To think entering children early for GCSEs is wrong

[inthepacificocean]

AIBU to be concerned about this practice? It means that children don’t have the same preparation time as their peers. I realise for some very talented individuals it might not make a difference but for the most part it doesn’t seem a positive move to me.

It's routine at DC schools. 1-2 in each of yrs 9 & 10.
I believe it was very very good for my DC.
Actual results = B, A, 7, A, A & A*.
DD was very anxious about the exams in yr9 & yr10 but she sailed thru yr11 very painlessly b/c she had gained confidence in what she was doing.

DS1 hated routine school & mostly refused homework, often went truant, but he would apply himself if the work actually meant something. He didn't apply himself until actual final exams loomed.

DS2 needed the experience to understand what the experience would be like (he gets seized by details no one else would find surprising so he declares no one explained it to him at all & blames those small details for any problems).

Youngest DC I'm sure will benefit in similar ways.

It makes sense for Children who plan to do further maths A-level to get the GCSE done early to leave more time for A-levels. Obviously those children would all get a top grade, when I was at school every child taking maths early got an A. Everyone did only one maths module so it was a very light load of maths in the GCSE year; some of them then just had an easier time with one less A-level maths module and others did further maths. Maths is reliant on constant learning, so some kids will be learning at beyond GCSE level at that age group, where it makes sense to get the exam done early. We only had the choice of maths and I recall we complained that we wanted to have been able to do one English too so the load was lighter the following year, the school said no because essay subjects require more maturity. My sister then was able to do English early as well, which was great for lightening her load (different school), I'd want to look at the results of all the kids taking it early to decide. Computer science and physics could logically be done early by particularly able students, but there perhaps aren't enough of them in each school. Language subjects could work for students who are certain to get a top grade, again perhaps not enough in each school. It really depends on the reason the school are putting them forward; if they're expected to find it easy then I'd say yes, otherwise just wait a year.

people looking at CVs later may well look at when someone did the exams. Doing them all at once is normal and quite hard. PIcking them off year by year may not always be regarded as that good.
do people actually put all the different dates they took gcses on their cvs? I thought the norm was to write - x gcses including maths and English, without any other additional information. Once you have further qualifications, I can't imagine anyone cares if you took some gcses early.

Smile- All the new Linear 9-1 GCSEs are content heavy! Of course it is easier to do one module/paper/text then sit an exam whilst it is fresh in their mind but if they are designed to be challenging and all taken in one sitting, it is unfair if some subjects/schools play differently in the current ‘regime’.

I know children are not a one size fits all and I cannot stand what Gove has done but if ‘thems the rules’, it is unfair if some subjects can bend them a little....

It makes sense for Children who plan to do further maths A-level to get the GCSE done early to leave more time for A-levels.

No it doesn’t. It never did when A-level was modular and it definitely doesn’t now it’s linear.
Doing some A-level with top set just causes problems with other kids who aren’t top set but still want to do A-level, and it causes problems with kids who want to go to a different sixth form.

I was about to say that only maths is a good idea to do early. A bit identifying, but anyway I then recalled that actually I did all of them early because I skipped a year in school, so maths was 2 years early. Moving ahead in school was challenging socially at ages 10-13 (while I had friends, some other girls were mean), but beyond that it was fine and exams were never too difficult, so I'm not sure about maturity for certain subjects. While I could say that taking exams a year early doesn't affect grades, what's different is that I'd missed second grade (age 5-6) so I'd had the full number of secondary school years and that experience might have actually mattered when it came to maturity of response in essays etc. What's a shame is that these things are so rigidly timetabled. Having been through 4 A-levels, a degree, and a career with times of extreme stress, conflicting demands and long working hours - I still recall GCSEs as being excessive pressure when exams in 3 subjects turned up over 2 days. I don't know why it's set up like that when it genuinely doesn't reflect real world conditions. Particularly because kids will not all have a level playing field because they have different exam schedules. Coursework can teach kids about balancing conflicting demands much more clearly than exams where there is never "enough" revision. Sure, some can cheat, but just proportionalise the level of coursework against exams to balance that risk.

