To think that secondary schools need to offer core subjects like maths?

[Feelingoptimistic]

I am just shocked that apparently there are some secondary schools in the UK that no longer offer what I consider to be core subjects, like maths, physics and chemistry. To be honest, I think that a school that does not offer these subjects is not a "proper" school. Of course, not everyone has to do these subjects, but they should be offered and promoted.

The thing is that there are many jobs you can't do without those subjects (engineering, medicine, anything science related, anything related to IT, etc.)

I am reacting to this article:
www.guardian.co.uk/education/2009/aug/19/traditional-alevel-subjects-dropped

My dd is only very young, but I would hate to find myself in a position where she is forced to go to such a school and misses out on a good education.

Sorry - rant over, but I am really puzzled by this. I went to a state school (not UK) and did all those subjects with pupils from many different backgrounds...

SleepwhenI'mdead, I don't believe I am being snobbish. I work in a Science department in a university, but I am not really interested in my child doing 3 sciences in order to get some degree in the future. My children might not even want to go to University.

I just want my DS to do 3 sciences at GCSE because he currently enjoys science more than the other subjects and wants to spend as much time learning about it as he can. My DD has other interests so we may choose to send her to a different school.

I find it quite sad that so many people think the only purpose of school is to prepare their children for university. School should be a wonderful opportunity in itself, and unless they do 3 degrees, my children will spend longer in secondary school than they do at a university.

In my opinion, the secondary school someone attends is far more significant than their university education.

MillyR my daughter did a combined science award ( I would have to check the exact name as can't remember) but it involved her going to the nearest university one afternoon per week for her science course. They covered chemistry/physics/biology but also looked at practical applications such as pathology which she really loved and it gave a quad award.

Thanks for explaining that nighbynight - it sounds a horrible system. I don't like selection for grammars in he UK either, primarily because I don't think it's possible to accurately determine the brightest x% of the cohort at that age (or any age probably). Sounds as though the german system is worse though as the differences between what is actually taught in the different schools is greater. I wish you all the best - parental support is the most important determinant for educational outcome so hopefully things will work out.

MillyR - wanting to do as much science as possible (combined with not wanting to do the alternatives) is the best reason for choosing separate sciences.

Lovelytinofspam, the single GCSE in science is NOT adequate preparation for A levels in science and most schools steer their higher ability children away from it - those that don't should.

The pace of learning picks up a lot at A level, but covering the missed stuff for the double award science people doesn't actually have to cover a whole 1/3 of a GCSE since some of the GCSE topics may not be relevent to A level. It's not really 'missed stuff', as the A level courses are designed to build on from the double award, neither is it necessarily taught in a single lesson, but in small places where appropriate through the course.

Thanks snorkle.

Maybe taking a more "holistic" view to science - seeing it as one sucject rather than 3 will mean people are more interested...

However I was naturally drawn to physics, thought chemistry was OK and hated biology. For me they are very different disciplines with different methods, motives and fundamentals. The maths emphasis is also quite different between the subjects.

So it worries me that the beauty of the individual disclplines will be watered down by moshing them all together as "science" IYSWIM.

I don't know of any school where science is taught as anything but three subjects at KS4. To clear some things up - triple science and separate sciences at GCSE are the same thing. A GCSE in Biology, one in Chemistry and one in Physics. All three must be taken. You can't pick and choose sciences. This is supposed to be offered as an option to students getting a level 6 or above at the end of KS3. In practice, many schools follow this route with their top set(s). An alternative is dual award science. That is two GCSEs in Science. The awards are undifferentiated between the sciences, but the modules which make up the course will be, and will almost certainly be taught by specialists (although Physicists are thin on the ground). The students will almost certainly distiguish between the three subjects, will probably be taught them by different teachers, but will be tested on all of them to make up the Science GCSEs. Single award very unusual now, because it isn't considered a good qualification for league table purposes. It doesn't count...

I do wonder, though, whether it's better to ensure that ALL secondary school students have a basic knowledge of science, which is what dual certification science aims to do, rather than giving some the option to do "just" one science in depth. At my school, lots of students did biology, in the mistaken belief that it was "eaiest" and therefore missed out entirely on physics and chemistry. That wouldn't be possible now, which is surely a good thing. As long as the option to study separate sciences at A Level is still there, I don't see that dual certification is a problem

The other side of it is timetabling - if schools offered (or even insisted upon) separate sciences and no other option, then it cuts down the number of other subjects which can be offered, and, in this day and age, would mean that certain options, such as vocational GCSEs and BTECs would be less possible due to timetabling constraints.

The major problem with not offering "hard" subjects (apart from the obvious, appalling repercussions on young people who have no choice about where to go to school), is the top down influence it has on the rest of the school. If a school does not offer maths at A level for example, it is going to struggle to find teachers who are qualified enough to stretch the highest achievers in KS3 and 4. Attainment drops in the rest of the school as a consequence. A friend who lives was shocked to hear that our local school did not offer triple science at GCSE, nor any "hard" science at A level (bizarre considering it has "maths and technology" college status) As she pointed out, it wouldn't have mattered to her literary children, but points to a general lack of expectation in more academic subjects and would ring alarm bells for her. Our children are all scientific and we have been forced to opt for the private sector because of this.

It isn't necessarily the case that not offering a subject at A level doesn't attract good teachers. Where I live, rather than where I work, we have 11-16 schools and 6th form colleges, so no A level teaching at all in the secondary schools. The teachers are good though. I suppose that is a different situation though from a school which could offer A level Maths but just doesn't...

