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?

Then at A level they would study what? Just science, English and maths?

So when you need architects and geologists what then?

You haven't thought this through have you?

Genuine question - how did you learn "practically nothing"?
There's 11 half terms before the exam season at the end of Year 11 so that's 11 different modules that I studied.
The science ones are mostly a blur as I didn't particularly like science but for humanities there is quite a lot I remember being taught in the different modules ( it was 34 years ago) and some of it I still find interesting today (for example a geography module was all about urbanisation and I find that really fascinating).
The modular system for humanities and science definitely worked for me.
I wish we could have done that for art subjects. We had to choose only one type and unfortunately the one I chose I struggled with and eventually got bored. I didn't do enough coursework so I wasn't entered for the exam.
But if I had done 6 weeks of one type, 6 weeks of another etc it might have been different (obviously we will never know).

It was just very light touch I felt. I didn’t want to do a bit of history - I wanted to do history properly. Likewise for all the other subjects. I understand that schools have a tough time because they have to educate everyone - the practically illiterate all the way through to the academic high achievers and everyone in between, often (at least in the early years) in the same classroom. That is really hard. I personally wanted more detail and at a faster pace but we had to hang round for the others who found nearly everything difficult. Now I have children and they are in wonderful schools where most people are in the high academic achievement category and I realise how hard it is for the general schools. So for me, I found that we covered things at snails pace and in no real detail. The curriculum was very narrow and there was hardly any stretch material. There is more than enough for standalone subjects to be covered fully. In terms of exams, I remember having 2 exams - back to back, with a 15 min break in the am and then same again in the afternoon. I remember being shattered, and could t do it now, but that’s what you had to do. I had to do 10 subjects and that was good because we covered a lot of material. I personally think the vast majority can manage a lot, it’s just that the schools and the teachers need to be good and a lot of parental support is needed, which I recognise isn’t possible on a widespread level.

@Flipflop223 but even now the History GCSE covers a variety of different historical eras and subjects. So it's still a bit of this, a bit of that - not just one part of history in depth.
I don't know what's the best way to be honest 🙁

My DS would prefer if maths ‘wasn’t a main one. Dd hates science. All kids are different, I think the ones that they prefer they’ll defo excel at. I loved maths and science, got b in maths and b in science but a c in English. A* in history, b in PE and d &e in everything else. The stuff I didn’t like but had to choose were bottom of my priority list.

So, @Conmoenotcalltoe, am I right in thinking that, under your system, some pupils will just do GCSE maths, English and the three sciences, but others can choose to do more subjects to GCSE. In that case, how will universities and employers choose fairly between the lot with just 5 GCSEs, and the ones who have 8 or 9, for example?

And how will we encourage people to do subjects outside your basic 5, if kids who have zero interest or ability in science subjects still have to do all three? I was that kid - I was supposed to do O level physics and 16+ chemistry (16+ was the precursor to GCEs and then GCSEs - you got either a CSE grade or an O level), alongside maths, English language and English literature, history, French, German and music. But in the run up to the mocks, I became really stressed, and the worst thing was that, try as I might, I simply could not get a grip on physics, and that impacted everything else. In the end, the school let me drop physics, and I went on to get 5 As and 3 Bs in my other subjects.

If I had been forced to do all three sciences as well as maths and English, I would have failed physics and it would have impacted my other results too. Plus having to add in biology would have meant I would have had to drop one of the subjects I was actually good at - I was much better at the humanities and music.

Your one size fits all approach will not fit all pupils.

Yes but that is a good thing isn’t. No use them being experts on the us civil war if they know nothing about imperialism/colonialism or even that the world wars happened. They need to cover Greeks all the way through to modern history to have an appreciation of time. Equally they need to understand the themes across history and how they differed in the different eras. We’ve been covering the classics in English lit with my 8 year old and have finished most of them but she struggles to place it in the historical era because that bit hasn’t been covered yet (big job for an 8 year old). It’s all important even if it doesn’t seem it. That said, I’ve never used trigonometry ever but I do appreciate the skills I learned of being totally stuck and disinterested but having to force myself through it. Have needed that many times in my life!

I think that would be much better than the normal GCSE system, where a single bad day (exam day) can ruin everything.
That way sounds quite similar to the Finnish way, in the last 3 years of comprehensive school they do blocks of roughly 6 weeks where they cover certain subjects (most are covered throughout the year but some are only done for half the year, like the sciences are split so half the year they do biology and chemistry and the other half they do physics and earth knowledge - which I think is a combination of geograpy and natural sciences) and do module exams, frequent small tests, and other forms of assessment (like class participation, homework, extra credit work etc.), and they all add up to form their grades for each year and for the very end of school, and this way they cover almost all the subjects, only the art and skill based ones get reduced in the last two years based on preferences. No big final exams, just constant assessment throughout. I expect it is hard on teachers though as they are having to mark exams all the time but on the flip side they don't have to 'teach to the test' for big exams covering 2 or 3 years of work and deal with the fallout of overly stressed teenagers.
Save the big exams for post-16, for those that actually choose that route rather than a more vocational route.

You don't know what you are going to learn that could be useful later in life. My daughter wanted to ultimately study biochemistry at university so arguably would only need English, maths and science but in her GCSE food an nutrition she learnt about the scientific process as they do experiments with changing variables and comparing the results. She found some of the knowledge she learnt in this GCSE came up on her A level biology exam and although they had learnt what they needed to work it out in the biology A level it made it easier for her to work out. She also knows a lot more about balanced nutrition than she did previously which is very useful for cooking healthy food cheaply at university (she was already a compliant cook but wouldn't have thought about ensuring she got all the macro and micro nutrients she needed)She took history which had a module on the history of medication which was again useful and she also took GCSE photography where she discovered a love of taking photos and the creative process which she still enjoys today and who knows when that will come in handy, even if used for nothing more than taking photos of her family, friends and memories.

The “options” given in year 9 are far too few. Students are studying 9 subjects, and all but 2 are mandatory. Sciences should be taught and examined separately, as they are very different subjects, rather than the ridiculous “double science” award (my DD got 2xB grades, and an U giving her an overall of 2xE). And for many students, cutting back the number of subjects they are examined in, would be beneficial, if only towards the end of the courses. There is no chance that my DD is going to pass a language, so her time would be far better spent reinforcing the maths she struggles with. No one will ever need more than 5 GCSE passes, including maths and English ( I’m actually torn on whether I think even those two subjects should be mandatory, but that’s just what it is), so why force students to stress themselves out over so many exams? Some students are naturally gifted at exams, but others have other strengths which I believe should be just as lauded. What’s important is whether they are equipped to move into the next stage of their life.

I did 6 at school, so the core plus one more, it’s not for most people, but I do think for some pupils it can be helpful not having to go through two years knowing you’re going to fail it anyway

The value in taking a wider range and volume of subjects beyond the compulsory ones isn’t just to focus on ones relevant to a future career. It’s also to demonstrate they can cope with the work/study, are able to stick with a course over a period of time and be successful in exams. And kids change their minds. I wanted to be a nanny till I was 16. After I sat my GCSEs I suddenly wanted to become a barrister! I did neither. Children don’t know what they don’t know. They have plenty of time to have their eyes opened with more options than they think. It’s far far better they do not box themselves in so young.

This is school specific - my kids can choose 4 and can do separate science. The issue (as always) is the more resources the school has (private v state but even within state schools will have very different competing priorities for money) the more options they can offer kids.

I agree, our comprehensive secondary had 4 choices plus separate sciences. They had to do 1 out of geography/history/language but otherwise free choice.