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?

You presented your knowledge as applying to European countries' rather than to 'the one EU country I know about'.

And of course from a German perspective, an English A level would be a MFL.

I would have been, too. My best subjects by far were French and German.

This! Not everything needs an exam, learning something just for the joy of knowing it is valuable (and an important life lesson in itself). Plus the skills from those subjects will be transferable to later life. My child is only doing 5 GCSEs but is learning a broad range of other subjects too, which are non assessed. His spark has come back and he is reading, researching and talking about these non assessed subjects. Learning and exams are two different beasts!

If they were applying for a foreign university, fluency in a foreign language would be a given anyway surely?

You don't need an A Level in the language.
You can study in Sweden and the Netherlands for example, without A Levels in Swedish or Dutch.

https://www.astarfuture.co.uk/country/study_in_germany.html#:~:text=A%20minimum%20of%203%20A,from%20subjects%20on%20List%20A.

General Requirements for A’ level Students
A minimum of 3 A’ levels at CCC or better is required to study at a German university. These A’ levels must be in independent subjects (eg. Maths and Further Maths count as only one A’ level).
Two of these A’ levels must be from subjects on List A. These subjects include: Languages (not mother-tongue), History, Geography, Politics, Sociology, Government & Politics, Economics, Maths, Biology, Chemistry, Physics and Computer Science.
The third A’ level can be another one from List A or an independent subject on List B. The most common subjects on this list are: Art & Design, Ancient History, Classical Civilisation, Geology, Drama, History of Art, Music, Psychology, Religious Studies, Physical Education and Statistics.

If a subject on this list is deemed dependent, it cannot be considered. Examples would include History of Art for students who also have History, Statistics with Maths, Geology with Geography etc.

There is also a List C that includes a number of subjects that might be accepted if they relate directly to the intended degree programme. Acceptance of these subjects is at the discretion of the individual university. The most common examples include: Business Studies, Design & Technology, Film Studies, Law, Media Studies and Music Technology. The same rule about subject dependency applies, meaning that Business Studies cannot be offered alongside Economics, for example. Law cannot be offered with History, Politics, Sociology or Government & Politics.
We have not included all subjects on List B and C here, nor all of the subject-dependent clashes. However, this summary does cover the most obvious examples.

I obviously don't know how accurate this site is though seems to say what may others do. I image as in UK there will be varriation betwen univerity and courses as to actual requirements.

However I know DH HE course when looking at foreign students looks at different crietia to home grown students - and sometimes require a additional qualification or to pass a test in English in addition to other equilent qualifications.

Based on list above both all my DC have taken or plan to take combination of A-levels that would apparently qualifiy them to attend German University - though in pratcise more than basics would likely be needed.

Some schools start in hear 9 and spread it over 3 years.

Are there other countries that study 9 or 10 subjects at 15/16?

Many countries study around 6

Which countries only study 6?

Studying more that 6 off the top of my head: US, France, Germany and China. I can't think of one which restricts to 6!

Imagine having parent like that who doesn’t value education. What a shame for the child 😢 It really is a lottery who you get as a parent which is desperately sad

In Finland they do 11 compulsory subjects plus 3 electives (of which two need to be art or skill based) until the end of comprehensive school, so 16. They have even more subjects in high school (post 16) as it has all the ones from comprehensive, including the ones that were no longer compulsory like art and music, plus philosophy and psychology. So complete opposite, studies broaden as you get older rather than narrowing, but they don't do big exams in all the subjects.

I agree completely, @PotteringAlonggotkickedoutandhadtoreregister.

@Conmoenotcalltoe - I firmly believe that 14 is far too young for children to be expected to narrow down their educational choices. Some may find that subjects that didn’t interest them earlier, or that they struggled with, become easier and more interesting as they get older.

Plus, as @PotteringAlonggotkickedoutandhadtoreregister says, it is not just about qualifications for employment, but about education in its widest sense of building a rounded and full personality and character - and you need to learn so much more than just maths, English and science to do that.

For example, if children do not learn history, we will end up with a generation who know nothing about the horrors of Auschwitz, or why the union movement was so important, or how women won the vote.

Music enriches everyone’s lives, as does art - whether you are making it or appreciating it.

We live in a global economy, so modern languages matter.

I could go on.

