Maths GCSE in Primary

[winterisstillcoming]

Hey everybody, I was wondering if you could help clear something up for me.

I was speaking to my SIL yesterday who told me her Y5 son is revising for his maths GCSE. He is at independent school. I said be careful only the first attempt counts. As a trustee of an Academy trust that has recently decided not to put students forward early for this reason, I thought I knew what I was talking about. Apparently not according to my SIL.

So was she correct, and is it an independent school thing that students are allowed to resit? Which puts my Trust's students at a disadvantage??

She was so bloody patronising too. And she got my nephews GCSE text books out at a family wedding.

gfmn, The exams are incidental. What's important is the provision of an accelerated curriculum in which the pace and complexity is matched to the prior attainment and developmental readiness of the learner.
I agree.
Unfortunately, with the computer age, we are now in a global economy, so those countries who adapt teaching to meet the speed the child can learn, rather than adapt the speed the child learns to fit in with the teaching, will be ahead.

Luckily, computers could also be the solution. Dd would have been happy to learn maths from a well designed computer programme while the others got on with their maths.

However, the attitude of, "This is what we have always done, why should we change in Britain," will find us sleeping.

I wonder what Terrance Tao would be doing now had he had to take the Australian equivalent of GCSE at 16 and not permitted to do any higher maths until he was 17.

I wonder what Terrance Tao would be doing now had he had to take the Australian equivalent of GCSE at 16 and not permitted to do any higher maths until he was 17.

I wonder what would have happened if at age 10 they said 'We're going to put you in for your GCSE, which means you're going to be doing very dull tedious maths for the next year and not any fun or interesting maths. Then we'll put you in for A level, and you'll have to follow that syllabus for a year rather than the fun interesting stuff'.

It's very odd. Some posters seem to be suggesting that you can't do advanced maths or give bright kids appropriate work without sticking to the curriculum and doing exams early. Why?

Yes, Titchy, I do agree the set up for children doing GCSE early in England is very woeful compared to other countries, where the attitude here is, do not learn maths earlier than the curriculum allows as the universities will not like it and schools are not set up for it.
I suspect her was taught a lot of the contents of A level before he was 16.

Richmal-why are you so wedded to the idea of early GCSEs?

BertrandRussell It stopped hours of argument with the schools as to what level she was at.

I think there is no harm in teaching a child maths when they are ready to learn it and cannot see the point in slowing them down because the English system is not set up for children learning maths earlier than some arbitrary specified age.

There are two completely different issues being discussed here. 1)Whether kids should do exams early. Obviously no, for all the reasons given.
2) Whether kids should be given appropriate work. Obviously yes, for all the reasons given.

BertrandRussell

3. Does a child have to sit an exam in order to continue to learn - No

because the English system is not set up for children learning maths earlier than some arbitrary specified age

Look at it as because the English system is not set up for sitting exams earlier, other options for advancement need to be explored. No point in sitting exams early then railing at the system not supporting you in your choice.

I don’t think anyone on this thread has the power to change the entire English education system (waves to Gove), so we’ve got to work with what we’ve got.

A GCSE is useful, as it's a piece of paper that proves your basic ability in the subject. It's only really useful though in a few narrow places (access to higher education and access to jobs) Given that a 10 year old has no need for that, the value is minimal. The effort of taking GCSE maths at the appropriate time is minimal, it's really not that tough, whatever direction your maths learning had taken in the intervening years you'd still not need to spend any appreciable time on it, so you don't even save time by doing it early. It probably costs you what you would've been learning outside the curriculum.

Some 11 year olds can drive a car, is there any point them taking their driving tests simply because they can pass? Of course not, there's no value in a driving licence until you can use the piece of paper.

The school curriculum is to prepare you for the basic of life, and the next stage of learning, that's all, why would you rush your way through it?

It stopped hours of argument with the schools as to what level she was at.

Spending a lunch hour doing a past paper would have done same...

If a child showed themselves to be truly gifted in English Literature, would you a) give them Romeo and Juliet, Of Mice and Men, and an anthology of War Poets and spend two years analysing them in depth to sit their GCSE? Or b) introduce them to Victorian poetry, several other Will Shakespeare's, Thomas Hardy, Charles Dickens, George Orwell, the Brontes, and a whole host of other authors and genres?

She’ll have to sit the new GCSE too.

noblegiraffe why will she need to sit the new GCSE (other than the fact that it is going to stand out against her peers with L9)?

Because otherwise she will count as a fail in the school league table for maths which will affect the headline figures, double-weighted for progress 8 etc.

The old maths GCSE doesn’t count.

noblegiraffe Thanks

Will it count towards the EBacc?

No, it doesn’t count for anything. The DfE didn’t want schools entering kids early for the old GCSE in order to avoid having them sit the new GCSE, so only 9-1 counts.

noblegiraffe Thanks

Just in case anyone doesn't know-the Ebacc doesn't really count for anything for the kids, although it's important for the school.

To those of you who are against acidemic acceleration for GCSEs, what do you think of the kids who get degrees before they are 16?

what do you think of the kids who get degrees before they are 16?

Is that a serious question? I can't think of anyone for whom this has been successful.

Ruth Lawrence barely sees her father any more I believe and doesn’t want to hothouse her own children.

titchy what do you mean successful?

@titchy
" I wonder what Terrance Tao would be doing now had he had to take the Australian equivalent of GCSE at 16 and not permitted to do any higher maths until he was 17 .*
"I wonder what would have happened if at age 10 they said 'We're going to put you in for your GCSE, which means you're going to be doing very dull tedious maths for the next year and not any fun or interesting maths. Then we'll put you in for A level, and you'll have to follow that syllabus for a year rather than the fun interesting stuff"

There is no need to wonder. His education was studied and documented by Miraca Gross - the same academic whose study of international practices in acceleration I linked above. Guess what - he was radically accelerated through the standard school maths curriculum and took exams early (e.g. the SAT which is GCSE level or slightly higher, aged 8) before starting dual enrolment (another form of radical acceleration) in high school and university.

"I can't think of anyone for whom this has been successful"

Let me help you there:

Norbert Wiener - founder of cybernetics. BA at 14, PhD at 17
Terence Tao (Fields medal) - Bachelor's and master's degrees at the age of 16
Other radical accelerands include:
Julian Schwinger (Nobel Laureate Physics) - BA at 18, PhD at 21

Abdus Salam (Nobel Laureate Physics) - BA at 18
Linus Pauling (Nobel Laureate chemistry and peace)
John Bardeen (Nobel Laureate physics - Twice!)
Many others examples of successful acceleration

Spending a lunch hour doing a past paper would have done same..

I asked if she could do a test and the school said it was teacher assessment only.

She’ll have to sit the new GCSE too.

Well thank goodness she is not in your school.
noblegiraffe why will she need to sit the new GCSE
She won't because her teachers are not mad.

If a child showed themselves to be truly gifted in English Literature, would you a) give them Romeo and Juliet, Of Mice and Men, and an anthology of War Poets and spend two years analysing them in depth to sit their GCSE? Or b) introduce them to Victorian poetry, several other Will Shakespeare's, Thomas Hardy, Charles Dickens, George Orwell, the Brontes, and a whole host of other authors and genres?
We do the 2nd route.
It is perfectly possible to stretch and challenge highlt able students without pushing them for early entry exams which are often more about parental bragging rights tham genuinely exceptional students in my experience.
Like noble has said, there are some cases where it is absolutely the right thing to do to offer accelerated pathways.

Do I believe early entry GCSE Literature is the most effective way of challenging able students? No.