To think GCSEs should only be maths, English and science unless request otherwise?

[Conmoenotcalltoe]

DD is beginning her GCSEs this spring and the pressure and stress she has been placed under has been difficult for her.
She has had several pieces of homework a night, plus expected to stay behind for studying until 4pm daily, and a huge amount of weekend prep to do for the following week.
She knows what job she wants and she has been given a placement in college already, so the majority of the subjects she does is wasted on her.
i think it would benefit teens more if schools allowed year 9 options to be optional. For example she has to do history, cooking, German and design which she has no interest in and will serve no purpose for her future (she can already cook) if she didn’t need to take those subjects it would free more time for the important ones, English, maths and science. She doesn’t enjoy these subjects and finds the teachers expect too much from her knowing she is trying to focus more on maths as she struggles in that area.
i know several parents and relatives who think the same and would prefer their teens to study important lessons unless they chose to study all/any of the options as extra.
Would your child prefer to learn the staple 3 lessons or would they still chose their options? What would your opinion be if it was an option to cut out subjects to lessen the stress during year 11?

It's not as simple as that though, for example my school I had to take German or French at GCSE. They changed the rule about that to make it optional between me and my sister. So my sister couldn't even apply to study English at the university I did because the course required a high grade in a foreign language, which she didn't have because she chose to take no languages other than English.

Also your daughter can just tell the school what she wants to study instead and study something she likes independently. My friends and I did that, I did a psychology GCSE in year 9 and 10 which the school didn't offer at all, for example.

I think the opposite. I think the curriculum and what our children learn should be much broader at GCSE than most state school offerings and definitely broader post GCSE through to 18.

Narrowing subjects earlier just limits future options, opportunities and potentially results in undiscovered interests.

My Yr 8 dd is choosing her options now, with the idea that one GCSE is completed at the end of yr 10 meaning they can concentrate more on the core subjects in yr 11.

I think they do need to keep open minded about what they're doing at that age as it's so young to decide their whole future

I think the maths stuff needs urgent revision and changing.
Pupils should have to leave school with the 4 big operations secure, division, subtraction, tables and adding and possibly extras like %%
If we can get those who struggle with maths excellent in those areas that would be far more beneficial to them and society than having students poor at maths struggling with the area of a triangle or leaf graphs which they will never ever ever need to know.

You know you shouldn’t mix bleach and vinegar right?

I do think 9+ subjects is too many. Most other countries I know of take around 6. And other than English and maths the other subjects are all chosen.

my main beef with the current curriculum is i think they should move away from big examinations for students with additional needs that prove they cannot cope with exams, and allow for more coursework, class based, continuous grading.

As i said upthread, DD is thriving in her Art & Music classes, and in all of her lessons, her predicted grades based on class work were 8/9s, but in all her mocks so far, she is struggling to hit 3/4 because she just can't cope in exams, even with all the help/support.

The rigid habit of sticking to end of the world exam structure isn't fair on kids with additional needs.

My strongest subjects were English and humanities. If 2/3 of the curriculum for me comprised of maths and science, I would have felt hugely demoralised and disinterested in education.

I would support providing the option of streamlining (English, Maths, Science plus maybe 2/3 extra as appropriate for the pupil?) but not scrapping other GCSE subjects altogether. Most pupils do very well learning a broad range of subjects and it allows them to discover their strengths and decide upon their further education (if applicable) accordingly.

It would be very dull for a lot of young people to only study English, Maths and Science. Other subjects introduce them to new concepts and ideas, give a broader education, and particularly the creative/ arts subjects are IMO just as important.

Also, children who are struggling often do drop subjects anyway, so I don't see that it's an issue. The issue is that schools need to be better equipped to support students who are struggling/ doing fewer subjects.

I think it's better that the default is doing more and dropping them if you struggle. At least then they are giving things a try.

The problem is that at 14 years old most dc do not know what is best for them. They may choose "easy options" or "fun" subjects then realise just a few years later that they should have taken school and GCSEs specifically more seriously.

My dc1 did 12 and dc2 10, it really is a perfectly ok workload

I think English and maths should definitely be compulsory. If a kid looks like they struggle in those two subjects they should get to take a couple less GCSEs and have extra lesson in maths and English to get to a decent grade.
If they're already good at those then they should choose another two subjects maybe? Apart from science. I do think there's too many. They don't get enough time for each and a lot of it never gets used again.

No, I don't agree with your suggestion. I think our curriculum is narrow enough without encouraging children to narrow it down even further. In any case, I think it's important for kids to learn how to manage their time effectively across a range of different subjects. This is a key life skill.

Of course, there should be exceptions made for kids who can't cope with an average workload because of SEN, poor mental health or other exceptional circumstances. However, I don't supporting the idea of reducing expectations of the majority to cater for the needs of a minority. Schools should simply have the flexibility to be able to make reasonable adjustments for kids who aren't coping.

Mine is sitting hers this year and I actually think having subjects they are interested in keeps her motivated to do well in all subjects.

I know what you are saying. I think it’s a good idea just doing 3-5 subjects at age 14-16 as really no one by that age needs to be still doing 9 subjects. (& most FE colleges only ask for 4 or 5 GCSEs anyway).