What do you think is going to happen when your child has a job. They’re going to think they can say to their boss, nah sorry I don’t enjoy that part of my job and for that reason I’m not going to do it. Jesus.

education is for education’s sake - not to get onto the next programme. You might want to try getting some education. Think it will help

@Flipflop223 if "education is for education's sake" and not about getting on the the next stage then why do exams have to taken for it?
For GCSEs it's not even "an exam" but often 3 papers (plus doing it all before with mocks).
That's what is too much and adds to the pressure and puts so many off a subject.

That requires a lot of typing to explain it to you and I can’t be bothered. Get yourself a textbook on the discipline of education and you can read all about it. It will all be there in any textbook on Education. 🙄

@Flipflop223 sorry I don't quite understand what you mean.
I think learning lots of different subjects and gaining lots of knowledge, experiences and just finding things interesting is very very important.
But there just doesn't always need to be the end goal of having a GCSE for it.
By making Maths and English Language the basic standard that everyone should study is very important.
But do you necessarily need to sit 3 papers in Geography (or whatever) in order to gain a certificate that says you have Grade 7 in it?
Why can't you just LEARN the information?
The discipline will be that students have to attend the class. They have to do the work. There could be small tests to make sure the knowledge is understood. There should be coursework/projects that need to be done.
But they shouldn't have the pressure of having to repeatedly go over the same things over and over because they are going to be on the exam paper.
More subjects could be taught because courses could be shorter (a term or even half a term).
When I was at school it was compulsory to do PE and my schools version of PHSE.
We didn't have to do an exam for them and didn't gain a GCSE.
We did the subjects because they were important.

Would you be happy with your dc being deducted say 10% from each of her grades because she wasn't doing the same workload of other pupils?

Everyone should be sitting the same number of exams over a range of subject areas to get a fair and equal representation of their ability.

What would she do, who would supervise all the pupils not in classes, when they had such a reduced timetable ?

The simple answer is that if you don’t test something you can’t measure it.

If you take your suggestion to its logical conclusion, we wouldn’t have any qualifications. The whole world, rightly or wrongly, works on the basis of qualifications. It would require a global overhaul of nearly every aspect of society. Unlikely to happen. Therefore we need to keep testing learning to see whether the learning has gone in. Many kids would just never pay attention unless they know they’re going to be examined on the material. There is no doubt that the curriculum as it is now is pretty shitty and there are thousands of papers written on this. Labour are determined to make it even worse and they have the backing of the less educated in society who don’t challenge it. Standardised testing is in overdrive - but it all comes from a place of if you don’t test you can’t measure success or failure, both for the individual child and for the school (as well as the national education system). There is no way around it - we just have to go with it. There is no doubt though that a broad education is so important - the argument of why do we need to learn history, I’m not going to be a historian is utter nonsense and anyone with half a brain sees that. Unfortunately there are millions of people who have been failed by education in this country, or perhaps they have failed themselves, and as a result don’t value broad education. They think that you only need learn a foreign language if you’re going to become a translator or live in that country which is clearly a very stupid line of thought. But nonetheless we have many parents who think this rubbish and then pass that on to their children who disengage because mum says it’s a useless subject or some such. Then they pass on the same attitude to their children and on it goes and they’re forever stuck in a poverty and poor educational attainment downward cycle.

OP, so you're saying you only want it to be compulsory to do: English Language, English Literature, Maths, Biology, Chemistry, Physics?
Six GCSEs.

@Flipflop223 ok then.... smaller tests taken more regularly.
When I did my GCSEs I did combined science which was modular and changed every half term. You did 6 weeks and took a test and then moved to a new subject. All the test grades were added up and we had to sit a final paper of sort of general science knowledge and the grade from this was added and you got a final grade (and a GCSE).
We were also required to do combined Humanities (alongside picking one to study as a full subject). 6 weeks then an test. (So 6 weeks of a history subject, 6 of geography, 6 of a different history and so on..).
All the different test grades added up and you got your final GCSE grade (no final big exam paper for humanities).
This would mean a bigger variety of subjects studied and if there's something a student finds completely dull or isn't very good at (for me that was anything physics based) it's only 6 weeks to suffer.
A bit like the USA credits system I suppose.

Yes I remember that. I learned practically nothing though. Waste of time

The IB is definitely the best system