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.

In most schools after they have chosen either history or geography plus their language they only get 2 choices anyway.

[quote choosingcrumble]@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[/quote]
But then that would be a nightmare to facilitate within the timetable. Which is already tight as it is.

And where would be the cut off be if you have an average/ slightly below average student. Especially with kids where it suddenly slots into place

Also how would that fit with like my school is having a push with getting middle ability boys to reach their potential. If they are suddenly being told you're not good enough to do 9 GCSE, that's really going to dent their confidence

x2boys
Yes, something like that. It would be quite good for students to go up/down a level for specific subjects. It's always struck me as silly that we expect students who struggle to read 21st century fiction to sit an exam assessing their ability to analyse 19th century journals from sailing missions, or they struggle with basic operations but we expect them to move on next half term to algebra because it's Year 9 and that is a Year 9 topic. For very able students, it would be great if they could do physics with the year above, but stay in year for chemistry and biology.

It'll never happen but I would love to teach more that way.

I definitely think that if they struggle in subjects that are unlikely to help with future job options they should be able to drop them and in a perfect world be able to work on other subjects in a school study centre with a teacher on hand to help. My Year 8 boy, for example, is never going to be able to learn Spanish to the level he would need for GCSE and I doubt he will need it later in life. If he really enjoyed it then I’d be all for continuing, but he doesn’t, it’s a struggle and I don’t think he knows more than about 20 words, and can probably spell fewer, even though he’s been learning it since Year 3. So I would prefer he stopped and focused on English which is also a struggle for him but which he really needs to pass to open up college opportunities etc. I suppose the difficulty is when you have children missing a variety of subjects you won’t always have the same group together for an extra lesson. But a study centre would be good with a teacher on hand to help kids with their individual work. But that would cost more money.

I do agree that some changes will need to happen at some point. My ds is in Year 8. School is a good grammar, lots of online lessons etc. But make no mistake, so much disruption will have an impact. Year 8 and 9 were not a priority last year and won't be this year. But they flipping will be in 18 months time.

I think they should do away with GCSE altogether and continue a broad based curriculum until Year 11 which is assessed by teachers and only for the suitability of continuing further study in those areas.

I strongly disagree with narrowing the curriculum further. It gives less opportunity for pupils to opt for the subjects they enjoy. It would also continue the over emphasis on STEM subjects and further disadvantage the humanities, practical subjects and the arts, all of which are essential in terms of breadth of knowledge and understanding of the world around us.

Why do we need GCSEs at all? All children have to stay in education until 18. Couldn’t we offer something at 18 for everyone - vocational with maths and English if that suits or a levels etc for those that suits.

And of course languages

Schools have always been able to reduce the number of subjects for students who are struggling at gcse.

My DD was very ill (long term). After a severe downturn in her health at the start of year 10, it became clear that she would not be able to complete the practical parts of her PE gcse so she used those lessons to catch up on work missed in core subjects (attendance was at around 78% for the year and the work set by the hospital school didn't really help).

Then in year 11, she dropped the weakest of her options and used that time too. Lots of other students also dropped their weakest option in year 11 to concentrate on the core subjects.

It didn't harm her. She went on to do her a levels and is currently in her 1st year of nursing at university.

@Seeline

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.

I agree, criteria for 6 forms can’t be lowered. You need to be at a certain level for A Level, if you’re not at it then you shouldn’t do it. Same for university courses, they cant be lowered either. Also jobs, for my company it will just mean we get 50 applicants at the required level for our apprenticeships rather than 100, so of course we won’t be lowering the criteria (and again a certain level is required).

@Marzipan12

In most schools after they have chosen either history or geography plus their language they only get 2 choices anyway.

After science, English/English Lit and Maths, we have to choose either history or geography. Language is not compulsory so they have to make 4 other choices.

I voted YANBU to your original proposition but changed it to YABU when I saw you think that they still need to do double science. Personally I just do not understand why children who are clearly not going to do STEM subjects need to do double science. It's also a terribly bad idea in the long term to cut down on dc doing creative arts as that sector is the second biggest contributor to the economy after finance.

I do agree that cutting back subjects for some DC would be a good idea but that the subjects cut need to be tailored to the DC - so someone with a clear interest in and aptitude for languages would be better off taking single Biology and English Literature to give them more space for their language options than doing double science and not the literature topic that would be more directly relevant to them. It shouldn't be difficult to achieve if schools timetabled for the usual number of options but then gave those doing fewer subjects more study periods.

@choosingcrumble

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

But then you won't be prepared for A-level in anything but Maths, English and Sciences? They would have to "dumb down" A-level humanities, languages and others to make them suitable for people who've not studied them at GCSE - which in turn leaves kids unprepared for degrees. The alternative you're essentially advocating is for children to pick their A-level options at the end of Year 9?!

@Londonmummy66 I would have thought that living through the last year would be enough to convince anyone of the need for everybody to study science at least to 16. The sheer lack of understanding displayed by so many people to the most basic understanding of biology has been shocking.

I'd also support a new compulsary gcse in critical thinking.