I think taking a range of exams from November to July would be better all round. There would always be low-level exam pressure, but kids could be taught how to deal with ongoing stress rather than learning how to select tasks from an immense potential workload while sitting panicking in their bedrooms alone late at night May/June. Splitting multiple exams per subject through the period would focus those who study badly earlier, earlier exams could be lighter in coverage. Re-takes could also be seamlessly fitted in for those kids who were unwell or who had problems during the period, without anyone needing to note it as re-takes because all results would be Year X. I think students would overall learn more and find it less nerve-wracking. Exam bodies could employ professional writers, markers and quality checkers year-round to professionalise these roles; spreading all their own exams through the year would reduce the strain of exam writing, issue, collection, marking, risks of theft etc. Schools could adjust timetables to have focused revision classes through the year depending on their exam timetables; Maths (foundation), French (listening & understanding), English Kit 1, Geog... French (written), Maths (algebra) etc. I'm sure someone will have a good reason why this couldn't work, but that's my idea.

people looking at CVs later may well look at when someone did the exams. Doing them all at once is normal and quite hard. PIcking them off year by year may not always be regarded as that good.

I look at dozens of CVs and have never thought this was a good or bad thing. My interest is if they are qualified for the role, not when they say their exams.

I do think that taking an exam early especially if in a subject the student is good at can be beneficial. Exam technique, so learning time management, how to answer questions to get the best results, how to behave in the exam hall are all useful skills.

My school didnt teach these things. I only learnt them much later in life when taking professional exams.

I did three of my O Levels early and passed all three with good grades. It allowed me to concentrate on my weaker subjects.

I think it's a very good idea. If the grade isn't what the student wants then they can do a resit at the usual time.

Reminds me of my DS when he was doing his iGCSEs:

"It's boring; I know it all already. It's a complete waste of time.
Why have I got to do the exams? Can't they just take my word for it?"

Um. No, DS - that's not how it works

All the new Linear 9-1 GCSEs are content heavy!
I know. It’s shit for so many children.

Of course it is easier to do one module/paper/text then sit an exam whilst it is fresh in their mind but if they are designed to be challenging and all taken in one sitting, it is unfair if some subjects/schools play differently in the current ‘regime’

I don’t think sitting English Lit in year 10 is a particularly bad way of playing the system - we are doing 2 different subjects in the same number of periods a week as maths have for one GCSE. It’s a way of planning the course to make best use of time 🤷🏻‍♀️

I know children are not a one size fits all and I cannot stand what Gove has done but if ‘thems the rules’, it is unfair if some subjects can bend them a little...

The whole system is unfair. It’s unfair that private schools can still do the iGCSE, it’s unfair that English Lit is essentially a compulsory subject now, it’s unfair that students can’t study more appropriate qualifications at GCSE, or that choices are narrowed because schools can’t or won’t offer particular subjects.

I do hear what you’re saying, but if I can balance some of that unfairness even a tiny bit, I’ll do it.

we are doing 2 different subjects in the same number of periods a week as maths have for one GCSE

Oh I saw this kick off on twitter. Maths has enough content for two GCSEs, that’s why it has that teaching time and that’s why it counts double on the league tables (Gove was told to split it into two GCSEs but refused, the double weighting is the concession he made).

I don’t think sitting English Lit in year 10 is a particularly bad way of playing the system - we are doing 2 different subjects in the same number of periods a week as maths have for one GCSE. It’s a way of planning the course to make best use of time

It’s always a dangerous game to compare yourself to other subjects, so simplistically (I’m not a Maths teacher, by the way!). Whilst we are all ‘judged’ on the same results at the end of the day, it becomes more and more meaningless when the goal posts can be moved, like that for some but not all. Under a different system, I would agree with you.

Oh I don’t want to get into a who has it hardest thing.

