Changes to GCSE Science

[H202too]

I like the idea in principle but I do worry about the recruitment and retention of specialists not to mention the effect on timetabling.

I have always thought the Sciences are so different. You don't do a combined language or humanities. So do think they should have always been separate subjects.

I hope it will encourage more woman into STEM.

<a class="break-all" href="https://archive.ph/20251101081204/www.thetimes.com/uk/education/article/science-gcses-to-get-biggest-overhaul-in-more-than-a-decade-b00mnkngj" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">https://archive.ph/20251101081204/www.thetimes.com/uk/education/article/science-gcses-to-get-biggest-overhaul-in-more-than-a-decade-b00mnkngj

There is a national shortage of science teachers already, they can't fill the current vacancies, let alone recruit new ones. Plus DfE is cutting ITT numbers.

So how will they get the teachers they need?

Schools are making cuts and redundancies so this just sounds like a slogan.

They will probably use existing teachers and make us do it in shorter time.

I can't open the article.

In theory, it's a sound idea. The skills needed for Biology are completely different to those needed for Physics - Biology is far more language-based, while Physics is far more Maths-based.

Having said that, in practice, good luck with recuritment. I can teach all 3 sciences, but I work in a school where, strangely, we have a glut of Physics teachers - yet there is no specialist Chemist. So despite my degree being in Physics, I now teach Chemistry.

Incidentally, Chemistry will suffer as a result, too - not just because of the lack of specialists, but also because children either gravitate towards Physics or Biology, but less so towards Chemistry, which has always been middling between the two subjects.

On a practical level, it will be a nightmare for timetablers (who now have to fit 2 extra subjects into the timetable), and a nightmare from a curriculum perspecitive - for example, out school currently teaches 5 lessons of Science a week - that cannot be divided up between 3 subjects, so will need to become either 6 lessons (therefore pushing a different subject out) or will go down to 3, for which there is too much content to cover.

On another practical level, it will mean the end to vocational sciences, which aim to combine all 3 in a topic-based approach, so a new curriculum will have to be developed. It will also neccessitate a rewrite of KS3 Sciences.

Oh, and separate budgets, technicians and specialist lab spaces will be required.

More workload, fewer specialist staff, a likely decline in Chemistry education and unlikely to result in better outcomes.

I can’t read the article (paywall) but had a look at the Mail. I can’t see what’s changing? Pupils studying Combined Science already sit papers in all three subjects - they just get two GCSEs.

It is not compulsory at the moment to sit all three separate sciences, but I’ve never heard of a school offering it as an option.

Ha that will work so well 🙄

IMO all that will happen is that GCSE results in Science will fall

The Ebacc, on which schools are measured, requires students to have sat all 3 Sciences at GCSE. So, naturally, there will not be an option for students sitting only one or two.

Separate Sciences are different in that they cover more content, and 3 GCSEs are awarded as a result of more study time (and longer exams).

They have massively confused correlation and causation; which isn’t great when you are talking about Science.

The reason far more triple award candidates go on to Science A levels and STEM careers isn’t that they were taught more content, it’s because those who like science and are good at it choose triple award.

Double award is fine for A levels. There is just some catch up work over the summer holidays.

Pushing weak candidates to do 20-30% more content in the same teaching time will inevitably end in disaster. And, if you increase the teaching time, people who dislike science will find that they are spending 1/2 their time in school in either a maths or science lesson. And there is the issue of finding sufficient teachers to teach it.

Crazy idea born out of desperation try something different.

Add to the above, if they want to improve results, then the Sciences need to be seen as more fashionable.

The kids currently get their idea of what Science is from the media - the Big Bang Theory is a lovely example. All of the major scientists in that show were shown as giant, socially inept nerds, who spend their free time in old comic book stores, playing dress-up and desperately failing at getting partners.

Science is not a pathway to money and recognition anymore - because big money is spent on mass entertainment. Hence why sports, media studies, drama and computing have a huge uptick in young people who want to learn their craft in those subjects. Ask young people what they want to do in life - around here, it is footballer, social media personality, actor or games developer. Those are cool. Those make money, and children see this and try to emulate this. When was the last time a scientist got serious airtime and celebrity status? I remember when that guy managed to land a probe on an asteroid moving thousands of km a second in our solar system. He gave an interview, and the mass media were more concerned with his shirt than his huge achievement.

There is no money to show kids proper Science, because schools have no budget to buy in the kit needed to make Science relevant to modern day life. I can talk about nanoscience until I'm blue in the face, but unless I can get my hands on actual electron microscopes, a bunch of mobile phones to take apart for each class and a soldering kit rather than some rusty stuff from the 1970s, I will never be able to enthuse them.

Invest in Science, make it popular. Then see results rise.

It sounds like they're 'just' dropping the combined science GCSE. That doesn't cause any real issues with timetabling, as anybody with common sense (and an SLT with either some or at least a general disinterest as long as the timetable is built) timetables each lesson as Physics/Biology/Chemistry to be able to allocate the correct labs and teaching staff.

The problem is what is abandoned in order to facilitate the extra science lessons to teach the entire course for each subject compared to combined, as usually those who do not wish to take or are unsuited to take single sciences have the opportunity to choose another option subject. PSHEE could be put into formtime, I suppose, or as dropdown days (which are a pain in themselves).

