AIBU to think there will need to be a massive rethink on GCSE's for the next few years

[choosingcrumble]

Just that really.
For example in Secondary schools, the years 7-9 are the building blocks that prepare students for the GCSE years. Many children have missed a significant part of this. The ablest students will no doubt manage with 8/9 or even 10 GCSE's and do well. Less able students will probably struggle.

GCSE's are really a stepping stone to get you onto the next stage of study. Would it not be better to allow the less able students to study a more concentrated number of GCSE's? Maybe just 5 or 6? Leaving space in the timetable for interventions with core subjects where necessary.

I'm voting YANBU to my own question. I have two children, one very academically able, the other not so much. The eldest and less able has not seen the inside of a school since September 2019 due to ill health/school closures/ moving back to the UK from overseas. He is still waiting for a school place as the schools are not working to normal timeframes and he has one year of schooling less than UK kids (they start school a year later) and he speaks to languages, English being the weaker. I would love him to be given the chance to study just 5-6 subjects at school and to do well in them than struggle with 8 or 9. More able students should be allowed to study the normal number of GCSE's.

I sort of agree.
If I were running a school I would be seriously considering reducing the number of options to allow more focus on English & Maths for say 50% of students.
However you can't drop all the options subjects as for some those are the ones that keep them attending. Making y10&11 just about core subjects could actually achieve the opposite of your intentions.
It is going to be a tricky balance.

I think Maths, Double Science, English Language and maybe just two options so 5 or 6 in total. Also not making English Lit compulsory.

Ds year 9 and I am very worried that this year will be forgotten. Most of year 8 and now year 9 have been homeschooling and although he is doing ok, I worry that the base knowledge is not there. I think he thinks he gets it but when the more complex questions come I am not sure he will understand the basics enough to work the answers out. Choosing options also is tricky as we have not had a parents evening since Nov 2019. I do hope they realise that these students have lost a huge amount of learning but have also missed out on assessments that could give an idea of how they are doing.

I think by narrowing the studies of children at such an early age (to essentially STEM subjects) you risk narrowing the life experiences of whole generations. Fab to have engineers for instance but where are the musicians, dancers, historians etc? What is PE and art are the only things making school bearable for a student?

@mumonthehill
This is what worries me - they will just plow ahead with children in Year 9 (and below) with 9 or 10 GCSE's and just trying to fill gaps. Can these gaps be filled effectively? Or do expectations need to be reduced? For example, reduced number of GCSE's or at least reduced curriculum to cover so that more work can be done on the foundations. I say this as a non-teacher.

Obviously finding the best way forward for 2021 candidates is the most urgent.

But 2022 is just as important, and needs attention now. If some of the measures that have been floated are going to be implemented, teachers need to know this asap, so that the remaining 3 terms can be used to best effect

And following years may need intervention, and luckily there is a bit more time to plan for that

@KittyMcKitty
They could still choose say two options or if more able, do the normal 8 or 9. I guess I am talking about greater flexibility so that if there are children that struggle compounded by the lockdowns, they have choices other than the full 8 or 9 .

Oh - and not just GCSEs - A levels, BTECs, Nationals,Highers - the lot

Maybe for students who need it. It would be unfair kids who can manage the usual amount to take this opportunity away from them. I would be extremely angry if my child's options are limited.

@Marzipan12
Yes as per the OP, just for those that need it. More able students carry on as normal.

There is also the minor detail as to where the extra Maths & English teachers would actually come from.
You can't take any teacher who teaches music or Geography and expect them to teach maths or English.

I sort of agreed until you listed the STEM subjects being the essential ones. Some kids won't do well at these so we would be reducing their opportunities even further. I'm not sure what the answer is, I am worried about my own children. I have one child in year 10 who needs level 4/5 for their A level choices. My year 8 child will need 6-8s for theirs. They are both on target, but I wonder if the answer is with the 6th form colleges and universities to broaden their acceptance criteria?

Actually, as an edit to my comment, I think my year 8 child is on target, but it's more of a case of they are keeping up with the work set.

This would also be very unfair on kids who flourish is subjects like music, food tech etc but struggles on say maths and English. Taking away their chance to study these subjects will limit their college choices, life chances even further.

You would hope that there is a long term plan for education that looks at these issues. At the moment I would say that I cannot discuss these worries with the school. If they go back in March you would hope that there would be a huge push to establish where each child is with their learning. Here they start GCSEs after Easter yr9. It is so easy for the kids to think they are doing well but they may be way off the mark.

I don't think they should limit the options but I do think they need a reform, temporarily at least, in the way they are graded and what they are expected to achieve.

@Marzipan12

This would also be very unfair on kids who flourish is subjects like music, food tech etc but struggles on say maths and English. Taking away their chance to study these subjects will limit their college choices, life chances even further.

Also what do you do with those teachers?

Saying "yep, we employed you for food technology, sorry, you need to teach maths" is not going to be a good idea from the teachers' side or the pupils'. And there's already a shortage of maths and science teachers.

Whilst I think that consideration for these kids will be needed

It's the further knock on effect for A-levels. And the funding for 6th forms

If kids don't do an option such as Geography at GCSE then chances are they won't do Geography it at a-level. Which in turn might mean that they do a related subject at uni
Or perhaps if triple science isn't an option, they might decide not to do chemistry or biology at A-level. Which means not doing medicine at uni. Which means we would lose a generation almost if doctors.

Perhaps they could keep all options but reduce the amount of topics/ units which need to be studied. So at least an interest in the subjects is maintained, and a basic knowledge is sustained

Also, has others have mentioned what would you do with this sudden surplus of teachers?

I agree I have a year nine son who has always struggled academically I think there needs to be a complete rethink ,more options for these kids ,maybe more continuous assessment ,greater options to sit GCSE,s at college maybe ,I don't know but something needs to be done

In an ideal world, I'd like a complete overhaul of how we assess at 16 and whether GCSEs in their current form are best.
It might be radical but I'd quite like a system where secondary education is given as an average over several years. With that we could also look at the content of secondary assessments and curriculum so that students have a broadly comparable diet across 5 years, with better vocational provision for those who want it.

I'm not sure 6th forms can lower their criteria for A levels. There is already a huge step up from GCSE to A level. Accepting students with lower grades onto those courses for many subjects is just setting them up for failure. A lot of the subjects build on knowledge already gained at GSCE and if that isn't there getting decent A level grades will be impossible. There isn't really time to teach the basics first.

I think this year's Y12 cohort are struggling despite having covered most if not all of the GSCE courses before lockdown in March, simply because they didn't really do any school work between March and September.

Yes @LolaSmiles I was thinking maybe more like the American high school Diploma?

I've voted YABU. British u18 education is already very narrow (down to 3 subjects at 16), I think it would be desperately awful to narrow it further.

@Marzipan12
I'm not saying that they can't do food tech if that is where they flourish, just that besides the core subjects, the less able could just choose to say 2 extra subjects (to make it 5 , 6 or 7 subjects) as opposed to the 8 or 9 that more able students do