To think a school can’t just cancel a GCSE/A-Level course halfway through?

[ChocBanana]

This is on behalf of a friend who’s not on MN.
Her children have gone back to school today, one into Y11 and one into Y13. Both were taking the same subject, one at GCSE and one at A-Level.
They have been sent a letter today saying the school has dropped the subject with immediate effect and they won’t be able to take it this year.
They have said they will meet with each student “over the coming weeks” to discuss how to move forward. There was absolutely no prior notice and the teacher is still employed at the school. He only found out at the inset day on Monday.
I can’t find anything online to this effect to confirm or deny, but surely there is some kind of legal requirement to finish what they have started? I can almost understand not starting anyone new (my son was down to do the subject but is happy with the alternative because they have moved the timetable around so he can now take something he had to drop before).
But my friend is distraught and her 17 year old is frantically looking at his uni options because he doesn’t know if he will get in without this course.

Does anyone know whether this is legal/illegal and what law it come under? I’m going to help my friend to draft a response (English isn’t her first language).

Any ideas or advice?

I'm not misunderstanding your point. I'm saying I disagree, at least with the strength to which you are making it. I know that English language GCSE tests different skills from French GCSE. But someone who has English as a second language is still expected to meet the same standard to get the same grade in it. It isn't a level playing field, that's why universities are starting to look at wider context, but the marking scheme is the marking scheme and a child who has never had any home support or broader enrichment education opportunities is assessed on the same basis as someone with every opportunity. I'm not sure why you're picking out home language qualifications as being an egregious example of skills and learning acquired at home being rewarded with higher grades. One of my friend's children has been doing intensive piano with her since they could speak and their parents took them to do a year's immersive schooling in France at the age of 8. They obviously are flying through music and language qualifications now but it's only unfair in the broadest societal sense - they're not cheating anyone.

Just my thoughts. I am interested in your experience and perspective as it does help to cast the school's decision in a slightly different light. Though would suggest catastrophic results are an unlikely reason.

@EnidSpyton Indeed “pointless” was a quote from @longestlurkerever whose post I was referencing. Your words were: a qualification you don’t ‘need’ - which is false.

I know exactly what “native speaker” means and even within that designation one can differentiate between first language, bilingual and fluent. Indeed some kids learn a mother tongue, move countries, and forget their first language.

As we have zero evidence of DS’s proficiency - “native speaker” is assumption on your part. Many students with a foreign parent do the language A level precisely because they are not fluent and want to develop it.

So DS may indeed “need” it for his uni entrance. It may be one of his 3 A levels. He may simply have had a higher grade requirement. It would also be extremely useful in the wider world - Chinese A level will be emphatically useful in the workplace as objective proof of the level of proficiency.

I think your concept of “fairness” is batty frankly. No reason why anyone shouldn’t boost their qualifications with an exam in a language they speak. Where does this end? I started music at the age of 3 and could play the Bruch and Mendelssohn by the time I was 13. That meant I had great advantage at GCSE and A level? Was it unfair? Or equally a maths geek who has lived and breathed maths since childhood?

So many people with one or more foreign parents have never lived in that country/ies and their degree of proficiency depends on whether that language was spoken at home, their commitment to learning it and their linguistic ability.

Yes, sorry, it was me that used the word pointless. I wasn't meaning to quote one particular poster, just summarise one theme that was coming through.

It would be like a British person taking the English test overseas university students are required to take to study in the UK

No it would be like a born and raised Spanish person with one English parent taking an English qualification in Spain to prove their proficiency in it. (Assuming DS was born here).

No need to apologise I think that was perfectly clear - and a fair point.

You make interesting points @longestlurkerever and I see what you mean but my issue is that second language exams are simply not designed for people who already speak the language fluently. It’s not the same as being gifted at something more than your peers - it’s just the reality that the examination is designed to test second and not first language skills. Every school I have worked in - and I am an international school teacher so this issue comes up a lot - has refused to allow native speakers to take second language exams in their native tongue for the reasons I outline. It is unfair to take an examination designed for second language speakers when you are not a second language speaker. It is not the same as a talented pianist taking Music A Level as @Mirabai suggests. Music A Level is designed to test a student’s musical understanding and abilities. The level of talent you have and the amount of work you put into your instrument may mean you are better than your classmates, but that doesn’t make the qualification not designed for you.

Second language qualifications are designed for people learning a language from ab initio to C1 standard (this is considered the top range of A Level ability). Some people will be more talented linguists than others and pick the language up more quickly. Others will have parents who take them on holiday to a country where the second language is spoken and they will therefore have more chance to practice. Any number of advantages may lead to some children being better than their peers at the language, but what they all have in common is that they are all learning it as a second language.

A native speaker - a fully fluent person who speaks the language like a native, hence the term - has no need to learn the language. It would be like an English person going to a TEFL class. Second language courses and their ensuing qualifications are not designed for testing the language skills of native speakers and there is no benefit in native speakers taking them other than to game the system. Which is why it is unfair. Once again, to clarify, I use the term native speaker to refer to someone who is fully fluent in their mother or native tongue. I am not referring to children who have a smattering of a language from a foreign parent - they are second language speakers and so it is entirely appropriate for them to take a second language qualification.

@Mirabai you seem determined to pick holes in everything I say. Yes I have assumed the OP’s friend’s child is taking Mandarin as an extra A Level - yes that is an assumption and yes I may be wrong as the OP has not returned to give any more information. However, my responses have widened into discussing the validity of native speakers taking second language exams more generally and so that is what my comments largely refer to - not the specific children in question. You keep insisting that I think Chinese is pointless as an A Level - I never said that and have clarified that I think the opposite, so I don’t know why you keep banging that drum. My comment about the child perhaps not needing the qualification was in reference to it being presumably (and yes of course I may be presuming wrongly) a fourth A Level and so not technically needed for UCAS points. I didn’t mean not needed as in it is a useless qualification.

@longestlurkerever you are right in that non native speakers may be at a disadvantage when taking English Language GCSE to some extent. However in my experience this disadvantage is really quite limited as the exam doesn’t test language skills per se, but more the ability to infer, deduce and analyse. So many British children struggle with these skills that it’s not the un level playing field you might imagine. In fact in my experience many second language English speakers do better in English Language GCSE than native speakers - for a number of reasons, but from my observations, it’s largely because they are more careful readers and they often have a more precise and formal use of English (i.e. they don’t use slang).

My son did Spanish A level and his teacher said that the "native" speakers often did less well as they assumed it would be easy but didn't make the effort with the literature/film/etc elements. She has had people get a D!

Why is everyone assuming this A level is for someone who's a native speaker anyway?

Just because the OP said it was her "home language". Might not mean first language but could well do.

I agree with this FWIW (sorry OP a bit off topic). I have certainly worked with students who, as native speakers, have assumed they just need to rock up and get an A*.

GCSE maybe - tho even then a couple of sessions on what is needed in the exam would help. But A level MFL even for a native speaker is no walk in the park.