To think that children should not be denied the opportunity to study 3 seperate sciences at GCSE at the age of 11

[ReallyTired]

The secondary school which my son has been offered a place streams children into 4 pathways. Their logic is that children with weak literacy or numeracy need extra numeracy or literacy. Children in the top pathway are level 5 in maths and English, high level 4s are in one pathway, low level 4s in another pathway and children with really low numeracy and literacy levels are in the lowest pathway.

The only children who are allowed to pick triple science for GCSE are those in the top pathway. Movement between pathways is hard as they follow completely different curriculums. The school is academy and has the freedom to do this.

The children in the lowest pathway are in a tiny class with lots of TA support. They don't do a modern language and have less geography, history, and science lessons. They spend a lot of year 7 just concentrating on improving numeracy and literacy. The staff ratios are similar to special school. The schools logic is that learning to read and write is more important than anything else.

The children in the top pathway do a lot of GCSEs early and I feel this is fair enough specially if they left primary with level 6s. They also have the opportunity to a second language for GCSE and do triple science. Triple science is done at an accelerated pace in the time that other children do double science.

However I feel its demoralising that children in the two middle pathways cannot study triple science or a second language at GCSE. I realise that they would need more time table time, but I feel a large school should be able to provide this option.

Although it is possible to do A-level in science on the double award GCSE, it is far harder. Many children make huge progess in key stage 3 and shine more at 14 than they did at eleven. I feel it is a kick in the teeth for low income families who have to send their naturally child to a school in special meaures. Dyslexic children (like Albert Einstein) who may need literacy support but is very strong at maths and science should have the opportunity to do triple science.

At my DCs state comp, the option booklet states "It is now an entitlement for students who obtain Level 6 or above in Science to be able to follow the
3 discrete Sciences (Triple Science), Biology, Chemistry and Physics. "
I believe this is the Governments D of E stance.
Although opting for the triple Science at their school does take up one option choice, whereas opting for double science leaves an extra option available.
Their school has done this for at least the past 3 years if not longer. I thought this was the norm?

Surely they cannot take the option of triple science away from them until they assess them in year 9 (which is what my post above refers to), and if a level 6 at that stage they should be able to do triple science.
I would look at a different school to be honest as they shouldn't be pigeon-holing them at age 11 in my opinion. Sorry if this doesn't help much.

My son's school operates a similar pathway. But I understand the pathway decision is based on ability/attainment in science rather than English/Maths.

It's also similar that once you are in a pathway it's not possible to change because they follow different curricula. But they don't make the decision until Autumn term in year 9.

It does seem unfair to make such a big decision right at the start of a child's secondary career. And short sighted.

Are you sure you've understood it completely accurately? It just seems a bit of an odd stance by the school. But then if they are an academy and out of LA control, I suppose they have a fair bit of freedom.

Thanks for that. Do you have a link that states its an entitlement to study triple science? I suppose that rule may not apply to academies.

Prehaps I am worrying about nothing and my son will end up in the top pathway. He is very good at maths and science, but weaker at literacy.

"I would look at a different school to be honest as they shouldn't be pigeon-holing them at age 11 in my opinion. Sorry if this doesn't help much. "

I wish.

This is the precise reason why I'm sending my DS to a tutor. He is gifted in maths but weak in literacy if he goes to our local high school he will be streamed into the same stream for both subjects. We are in a grammar school area and the grammar have told me that they would be happy to take a child like this, its the ones who are tutored across all subjects that they struggle with.

We are fortunate because we have the grammar school option, but if we lived in a different area or if he doesn't get in we would have to think about going private. I think this is very wrong, we might just be able to afford it and we can afford a tutor, but what about those families who can't. Do you just give up on a child at 11?

That does sound very narrow minded. But it is possible to go far with just a double science, my schoolfriend did double science with me at a rather shoddy comp and ended up with a PhD in something to do with biochemistry from Cambridge (I however ended up with an MA in Drama...)

My ds1 year 7 class was put into sets for each individual lesson but did not find out which GCSE pathway they were on until year 9. How can their GCSE pathway be decided at age 11 on the basis of year 56 SATS results?
That sounds like a ridiculous idea.

Year 6 even, not 56.

Its not fair childrens fate should be decided at age 11. What about late developers. My DD started in set 4 out of 5 in year 7. But decided to work extremely hard in years 8 and 9 but couldn't move set. At the end of year 9 tests she had excessed the minimum level her school allow children to take triple science. She is now taking triple science and has moved to set 2.

She is finding it really hard. The others in her class have all previously been in set 1 and 2. They have a better background knowledge because they have been doing the more in depth work for longer than my DD.

I'm not sure she has made the right decision, just because she is bright enough to take the triple. The work is very demanding and not relevant to what she wants to do for a career. I feel the science teachers pushed her into it by bigging her up too much. Sometimes her other subjects suffer so she can keep up with science.

sorry just thought - when I said my DCs school was a state comp, it has just recently converted to an academy but the ruling over the science was already in place before then.

www.nationalstemcentre.org.uk/dl/98318fda1c4e8cb4bf086d5610ee05cae27bfc53/22933-senior_leader_guidance.pdf
This link states on page 3:
"From September 2008 there will be a new non-statutory ?entitlement? to triple science teaching at GCSE for those who reach at least level 6 in science at Key Stage 3. This option will not be suitable for all pupils who attain level 6+ and it is important that pupils and their parents/carers are supported in making appropriate choices for pupils who would benefit from this opportunity.
In a number of schools, triple science is being delivered in ?two Science GCSE's worth? of time. Early evidence suggests that many pupils are finding this approach a less than satisfactory experience.