Doin GCSEs over three years (Y9, 10 and 11)

[JenaiMarrHePlaysGuitar]

I've been looking at a secondary school where pupils - if they're sufficiently able - do their GCSEs over three years - although the courses themselves are all one year long.

So, in Y9 they might do RE, History and Geography. Y10 IT, Maths, Double Science, French, English Language, PE, Y11 English Lit, Chemistry, Biology, Physics, German (obv. the make up of these differs).

If they don't do as well as they might have done then they have the opportunity to retake.

Looking years ahead, how would university admissions tutors look at this? Say a DC wanted to go somewhere prestigious and their GCSEs weren't quite as good as they ought to be - would they cut them some slack for having sat them at 14 as opposed to 16?

If that child had retaken that GCSE at 15, would the fact that they didn't get an A first time round reflect badly on them?

Disclaimer: Bright as ds is, I don't actually think he'd be fast tracked like this. But I'm interested to know. Just in case he suddenly gets all academic on us

I wonder about this too as it seems increasingly common. DDs school do them traditionally, sitting them in year 11 which I'm happy with. Her friend goes to a different school and they take English lit in year 10 and English language in year 11. In year 10 she got a C and resat in year 11 and got an A. Many universities do specify no resists and also only exams taken together count so I don't think I'd be happy with it. Especially if they are offering this to more able students who are likely to want to go to the pickier universities.

I didn't realise it was becoming increasingly common, Anne.

As they do GCSEs courses over one yeaar only, I don't even think pupils have the option of opting out of this.

I've seen a few posts here with parents saying their DCs are doing it and it is a new thing at DDs friend's school.

I suppose provided they are sitting the same number of GCSEs as they would do over the course of three years then they are still spending the same amount of time on each subject. Also if they are doing the course over a shorter period they woul have less chance of forgetting previous work. I'm still not convinced though and if DDs school changes (DD2 has just started) then I'd be taking a closer look at the university admissions requirements.

The school I was looking at proudly showed us the GCSE results of a pupil who managed 12 A*s, an A and one B. Which is pretty impressive.

I personally think its a pants system and am glad DS is at a school which does 11 GCSEs over 2 years in the old fashioned way. I know that Oxford have something on their website about "ages and stages" which basically says if you take a GCSE early you're expected to still have the highest grade.

I think that KS3 is a valuable time to be learning the skills needed at GCSE level and its a shame to stop that development early for more GCSEs.

Well I suppose it might help keep Y9s engaged - as I understand it they can be a real handful as they're neither focussing on GCSEs nor young and sweet enough to do as they're told

DS is in year 9 and he's fine without doing GCSE stuff perhaps because he finds the work interesting and challenging enough. Once the exam treadmill starts its exams in January and May for the next four years. DS is number 3 so I really value him having this year free of external exams and that he has a bit of extra time studying all his subjects before he chooses what to give up.

That's true. It seems unfair to start them off on the exam treadmill so soon. Although the school did say that doing no more than five GCSEs at a time removed some of the pressure. Hmmm.

Perhaps one year courses and doing half the exams in Y10 and half in Y11 is a better compromise.

Oh yeah I think the whole "you can retake it if you need to" is pants as well. Just take the exams once at the right time.

I will restrain myself now and resist the urge to rant about the effect of the resit culture on children's attitude to exams

I am rather unhappy about this too, as dd has lost a lot of Yr 7 and 8 due to illness, yet because she is in top set she is expected to take exams early. Seems churlish to point out to school that actually, if she is that bright, we would actually like her to have a chance of not only passing the exam but of actually getting a good mark.

OTOH the pupil with those great GCSE results - the A and the B were in subjects she sat at the end of Y11 - all the A*s were Y9 and 10.

Actually, could you get A*s in 2008?

I can see where you're coming from wrt retakes webwiz, but wasn't it like that when we were kids? The ones who messed up at the end of the fifth form used to go and do GCSE resits at the local college - apparently (according to the HT at this school I was looking at) you can't do this anymore.

I'm a teacher and I guess I can see why they try and start y 9's with GCSE's - often once they've picked their GCSE options teachers struggle to keep them motivated in subjects they haven't picked to continue as there's the 'well, i'm only doing this for another few months' type attitude.

I'd heard of a number of schools starting GCSE's early in y9 but students not taking the exam until y 10/11. Seems odd to take them in one year bits, and the 'you can retake if you do badly' is annoying as, if they are doing a whole set of new subjects the following year, they won't do better the following year if they haven't continues studies in tha subject, chances are they'll do worse!

