Any secondary school only do 5 GCSEs?

[loveyal]

I live and work in London and many people I know with professional jobs including myself didn't go to school in the UK. We don't understand why most children in this country do at least 7 GCSEs with the majority do 8 or 9.

As far as I know there is no minimum requirement other than English and Maths which is totally understandable.

There is this thing called Ebacc with 5 subjects which sounds sensible to me.

Why don't schools just do Ebacc and spend the rest of the time for non examined activities, be it creative, sports, community, home economics, whatever they like? They could still have all league table requirements such as Progress 8, Attainment 8, etc and etc.

@EndofDaze There is a curriculum review at the moment and so things could change if the government wanted it too. I think the AQA and OCR exam boards said recently that the curriculum is overloaded with too much content.
We could move to Progress 6 instead of 8 if the government decided to.

@LiquoriceAllsorts2 End-of-topic tests set by teachers across Year 10 and 11 are much less high stakes and stressful for students than GCSE exams at the end of Year 11. It doesn't matter if they are not comparable between schools because you could still have 6 objective GCSE results.

@clary If a student is getting 7s from their teachers in French in Year 10 and 11 tests then is that not a good basis for the A-level. The teacher is not having to prove anything for league tables and so does not have to artificially inflate the grade.

In vocational subjects, teachers would not feel the need to practically write coursework for students because there would be less pressure to get results.

They have six objective GCSEs but not in the relevant subjects!

DS2 got a 9 in biology GCSE and an 8 in maths – but that wouldn't have been much use to assess his ability to take Spanish A level. And in fact he would have done pretty badly at Spanish.

My point stands – better an objective grade in an external, rigorously assessed, standardised exam than a grade given by a teacher who frankly could set whatever test they like, tell the students the questions in advance and mark it high. I mean you would hope they would not, but they could. I think you mean the grade 7 from their teacher is a good basis for A level. And I agree it could be, but there is no transparency or standardisation.

How does that compare to today's more content heavy GCSEs?

Schools wouldn't be able to timetable that many subjects.

DD took 10 GCSEs in 2016. PE and RE were still compulsory, leaving 46 hours per fortnight to teach GCSE subjects. It would have been impossible to cover the entire syllabus for 13 subjects in the two years she was studying GCSEs. Her school didn't start the GCSE syllabus (syllabi?) until year 10.

Did you stagger the subjects over 3 or 4 years?

Well I did mine in 1994, so along time ago.

two years on GCSEs, options chosen at end of year 9.
frankly I can’t imagine leaving school with less history or geography knowledge.
the idea that kids study only one of these after the age of 14 is wild to me

Or indeed, don't study either! They are optional at DDs school. They do 9 subjects, three of which they chose.

Well I did mine in 1994, so along time ago.

They must have been less content heavy. Were they modular?

For the record DD did both geography and history, plus art and all the core subjects.

I think comparing what we did years ago isn't relevant here, but I agree that the curriculum shouldn't be narrowed more. I agree with all the teachers on here.

I didn’t realise that was possible .

i. think this is deeply problematic.
knowing British history is important for understanding our context, for remembering the world wars, for having a sense of how this country came to be.

understanding some basic physical and social geography gives context to climate changes, environmental development

these, surely, our foundations for deeper understanding of life.

and quite useful for pub quizzes if not minimum wage jobs.

I have a lot of O-levels, but a couple are duplicates - ie basic Maths O-level taken in Y10, Add Maths taken in Y11. Same for one MFL, and also did English Language in Y10.

Exams were fewer but longer - IIRC, History was a single 2.5 hour exam in which you wrote 5 30 minute essays. As a result, the curriculum was perhaps deeper but less wide - as long as you had been taught enough topics (maybe 8 or 9) to safely have 5 essays to write, teaching content for the other 30+ questions on the paper wasn’t needed. MFL had dictation, a live conversation oral, translation in both directions, comprehension and writing,
so was rigorous but perhaps less broad in scope?

What was definitely different was a total lack of ‘exam training’, which freed time for curriculum coverage. We had lessons; had homework tasks; did one set of mock exams in summer Y10 and one in Y11 and that was it.

They are supposed to get that grounding in primary and ks3 though.

