the local area, but increasingly they offer Spanish & French (or just one). I dont think anywhere else offers German a level in traveling distance & realistically it isnt going to be offered at DD's school given the gcse numbers. You'd need at least at 30% conversion rate - which is highly unlikely.

Aaaaah @Owlbookend I am sorry that so few are taking that MFL (is it German?). There is a similar situation at the last school I taught in where MFL was not compulsory.

At my DCs’ school it was optional in DD's year and only 19 took French out of a possible 80 I think (a third of the year did it at KS3) tho more chose German o Spanish. This was several years ago, then the school introduced compulsory MFL for a while but that wasn't great either (too many disaffected YP not working and getting a 2 alongside a list of 5-6-7 grades).

Setting and/or streaming does not always occur when students sit higher & foundation papers. It often does, but they arent always yoked together.

For example, MFLs have become increasingly unpopular at my DD's school. Despite a vibrant MFL department, trips, extra curricular, school wide competitions etc. and two languages being offered in KS3 GCSE classes are small. They simply cant justify sets with this level of uptake and this is in a very large comprehensive with multiple classes starting each language from Y7 . They have ended up with a class of single figures doing one of the offered languages at GCSE and two small (20ish) classes doing the other. Students in these classes will be a mix of foundation & higher students. The full syllabus for higher is taught and adaptions and guidance is given to students who are ultimately destined for the foundation paper. It may not be ideal, but the alternatives would be:
*Forcing students to take an MFL when it isnt a preferred option
*Excluding lower average students taking an MFL. Casses would be even smaller & frankly might be even more unviable. They are teetering on the edge now. Also it seems bluntly wrong to say you cant do the course.
Similarly students destined for foundation separate science papers can join the course. The vast majority of students doing this option are higher attaining higher paper students, but a small minority of students who will end up taking foundation are included.

Decisions about entry tiers arent finalised until Y11. The main exception is students in the lowest maths sets. They are taught a different foundation syllabus and it would be difficult access the higher content if you started Y10 in one of these sets.

As I said, there is a subtle difference. I didn’t infer that a qualification is more difficult simply because fewer candidates take the top grades.

You are the one comparing different groups which are too different and not comparable! That was my whole point about you comparing GCSE maths to the Business qualification.

All mine are older than GCSE age now. The ones who attended school didn’t attend schools who offered that specific business qualification. The two who don’t/didn’t attend school but have EOTAS/EOTIS/C didn’t have such qualifications available to them either.

@Phineyj posted the study about setting and later specifically said that they did not think maths should be taught in unsetted classes. So as far as I can see my point stands, no one is disagreeing with you on this point. And AFAIK the vast majority of secondary schools set for maths. All the ones I know anything about do.

Yes it's about 30% that get below a grade 4 in maths at the first attempt. That figure is easily found.

I don't think anyone on this thread is advocating not setting for maths and not offering the F paper to the students whom it will benefit. FWIW I think there should be F tier for English lang and lit as well.

I wasn’t cherry picking anything. You were the one who originally focused on WJEC. I was comparing subjects within the same exam board. If you wanted to include other exam boards in an argument, you would have to do the same for Business since there are other boards who offer that as well.

My point about the numbers being flawed wasn’t about them not being comparable qualifications. It was about you saying so many more do maths. Well firstly, yes, obviously, since maths is a core subject, more sixth form, adult learners and those below Y11 do maths than business, but also, you aren’t comparing it to the whole level 2 Business qualification sector, just one specific qualification from one board. So, comparing the numbers entered for maths from across boards to the number entered for one specific business qualification is flawed.

I said if it was as simple as you think, the grade boundaries and percentages would be higher. That isn’t quite the same as saying because it has the lowest % of D2* it cannot be that easy. There is a subtle difference. I’m sorry you can’t comprehend that.

you seem to forget that history teaches something very valuable about the world: not just facts themselves but also a critical approach to analysing facts and motivations.

I haven’t forgotten anything. If you actually read my post you will see I agreed that it does. That wasn’t my point you said the L1/2 business qualifications wasn’t valuable because it isn’t necessary for FE or Employment. My whole point was things can be valuable without being a necessity for that.

their funding cannot be conditional on the schools applying or not applying setting/streaming.

The government could include it in academy Funding Agreements if they wanted to. Highly unlikely they will, but they could.

72% get a Grade 4 or higher on the first attempt at 16, but yes, maybe my original 80% in the middle was inaccurate. Plus thete are does who wont sit GCSE maths due to their level being even lower that a Level 1 qualification.

(In my opinion) Setting benefits the very top students (who need the push) and the very bottom students (who need the support with the basics). Not so much the middle 80%.

My observation with BTEC (and similar) compared to GCSE (based on outdated traching knowledge from 10 years ago, and now my own children)... BTEC coursework rewards the diligent hardworking students. You cant throw it together at the last minute. There are oeople who succeed in GCSE by dossing for 2 years, then cramming abd acing exams. Because they are intelligent. In reality you need intelligence and diligence.