I don't think UCAS take into consideration the year the GCSE's were taken, I think they mainly just look at the list of subjects taken and grades, although A Level results are the main importance for UCAS, so dropping a grade or 2 in a small amount of GCSE's I can't see would stop a uni offering a place so long as the A Levels were good (although I know some uni courses do require certain grades for core subjects in GCES's if that knowledge is needed for the course). GCSE grades may be more important for unis like Oxbridge though.

My ideal way is some early modules in year 10 that give an idea what GCSE level is like either as a reassurance or a scare depending what is necessary and then as much as possible in year 11 when kids are mature enough to balance the work and understand that the exams actually matter. The difference in maturity between the end of year 10 and year 11 can be huge so doing stuff early can seriously disadvantage those at the younger end of the school year and those who are later developers (DD1 would have been a disaster as she only got her act together in year 11).

If you visit this board from around Easter time you can see that a lot of kids doing their GCSEs could do with a bit more pressure on them rather than less

AFAIK some of the courses are broken down into modules, so you study part of the course then do a GCSE in that module.

I think it's better than doing 2 full years and then sitting 2 exams in a subject at the end. I know that the lower forms had maths broken into 4 modules whereas top form did the 2 exams at the end of 2 years. The lower sets did almost as well as the higher and DD wishes she has been in the lower group.

I saw this the other day www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-11419483 I think DS would quite like the exam at the end type of assessment and would be driven completely mad by doing GCSEs every year for three years. He is a very hard working, conscientious child and I think he would actually find it more stressful than doing them all in one go.

My DD's school does the majority of the subjects the traditional way, for which I'm very glad. Unfortunately the universities won't look at when the exams were taken, they have so many UCAS applications to look at that there simply isn't time to consider that kind of thing. It's number of A*s/As/Bs etc and that's it, although as far as I know, it's only the A-levels they insist on all being done in one sitting (I don't mean no module resists, I mean taking no more than 2 years to do them). DD1 has just started uni and DD2 is about to apply now so I have been through all this before!

It depends on the exam boards whether the subject is taken in modules or with a single exam at the end. IMO benefits depend on whether the student is stopping a subject at the end of GCSEs or is planning to take it further.

I have concerns about taking modular maths if the student wants to take it to A level as Maths is one of those subjects which builds and does require continuation.

Problem is that the school chooses the board which meets its needs best and these dont necessarily coincide with the needs of the student.

webwiz, I really don't know what ds will be like (he's only Y5 - taking an interest now as I've started to look seriously at secondaries, with a view to being better prepared come application time next October) but I did far, far better at exams than I did with coursework.

The school I was looking at are very big on vertical streaming. The lad I talked to (Y9) said it was good as the younger ones looked up to the older ones, who set a good example. But I can't imagine a 16 yo being too thrilled sharing a class with a bunch of 14 yos.

I know Jenai that's why picking a secondary school can be so difficult. When we chose my DCs school it was because it had a really nice atmosphere and it got reasonable results at GCSE. If you had asked me what I thought about GCSEs in year 9 I wouldn't have had a clue.

But now that I've already had two go through the GCSE years my personal choice would be to leave as much as possible to year 11 otherwise kids start to only want to learn things that are directly relevant to the exams (rather than for the reason that it might actually be interesting). I think 14 GCSEs is a bad thing and lots of good schools are moving towards the fewer GCSEs at better grades approach - the fact that the child with 12A*'s got the A and B at the end was very telling, he/she was probably sick of taking exams!

Only my personal view though and it may be a fabulous school full of happy kids and I am just a misery

Personally, I think it is best to take the bulk of the GCSEs in June of Y11. One or two early is fine, but I don't think it should be spread out. I don't think most children have the intellect in Y9 to reach their potential - they would do better to hang on.

The advantage of three years, is that they can resit modules done in Y9 and Y10, but this in itself clutters up Y11, so may be counter productive.

I don't know about other subjects, but Science is about to change again (after 4 years), and the course is designed in such a way that you have to take 50% of the modules in Y11. They are trying to get away from endless resits.

What if there is no choice?

Where we are (East Midlands) we have a choice of one school which doesnt have its own sixth form. It isnt interested beyond GCSE so wants an approach with maximum GCSE returns. The modular approach fits the bill (for the school).

That's interesting, Suzie.

The school I have in mind also lacks a sixth form.

Some top universities now want you to take all your GCSEs at the same time because it shows that you can cope with the pressure.

Also, if you did, say Maths, in Year 10, then didn't do any again 'til A level, wouldn't you have forgotten loads of it and have to spend ages revisiting things from GCSE?

There was a boy there who'd done his Maths GCSE in Y9, and was currently doing AS level.

But yes, that's a good point.

And of course (thinking on a bit) if he wanted to do something Maths-related at university, if sits his A-Level in Y11 he'll have a two year gap between that and the first year of his degree. Hmmmm.