If pupils were only examined on 5 core subjects then the vast majority of schools would almost exclusively focus on those 5 subjects, not only at ks4 but also ks3. The idea that these 5 subjects would not get any extra timetable time, but free periods would be available and teachers of history, music, computer science, art, drama, food tech, textiles etc. to be paid to supervise pupils who simply want to learn in their spare time for fun is ludicrous. The majority of children would not do extra sport, music or art in the evenings, they’ll do more binge watching, gaming and doom scrolling. Parents currently aren’t telling kids that aren’t allowed to go for a game of badminton or a swim because they have so much history and music homework. They would get to the end of ks4 with qualifications in only 5 subjects which is fine for school leavers who want to go into, and stay in, entry level jobs, but inadequate for anyone staying in education. The STEM element of a limited curriculum would not give a good enough foundation for STEM a-levels. You might get away with social sciences with limited essay subjects at gcse, and possibly humanities. Arts would be trickier. Staffing would be an issue - history teachers for schools who offer history a-level plus a limited ks3 curriculum etc. Middle class, educated and wealthier parents would likely plug the gap with clubs, private tutoring etc. a cottage industry in private exams would spring up until they were default necessary for university entrance and poorer, more disadvantaged children would fall further behind. The difference between good and poor schools would become more stark. Michaela, for all it’s controversy, is an example of a school which delivers a limited curriculum and gets a fabulous (best in the country for last 3 years) progress 8 but even they don’t limit to 5 subjects and, tbf, I think it’s due to the limits of their building rather than an ideological stance of thinking certain subjects are useless.

@clary
So do you think we should just continue as we are?
The exam boards are even saying there is too much content and too many exams.
1 in 5 children on surveys are saying they have mental health issues.
Some other countries get better PISA results than us but have less standardised testing. Students do more hours of external exams in the UK than almost any other country in the world.
Do you think that we should continue with the same number of GCSEs-on average 9 but with slimmed down content or do you want to continue with the status quo?

@Arseynal It is our culture that dictates our currrent model, which is to learn mark schemes and pass exams. Other countries don't examine everything.
There are other models. What model do you think is best and why? Or do you really think the UK model is the best?

I think that schools should be able to give an alternative curriculum, focusing on FS1 and 2, to those pupils (very few) who will never gain a 2/3/4 in GCSE maths or English. It would be simple to identify who they would be.

I do think there needs to be a look at some of the exams as there are issues with volume of content and need to learn great tracts of facts without learning to analyse and research. Some I think work well. The current iteration of the MFL exam is so much better than the old one, with its so-often-fiddled controlled assessment that didn't teach anyone anything apart from how to learn a script (at best) or how to read and copy one (at worst).

I don't think your idea of five core subjects is in any way workable, sorry, as (as PPs have also pointed out) schools would focus on the examined subjects, and so would the students. The subjects not on your core skills list would gradually disappear and fewer and fewer students would (be able to) choose them for A level as they would just not be at the necessary level. And since there we are talking about a second humanity, MFL, classical languages, RS, CS, DT, food, art, drama, music – yes I do think that that would be a bad thing.

I have seen absolute destruction of the UK's classical music infrastructure since I was a teenager (80s) with predictable consequences for GCSE and A-level entries.

Definitely don't want any more of that.

I have used my (state subsidised) musical skills so much.

It's daft even in economic terms when you consider the contribution of music to perception of the UK, events, exports etc never mind wellbeing benefits from participation.

MumonabikeE5 · 31/12/2024 13:49

And there I am wondering why it’s only 8 subjects. I did 13 at a normal uk comp in 1994

geography AND history.
design tech AND art
or Art AND music.
Spanish And music

13?! I did mine in 1988 (first year of GCSEs) at a grammar school and we only did 8. As far as I recall, we didn't have to do a humanity at all. I only did one single science and no art or music. I don't think drama was even on offer at my school. I did French, German, Latin and history as my options subjects.

@clary Thanks for your response. It is interesting that you like the current GCSE model for languages. Many teachers I have spoken to don't like the current GCSE content.

