GCSE’s split into 3 years or all in Year 11

[TheDarkSideOfTheMoon]

Our school does GCSE’s in a weird way, 2 in Year 9, 3 in Year 10 and 5 in Year 11
AIBU in thinking that a 14 year old can’t be as mature and disciplined as a 16 year old and do as well in early GCSE’s?
Which is better to cram it all into Year 11 or split it like this? Should we change to a standard school?
Also what is the reasoning behind it and added value of the Sixth Form? Would you nudge your child to aim to do it and what do they lose by not doing it?

I’ve never heard of a school splitting them but I did mine ( several years older!!) split over 2 years and it was much easier and less stressful than doing a large number together. Can you look at their record for pass rate and more importantly speak to former students / their parents who’ve already done this and see how they got on?

I know A levels all need to be done in one sitting to count for some courses at Uni. Not sure about GCSE’s.

Aren't the Progress 8 scores calculated on one sitting? Brave school to mess up their stats...

But how does it work for A levels, if you haven't studied the subject for one or two years?

I had thought that they had to do them all in the same year deliberately because it's so much harder than spreading them out. One of the points is how do they cope under pressure. I thought Unis looked to check this.

Some schools would get pupils to take English and Maths early so that if they failed, they could retake the next year but still be on track to stay with their year group and move on to A Levels.

If it went right, you had less exams to take the next year, more time to study for them and the confidence of having already passed some.

The school are best placed to tell you why they do this. I would be very interested in grades of the exams taken in the younger years. Also, @TickingAlongNicely has raised an excellent point: what if any are the consequences of doing an A level or BTEC in a subject you have dropped for a year or two?

Many top universities are wary of a gap year for STEM students, out of a concern that maths will be lost. Even if this is exaggerated, a two year gap at a younger age seems a potential concern.

All pupils in England must legally be in education or training until age 18 and without this prospects are typically limited. So I would strongly encourage enrolment in some kind of Sixth Form programme.

It's actually easier to do them spread out op.
Because of this, I'm surprised the school are legally allowed to do this as it's no longer a level playing field for all the other kids.

DD's school used to do 2 in year 10 and 8 in year 11. They did this by doing 4 subjects as "short, fat" GCSEs where instead of 5 hours a fortnight per subject they did 5 hours a week, so the same teaching time for these subjects but over a year instead of 2 years. They no longer do this because it is frowned upon by the higher ranked higher education establishments.

GCSE courses start in year 10 at her old school, not year 9.

As a summer born DD sat two of her subjects at 14 and the rest at 15.

Universities, especially medical schools and higher ranked universities don't like applicants taking GCSEs over 3 years. They want to see applicants take at least 8 in one sitting.

We were told that universities look at how many GCSEs are taken and their grades achieved in one sitting, rather than spread out over 2 or more years. Although I agree that the pressure to do all in one go (10 for DC) is immense.

How much do universities care about GCSEs?

I am a former Russell Group admissions tutor, STEM subject. On the whole, not much. Most educated in the UK satisfy their English requirement with a GCSE (Grade 5 usually does it). Universities have a numeracy requirement GCSE maths will satisfy (I confess to not knowing it because all of our applicants have maths A level)

A few top universities consider the GCSE profile and a few subjects may care intrinsically. The large majority do not use GCSEs.

Do they then stop studying the 2 GCSE's that they took in Y9? That would make it tricky to pick up again for A-level.

Doing 9 (or 10 or 11) GCSE's all in one go is really tough - tougher than when I was in school because there are more exams and no coursework - but cramming and then dropping subjects doesn't sound like the right solution to this problem to me.

DS is at a school where there was parental pressure for kids to be sitting GCSE maths early. School were clear that they could sit it externally if they wanted but would still have to attend standard GCSE maths lessons through to Y11 and they would not start covering A-level topics early. And pointed out there was little benefit to sitting in Y8 or Y9 and coming out with a 6/7 if they could sit in Y11 and achieve an 8/9.

DS did one in year 9 and two in year 10. Got A*s in all three subjects before even starting year 11

My son is doing his GCSEs split into 3 years, his school is a bit different though because it’s a technical college. The ones he has done in year 9 are the ones like RE that hold less weight than the bigger ones.

It has been really good for him, he has dyslexia and ADHD and it’s meant that he has been able to focus more on certain areas at different times rather than having to spread himself around all of them at the same time.

For example, his art coursework is due in the next couple of weeks so he has been working on that every evening for an hour just to make sure that it’s the best he can do.

A lot of state schools used to do similar.

They'd often have at least one gcse sat early as it gave the students exam experience without stressing them too much.

It was called "early entry".

It no longer counts towards the governments progress 8 measures so very very frew state schools do it anymore.