The broader curriculum should be from age 4-14 so they are exposed to various things and then for GCSEs they should be allowed to specialise. They should be allowed to choose just the few they actually love and are motivated to study (not be forced to flog a dead horse doing subjects they don’t like or have an interest in).

For some kids that might be maths and sciences and computing.
For others it might be music, art, English and history.
For others it could be languages, English and geography.

There is SO much pressure on the GCSE years and it’s too much for many kids. A third come out having ‘failed’ any way so why not make it less intense and less high stakes. Not everyone is academic anyway.

I literally can't think of a time where I would have bleach and vinegar at the same time?? Did you learn this at gcse? If I did I've forgotten it along with how to work out algebra and quotes from Shakespeare - these haven't been useful in my adult life / career but they may have been to someone else

Actually of the school is doing their job right your DD will have already started the GCSE work for maths, English and science as the newer circulum has to much content in it to just start in year10 for the core subjects.

But back to the question those schools who do the EBACC, already limit choice of options as the EBACC is English, Maths, Science, either Gorgraphy or History and a language. You could limit the GCSE's to this but then they would get to try another subject they might be interested in.

I do think there is a call for slightly different course content in core subjects for weaker students, as who needs to learn say Shakespeare in real life.

At DC's school, (admittedly private) they have to take maths, science and English. Beyond that, they do have complete free rein over what they take. If they want to do both history and geography, that's fine, they strongly recommend a language, but it's not compulsory. They can take music, art and drama together if they want to, or history, geography and classics and drop creative subjects. Some of the keen linguists take two out of French/German/Spanish. I'm sure the timetabling is a nightmare, but they seem to manage it and the kids aren't forced to take subjects they have no interest in.

Yes I chose my options pretty much because my friends were picking that subject or I liked the teacher.
I was clueless.
(Although we didn't get a huge amount of choice as a lot was compulsory and the choices were pretty much history or geography, drama or art etc).
I did 7 GCSEs in total. 4 (including English and Maths) I enjoyed, worked reasonably hard and got decent grades.
3 I had zero interest in but they were compulsory and surprisingly I got terrible grades it. They were a waste of my time and a waste of the teachers time.
I would have definitely preferred doing more (practical and actually useful) short courses where it wasn't about the end grade.

The UK curriculum already narrows so much for the gcse years, narrowing it further would not be good at all.

12 GCSEs? May I ask what GCSEs? I can't even see how that what timetabled.

This is why it wouldn't work: you tell kids they only have to do maths, English (language?) and science (why science?), but can choose to do more if they want to.

A small number of unusually motivated 13/24 year olds will chose to do more than 4. Eg because they are passionate about a particular subject, just like studying, or themselves recognise that only 4 likely narrows their options for Alevel/university/jobs.

A larger body of students with parents who recognise that only doing 4 will likely narrow options and will make them do more.

A large body of students will just do the 4 because why would you do more work than you need to. Some may be fine, but some will discover later that they have limited their options.

Group 2 With the 'pushy' parents are lucky by chance, and this is likely the group with parents who place a higher value in education - obviously not universally true, but broadly this is going to be the kids whose parents are themselves more educated. There will also be additional friction between kids and parents because kids will see friends get away with it.

Plus there is value to society of children learning things other than the absolute basics.

My children could in theory do 12. It's usually further maths plus an additional language.

Unless the 12th is a gimme (eg a kid doing a GCSE in their mother tongue language), I disagree that the workload is completely manageable. DS is doing 11. Adding 2 more would be hard work (and he may not sit the exam for number 11 because of the extra revision /exam time for zero benefit).

The idea of giving kids who find core subjects difficult just a handful of exams to, frankly, fail at is monstrous.

All it would take is a heavy period, a headache, argument with a friend or anxiety at an unusually worded question on the first page to leave them with nothing.

The vast majority of students even at low ability levels usually have one or two subjects - and often not the core ones - that they do much better in; even years ago, one of my mates got all Ds and Es and an A for Art - he got an apprenticeship at a print firm on the basis of that A and went on to make absolute shitloads from printing, then web design, starting his own company aged 28 - and the ex-BIL left with nothing other than a B in Technical Drawing and a C in PE; last time I heard about him, he'd just sold his company for £17m - one that started with his first job that he'd got because he was fit.

I do think that the choices for GCSEs are horribly low these days - restricting them so much can make kids likely to vote with their feet by year 11, especially if more practical subjects are only permitted for the very lowest ability levels.

No. Mine has changed possible career multiple times since starting GCSE’s and we are currently battling with the school to keep a level options open. Narrowing would make that worse as well as possibly limiting things further down the line

Many jobs require 5 passes at GCSE. Some require more, even if they don't require particular GCSEs. So actually probably the subjects that 'serve no purpose in her future', probably actually serve the rather important purpose of allowing her to get the job she wants. Even if the job she thinks she wants now doesn't require this, I doubt she is certain of all the positions she will want until she retires. If a child is really struggling and cutting down to just the main 3 and passing them obviously makes sense, but otherwise, as someone who works with adults trying to get GCSES they failed or didn't take earlier in life, trust me she wants to get at least 5, more if she can.