From an interest point of view, most well-qualified teachers prefer to be able to teach the whole range up to edge of degree level. It makes recruitment of good teachers a lot more hit and miss in subjects that already have staffing problems.

"If a school does not offer maths at A level for example, it is going to struggle to find teachers who are qualified enough to stretch the highest achievers in KS3 and 4"
This simply isn't the case - a teacher doesn't need different qualifications to teach different key stages at secondary level. I have taught at three different schools, but only one had its own sixth form. I do admit that I enjoy teaching AS/A2 (and BTEC at KS5) but interestingly the school, of those three, with the best results overall was one of the two without a sixth form. It certainly didn't have a negative effect on the quality of teaching at KS3 or 4, or on the "quality" of teachers it attracted - every job at that school was fiercly competed for.

And I have to say, as a teacher of Drama and Theatre Studies, that subjects considered "less academic" are just as valid as those seen to be more intellectual. Surely children should be able, and encouraged, to study the subjects they enjoy rather than those deemed "worthy" (that's me speaking as someone whose father told her that GCSE Physics would be more useful in the long run than GCSE Drama. I took his advice. In my case, he was wrong )

But what if the children enjoy the sciences? Their choice has been restricted surely if it is dual certification that is available, as they will be exposed to less breadth in the individual sciences than previously.

I'm all for choice, which is why I find it sad that this particular choice has been removed from a lot of schools.

I do agree with you LovelyTin but I think that's where the timetabling constraints come in - if schools have to fit in English, Maths, PE, ICT, Citizenship (grrr) and Science, then there's not a huge amount of room for anything else. It's a shame that the separate sciences aren't offered at most places for an option, but I guess that would mess up what's taught to all.

If they enjoy the sciences but are not particularly able at them then their best chance of a good set of science grades is at dual award. Which is certainly better for the school and arguably better for the student too. But while we continue to judge schools on the basis of league tables and the like, more and more decisions like that will be taken for the child, and not by them.

thefallenmadonna but surely the level of difficulty of the dual award is not less than separate sciences, isn't it just less content?

The extra content in the triple is definitely harder. Certainly in Chemistry. It shouldn't be, but it is. Takes things much more into AS territory.

AS chemistry is where they tell you almost everything you learned at GCSE is wrong and how it really works is...

It bothers me that the dual cert is easier than the singles. That will surely mean that people who have done the dual are more likely to switch away/drop out from the A-Level as it will be so much more of a leap and not what they expected maybe. Also gives the single science types an advantage?

Although someone earlier said that the A-Level has been constructed to follow on from the dual science cert - so has the A-Level got easier?

It must be one or the other and neither is good surely.

A level is easier, but actually double science has been around for a very long time & it's always been possible to do science A levels following on. The way AQA GCSE is structured there is a paper 1 in each science (which is very easy) and all of them together with a practical gives you a single GCSE in science. Then there's a paper 2 in each science all of which together with another practical assessment gives you a second science GCSE. Finally, there is a paper 3 in each science which if you do any of combined with papers 1 and 2 in the same science, and a practical assessment in the same science gives you a GCSE in that science. You can't use the papers 1 & 2 towards more than one GCSE, so you can't use them for both the mixed science GCSEs and the individual subject ones (but you you could still do both if you were daft enough, but you'd have to sit the paper 1 & 2 twice over - sounds mad, but a few schools do it for no good reason that I can figure out, I suppose it boosts their figures or something).

The paper 2s are harder than the 1s. I was told that the 3s were of the same difficulty as the 2s, but covered different areas (I think Martianbishop said this - she was a biologist, so maybe it's true for that) but TFM is saying this isn't true for chemistry, which may be the case, I'm not sure. They seem to change the syllabus very regularly too. Ds sat an AS chemistry paper last term along with the GCSE paper 1s. He hasn't covered the GCSE paper 2 or 3 work yet but self taught the AS level stuff without a problem (he is science mad though). Interestingly he found the AS paper easier than the GCSE one in some ways as it was easier to know what the questions were on about.

Having read through child 1's GCSE textbooks, my husband (who unlike me did O levels) reckoned the only section of the courses that actually compared favourably with his experience of real science was the advanced stuff. The core bits appeared mostly to be government sponsored ethical drivel about healthy living, the next stuff up was a little more scientific, but the real science started in the bits that only triple scientists would do.

There is a lot of anti smoking, anti drug taking, green lentil weaver living propaganda that seems to have crept in. Not that I'm against kids talking about those issues in school, but a) it's a stretch to call it science and b) it's still covered in PHSE, bits in geography & probably some other places in the curriculum as well. I suppose the simplified science content makes it more accessible, but I think that is probably the main cause of people turning away from choosing science A levels.

Aha.

I did those online BBC GCSE "how would you do?" things for the sciences and found the questions very odd. They were really all to do with common sense, rather than learning and applying scientific principles.

This may be to do with what duchesse says about pushing current govt hot topics - environment/diet/blah. But government hot topics have sod all to do with a decent grounding in scientific principle.

So, if you do this dual science thingy, WTF happens when you start your physics A-Level and it's all tricky sums?

tricky sums have largely been removed from physics A level. Especially from the "Advancing Physics" syllabus which is backed by the IoP.

So what happens when you get to university to do, oh, engineering or physics, and there are... tricky sums????

Dunno, but I guess everyone will be in the same boat, won't they? Most schools do double science, and have done for a long time. I did my GCSEs in 1990 and the majority of kids in my year did it. I started teaching in 1997 and have never taught in a school that does single sciences instead.