Reducing KS3 to 2 years - what do you think?

DDs school has been doing this too for a few years.

Part of the reason, they said, is that many bright children will make no progress in either Y7 or Y8 unless pushed so there is is effect a "lost" year. Compressing KS3 in to two years rather than three is meant to avoid that.

The spin-off is that they get to spend three years over their GCSE course rather than two, i.e. they don't finish their GCSEs earlier they just start them earlier.

DD is in Y9 so she started her options this year. I was a bit surprised when I realised that now GCSEs are more modularised this would mean she actually sits some of her papers this year. So far though she seems able to handle this.

In our case I think it is working well and I honestly don't think she would have chosen anything different if she had taken her options a year later. She is still very happy with her choices.

Where is the money for all these wonderfully personalised subjects that students can then take up once they've passed the ordinary GCSEs?

As a parent of a 12 year old in year 8 (summer born) it seems mad. No way is he ready to start thinking about GCSE's

My DCs' school started this last year and, generally speaking, I'm not really in favour.

An example of why it's a bad idea; my DS in Y10 is taking a Business Studies GCSE module tomorrow (worth 25% of the overall mark) along with all the Y9 students who started doing GCSE Business Studies at the same time as the Y10s. Some of the Y9 students are still only 13 years old! I know of one Y9 girl who is already in a major panic about it and instead of getting a predicted A or B in the mock, only managed an E because she fell to pieces under strict exam conditions.

On the other hand, my DD in Y8, can't wait to start KS4 History next year because she'll "be with children who want to learn about History", as she put it herself.

So I can see both sides.

I have twins in Year 10 who are had 2 year KS3 (no problem) and 3 year KS4. As they chose triple science they took one paper end of year 9 and are in the middle of finishing their sciences now. What the school didn't tell us was the full implications on Year 11. My daughter has been told she needs to achieve 3 A* to be allowed to start a science A level in Year 11 whereas her twin brother has been targeted 3 A's. I have argued with the school over this and they have accepted that DD could do science with three A's. At the end of Yr 11 school policy is that you need a B to progress the subject to A level so it seems you have to achieve a higher grade younger under this system.

It is likely my daughter will hit her targets and my son, who works as little as possible, is likely to "fail" ie: B's or C's.

I'm told he will have to repeat science for a year to carry on to A'level.

Does this make any sense? It seems to me he would have been better off not sitting this year at all rather than being made to feel a failure, face repeating a year etc.

OK for those that achieve and it may be ggod for my daughter and allow her to tackle 4 heavy A'levels - not so good for some others.

Mine also sit English and Maths November 2010. Alongside the rest of their GCSE's they may be sitting an AS too.

Glas it was O'levels in my day and one 3 week period of exams and it was sorted.

Totally agree with Roisin, as ever!

We too suffer from the Yr 11s who have 'passed' English and Maths at Grade C by November and then can't be bothered to work towards the higher tier because they get it hammered into them that 5 Cs are the magic key. I think it works badly against bright pupils who don't have the 'middle class parents with understanding of redbricks' pushing them for higher grades.

It also provides a stupid system where they might come out with 15 GCSEs but no colege/uni is really impressed by that, as far as I know.

At my ds sch they have started ks4 in the summer term of year nine. This is when the year 11`s have left for study break.
So its only one term early.

They also used to do early GCSE`s and AS Maths in year 11 for the more advanced but they have stopped that.

All GCSEs are now to be taken in year 11 even for the most able. I think this allows more time for quality course work and Unis prefer this apparently (have read somewhere).

The pressure on schools with this one is not the boost league table results, but to increase "personalisation of learning" (government buzz phrase, not mine!). To all those people making concerned remarks about narrowing the curriculum, you could look at the thousands of disaffected teenagers being forced to follow an irrelevant and boring curriculum, instead of focussing on their own interests and strengths. Ideally, pupils should be able to progressat their own rate, instead of being limited and held back by artificial barriers such as the end of KS3.

Obviously, schools end up with a half-way house that pleases no one, because full personalisation of the curriculum is impossible. But they are trying.

Not sure how much of the above I actually agree with, BTW. Just wanted to give another view point. Schools are not in the business of ruining children's educational experiences on purpose - they will have good reasons for doing what they are doing. And league tables only count the top 5 GCSEs including maths and English, so getting extra GCSEs doesn't make a difference in that regard either.