We will have to agree to disagree.
Without external exams for option subjects, it is possible that some students may be less motivated. However, it is also possible that they might not-especially if they need end-of-topic test results in those subjects to progress to A-level and they want to keep their options open. Schools would not be allowed to just focus on six core subjects if the government made it compulsory to do 9 hours of option subjects. This is the same as the compulsory two hours of PE that all schools deliver. Students don't have to do exams to prove enough time is being spent on option subjects and Ofsted could just check schools are doing this.
Furthermore, if you had a curriculum that wasn't based on teaching to the test, you could develop a greater love for a subject through teaching and at the same time put less stress on children. Schools could get students to develop more study skills, research skills and presentation skills through a supervised independent project. Completion of an independent project is also something that could be put on a report card moving forward to sixth form.
I also think that even in the core subjects, they should have fewer exams e.g.one/two exams for maths not three. Apparently performance on the first maths exam predicts the overall result in 95% of cases. Alternatively, we could have one maths exam in Year 10 and one in Year 11 so it isn't such high stakes at the end of Year 11.
Other countries do not place such importance on exams at 16 as we do and the high stakes relates to these exams all in one go is a problem. We have deteriorating mental health in students and I think this is produced by the way teachers and students approach these external exams. I think league tables and performance management is also making some teachers behave in an unethical way e.g. placing too much emphasis on the exams over wellbeing or removing students from subjects that they won't get a good grade in or over-helping with coursework.

Most of Europe manages without doing high stakes exams at 16, so why can't we?

Oldish Grauniad article, but I agree with its sentiment: here

@AllProperTeaIsTheft yes it's rare among countries to have big exams at 16 BUT the countries that don't have big exams at 16 also all require all teenagers to study a broad general curriculum until 18. Having GCSEs at 16 is part and parcel with the benefit of being able to specialise into subjects of genuine interest in the 16-18 age period. I have a y11 who is thoroughly disliking revising for GCSEs at the moment BUT is really looking forward to being able to do a specialist course that is actually going to be interesting and engaging next year. A lot of children would utterly hate a change to a system which abolished GCSEs but didn't allow specialisation and required core subjects to be continued to 18.

This is the same as the compulsory two hours of PE that all schools deliver.

Like the mandatory daily act of collective worship in schools, I suspect that this ‘compulsory’ requirement is perhaps not all it seems (it may be timetabled, but frequently eroded, or timetabled against eg study support for those needing help in core subjects, or just not quite fitted in in any number of ways)

As a maths teacher I like the current maths GCSE and I wouldn’t change it.

I worked in a grammar school for a while that did do things rather as the poster below suggested (the students were uniformly so able that GCSE didn't cause them much stress; home support was almost always excellent; behaviour was decent especially above KS3; they did the IB in 6th form). They did an independent project in KS4, lots of optional stuff, many had individual music and Lamda lessons etc.

Not easy to mimic that with students from the whole ability range and a wide range of socioeconomic backgrounds. Plus it all costs parents. While the education was free, all the extras very much weren't and the parents had paid millions to improve the buildings in the absence of significant govt infrastructure funding post 2010.

You simply can't reform school curriculum without a change in the society/demography they serve.

I think the A-level course I teach is good. It's an excellent preparation for university (that's what students tell me who've gone on with it).

Student literacy has declined noticeably over the last decade, however, and only a small minority are interested in studying for its own sake.

@Runemum i don’t know if you are a secondary teacher but if you are, you will know how utterly disaffected year 9s are about any subject they are not taking forward.

We used to split off those not taking MFL and do something quite different in the last term (a film project, a new language) so the others could actually learn.

You can’t have it both ways anyway - either they are motivated by the tests (in which case why not sit an exam where there is clarity and uniformity, like GCSE) or they are motivated to study for the love of it (sadly not many).

If these non-examined subjects are going to lead to A level study, then there will need to be specific topics studied. With MFLyou would basically have to cover the GCSE work tbh.

You say you know a lot of teachers who don’t like the current GCSE - do you mean MFL or other subjects? I don’t loveGCSE Eng lit tbh, But I’d be amazed if you found lots of MFL teachers who preferred the old spec.

I agree with @cantkeepawayforever btw - it’s fine to say these non examined subjects would have to be timetabled; but for my DC, compulsory RE was a bit if discussion inform and assembly once a term. And in my school, one PE session was considered eminently droppable to make way for science support.

Without external exams for option subjects, it is possible that some students may be less motivated.

IMO it is probable that most students will be less motivated.

Like the mandatory daily act of collective worship in schools

Which doesn't really happen in real life. I don't think that DD ever had a religious assembly at school (certainly never at secondary school). She had assemblies but they were more about communicatiing information than religion.

Exactly. It is theoretically mandatory, but in practice vanishingly rare.

I went to a specialist arts school and we only took 5 GCSEs

We did 3 a levels though