The GCSEs are tough across subjects, HoDs are just doing their best for their students. If you think my way is unfair then I apologise - I have no wish to make any other teacher’s life harder.

I think YABU OP. Doing my maths early meant I was able to do a 2nd language.
Doesn’t a child being potentially put as a disadvantage worry you,maddening?
Who is being disadvantaged and how?

I think the biggest issue is that by doing subjects a year early, and therefore starting them a year early, means you loose out on a year of broad and general education. I am very pleased our school sticks with the GCSE only from year 10 to 11, and all taken in year 11.

My (grammar) school had the brightest girls sit English Language and Maths after a year, so they could also do English Literature and Additional Maths in a year (or resit the first two if they tanked). Brilliant musicians were also allowed to take music in a year. As I had skipped a year of school I was 14 when I took maths and English. I got A* grades in Eng Lit and Maths, and A grades in Eng Lan and Ad Maths. Worked well for us but I was very lucky with my school and it certainly isn't a 'one size sits all' solution.

I emphatically disagree with small children sitting the exams though, and think there should be a minimum age limit for state exams and university entry. Not to do with grades but developmental and social readiness.

I've got a couple of friends who work in University admissions and they take a dim view of the practice of some schools starting the GCSE syllabi early, getting some subjects out of the way and then focussing on the others. They prefer to see a broad range of GCSEs done in one sitting to a larger number done in two, or even three batches. Obviously this is only the opinion of a couple of courses at a couple of institutions but I thought it was worth mentioning.
My children's school does things the traditional way - the only pupils who enter exams earlier than year 11 are those who have done something extra in an after school club - and I think that is the correct approach.

I have heard of very bad practice though locally!

The local academy picks select students who are considered able in English to do gcse RE. The are removed from lesson for 2 weeks and taught it intensively and then sit gcse (end of year 10). They are expected also to catch up on what they've missed in those 2 weeks.
It amazes me because year 7-9 'RE lessons' are whole year group (150 ish) in the hall for an hour once a week.

I think some posters are missing the point. A very bright child doing a GCSE early so that they can fit another subject in is completely different from taking two or three subjects early so that they only sit seven or eight at the end of year 11.

I've got a couple of friends who work in University admissions and they take a dim view of the practice of some schools starting the GCSE syllabi early, getting some subjects out of the way and then focussing on the others.

You are not wrong Elbowedout. DD applied to medical schools two years ago, and they made it pretty clear that they took a dim view of spreading the GCSE load.

and think there should be a minimum age limit for state exams and university entry. Not to do with grades but developmental and social readiness.

I agree QueenWhatevs

there should be a minimum age limit for state exams and university entry. Not to do with grades but developmental and social readiness
I agree with this too, it have be healthy for any kid to be pushed too hard, they should just do more "fun projects" in their favourite subject if they're that keen. The year in which they turn 14 would be a reasonable lower limit, so 14 or just a few months off it. There can't be a sensible reason for sitting exams earlier.

*can't be healthy, not have

Then you have teh Scottish (age 17) and ENglish (age 18) diffrence to deal with.

[I am unusual in that I skipped a year aged 10 years so did A levels at 17 in England and graduated in law at age 20 which worked out fine for me but these days fewer children skip years and end up a year ahead. I don't think we should change the rules to stop those with absolute genius though going to university quite young like Ruth Lawrence - Maths at Cambridge I think aged 12 or something like .that It is best to have a bit of flexibility for people like that]

As a summer born DD sat 2 GCSEs at 14, the rest at 15, and her A levels at 17.

How come some posters skipped a year? Were you educated abroad or privately?

All the state schools do this here - so it's impossible to avoid.

Luckily - they seem to have stopped doing it with maths. There are the last school in area to split Eng and Lan and do one each year - Eng lit first - as they've told them Eng Lang is the important one - which I don't think it helpful -and everyone in the entire year is doing it same way. Many other subjects do half the exams or some at end of year 10 and rest in year 11.

I'm not convince of the benefit - partly that because my children are late summer born so seem even younger to be sitting the exams.