Completely agree roisin. Dd3 is in year 7 at the moment and the thought that she has may only have one more year of latin, woodwork, art, music, pe, cooking etc makes me sad.

I think it should be illegal. I think I will write to my MP actually.

"They do this at my dd's school and it seems to work well. Her school got the highest GCSE pass rates in the county last year."

But there's more to education that GCSE results IMO.

If you bring options earlier into yr8, then the students are just going to turn off even quicker from certain subjects.

I am passionately against this as a policy.

If students are ready, why not start the GCSE courses in yr9: especially for the compulsory/core subjects. Lots of schools do Maths modules in yr9 now, and the new English 2010 syllabus seems to be geared up for this sort of thing too.

But I don't think this is a justification for dropping all the extras after just 2 years. What about a wealth and rounded education?

Some students will give up all MFL at the age of 12/13, also Geography and History, Music, Dance, Art, Drama. It's tragic.

my dd had to chose her options for staring yr 9 the other month didnt seem to be that much choice imo. it was hard to chose. dont know if it would have been easier a year later ie. the more usual time.

the way i rember it being explained was that the usual year 9 dont achieve much in particular subjects as they think they will give them up soon anyway. it is in effect a wasted year.
i dont remember any of the other explanations

They do this at my dd's school and it seems to work well. Her school got the highest GCSE pass rates in the county last year.

Well, taking exams early is nothing new; my dh did some O levels early in 1976. There is an argument for truncating KS3 as sometimes they are bored and need to move on to the harder stuff (I have one like this).

You could potentially have a pre GCSE year in year 9 where specific learning is reinforced and some exam prep is done. It is difficult with year 9 though to motivate them at times - I have a year 9 and have taught them as well.

My naive version of KS3 is that its a time for students to learn a wide variety of educational skills and still have time for PE, Art, Drama and Music. I can't stand the move towards everything that is learned has to be examined. KS3 is a time to just go to school and have some interesting lessons and have some boring ones. "Personalised learning" obviously I am very old fashioned.

Magentadremaer is right.

I disagree with this policy completely. It's all about league tables and results, not about the students.

Compared to other countries, we already allow students to drop subjects far earlier (yr9). Most just have a standard/core provision until age 16.

My son is very academic and quite bright. He will choose traditional, academic options at the end of yr9. But I'm absolutely thrilled that he still has another year where he does a couple of lessons of Tech, 5 lessons a week of art/music/dance/drama, etc. That is broadening his education and his outlook. I think we force them to specialise far too early.

My DD's school has gone down this path with very little consultation with parents. We had the guff of a child sitting exams on ability and not age, this I can see will happen regarding the core subjects but DD will do her first option next year and sit the exams in that subject and another option in yr10 and 11. I personally see it as being all about league tables and nothing else as the subjects that matter in the tables will be studied over the 3 years of Ks4 the ones that don't "matter" for the tables will be done over a year. The range of optional subjects has grown due to the fact any of the year groups will be in an optional subject class. DD is now panicing over the fact that next year she will have to do her option gcse plus Statistics and Media Studies GCSE - those are done within Maths and English classes.

If it was me, I'd be very interested in how the school intends to manage it. I can see the positives, but also, having experienced a small part of this kind of thing this year, would want to be sure that the school has really thought it all through.

I would also question how the school intends to continue to motivate bright students who did well in modules and/or assessments taken early. Whilst I agree with Tanga that good work in Yr 9 can count towards final results, it is difficult to keep even the brightest of students motivated if they can see that they have already fulfilled the demands of the course, and have achieved well.

At my school, they put all the Yr 11s in for Maths and English Language in November, with the intention (we're not terribly high achieving) that those who didn't get a C grade could have another crack at it. Those who did get a C, and those who want to, are doing English Lit this summer, and those who didn't get their Cs for Eng and Maths are retaking. However, those who DID get good grades and are unlikely to better them, now have gaps in their timetable, where they are supposed to be doing extra work on option subjects. Inevitably, though, there are a gang of students who really don't have anything to do, and are now wondering around aimlessly or making life difficult for teachers trying to keep them in a room with little or no work to do.

I'm all for students being entered for exams when they're ready, but what happens to those who were ready early, who end up spending Yr 11 with a clutch of GCSEs under their belts, and only a handful of subjects left to take.

If I were you, I'd question the school closely about how they intend to deal with that - it's only been two subjects in my school, and has proved a nightmare. Needless to say, we won't be repeating the experiment next year.

Sigh educational.