At this rate, compulsory school time will be all English, Maths, PE, RE and Science with anything else - History, Geography, Art, Drama, Business Studies, Music, Economics, MFL, Citizenship, Sociology, Psychology, Health & Social Care, etc, all having to be taken as twilight sessions, which will negatively affect teaching and support staff expected to work later. But if the intention is to make school 8-5, I guess that would suit the purpose.

Thank you. You have perfectly explained and summarised all of the issues that have bothered me about this proposal.

I fear for the kids who already find science a struggle, or for whom science just isn't something they would want to pursue a future in. A friend's son was reluctantly pushed into do 3 sciences as he was one of the 'bright ones' in the school, despite his strengths being more English/humanities. He came out with A/C/C (A in biology) but would have preferred less stress over sciences and an overall B/B in combined science. He's doing an arts subject at Uni after 3 arts A levels. 3 sciences was not the best option for him and I have no doubt thousands of children will be in the same boat.

Interesting comments. I agree in practice they would have to change the content. Which would be money and time.
It should never have been combined in the first place as they are separate subjects. They don't combine lang and lit.

I do think the reality to implement it will be tricky.

Anecdotally my school has more Bio, Chem then Physics students that go onto take A level in these subjects.

You haven't been able to allocate lessons as Bio/ Chem/ Phy lessons separately since funding has been cut so dramatically and since there has been a huge recruitment and retention crisis. We have had to drop a lesson a week for all Sciences a year ago due to lack of staff and funding. We literally cannot find anyone to teach in our rural "good" school.

If all 3 Sciences become an option, as above, Chemistry will suffer the most, but there will be a huge drop in uptakes. If all 3 Sciences stay compulsory for EBacc purposes, you push out other subjects (therefore still making Ebacc harder to achieve).

They will need to pay physics teachers their market value - just accept that they could earn more in another field so their value is higher.

Double award is, in most schools, still taught as three separate sciences. It is just 20-30% less content than doing triple award.

Its name and the way the grades are awarded confuse a lot of people.

It is only single science that is combined and worth one grade.

Most people aren’t designed to do STEM A levels or a STEM career. It is a vacuous target, like 50% going to universities.

The only way to hit it is to dumb down the courses or make unis glorified schools in terms of academic challenge (which many are now).

My teenager was reading the article in the Times this morning and was really surprised as most, if not all of her year are doing separate sciences for GSCE and again most going on to do A level science. I don't think she realised the school was such an outlier.

Ha as if they'll do this. They already have loads of staff teaching out of specialism across all subjects. If all else fails schools just recruit more PE teachers and expect them to fill in wherever they're needed. Just don't mention that at interview.

🤣🤣🤣
And back in the real world they will just use supply or PE teachers to cover Physics

I think that the idea of combined science in general is ridiculous and puts high achievers at an active disadvantage for A level & further study. DD’s school only teaches separate sciences as they fully admitted that combined is too watered down. The vast majority of her year group took all 3 at GCSE.

It isn't ridiculous for DC who aren't interested/have ability in science..
Good schools offer both Dual and Triple.
Forcing schools to only offer Triple just means DC who have lower ability will fail these subjects. There's a lot more content in Triple which won't be accessible for some pupils. Is that fair?

The kids currently get their idea of what Science is from the media - the Big Bang Theory is a lovely example. All of the major scientists in that show were shown as giant, socially inept nerds, who spend their free time in old comic book stores, playing dress-up and desperately failing at getting partners.

And yet all of them apart from Raj actually ended up with beautiful girlfriends/wives and didn’t seem to have that many issues getting female attention.

Interesting that you want to encourage more girls into STEM. I run a Brownie unit and a lot of our activities are STEM based and usually enjoyed by the girls which is great and I agree we do need to encourage more girls into it. Yet at the same time there is a thread on here discussing men entering early years teaching/nursery roles and suggesting a blanket ban on it. Again I understand why some people think this. So another question would be if we were to get more girls into STEM and stop boys looking to enter what is seen as more woman jobs who is going to pick up the inevitable shortfall in childcare and other "caring " roles.

Interestingly, one of the top academically selective schools in the country elected to have all their pupils follow double award.

They figured that all the pupils were intelligent enough to do the content catch up work over the long summer hol after GCSEs and the extra time allowed them to pursue more experimental and stretch-and-challenge work.

The difference between double and triple is content, not challenge (although, obviously, with the same teaching time, you have to go much faster in triple, which is a challenge in itself).

I have an engineering degree and already teach all three sciences despite being a physics specialist.

This 'change' is actually meaningless and, as indicated by the daily mail article unworkable in light of not having enough science teachers full stop.

Until you get pay reflecting the specialities of each subject, rather then paying people with potentially PHD level science qualficiations the same as PE teachers (Who yes, could have a PHD in sports science, but they wouldn't need it.....) then you will not get the people in.

As a teacher (of English) in an SEN secondary school, these changes probably mean that none of our students will do Science GCSE anymore. It’ll be Entry Level for all. A real shame as we do have the odd students who gets a 5/5, 4/3 etc. The step up in content, plus the increase in exam time (7.5 hours to 10.5 plus extra time) is just not doable for our students.