Triple Science - am I right to make this a must-have?

[DilysPrice]

I'm looking around for state secondary schools in London for DCs (now years 4 and 2, so planning ahead - we might even end up moving).
Apart from all the normal things you want from a school, (starting with not being a complete hell hole where there are huge fights outside the school gate on a regular basis), I have the preconception that they need a school which offers triple science at GCSE, because as far as I can tell they're both of an academic and scientific bent, and are pretty likely to end up choosing career paths which require this (or at least find it useful).

OTOH I have a feeling that I may be a bit out of date on this, and things may now be different. Does it matter?

Triple award will give a seperate grade for Bio, Chem and Phys so essentially is single sciences. There are several issues here.
If you are worried about science A Levels and thinking that triple give a better base then whilst it may be true that they will have a better understanding (or at least will have covered more content)they are not necessary for movement to A Levels and a bright child can do well regardless of which they take.

If however you want them to actually do some science then triple is the way to go. It is the extra modules that come with doing triple that actually contain some science (certainly for physics anyway). Sadly much of the content in core and to a lesser extent double award science, is to a large extent very wooly. E.g there is more focus now on dicussing the social implications of taking drugs than the effects on the body.

To be honest, if you think they will be this way inclined then I would certainly want that option. Double award is fine for the vast majority of students, many who will not take sciences to a higher level. It is also suitable to go on to A level after doing double award and colleges etc will not refuse to take students with double award as that is all that some schools offer. However, thoses that do triple are certainly at an advantage when starting A levels and I think they need all the help they can get as the gap between GCSE and A Level is huge.

Having said all of that, all schools SHOULD be offering triple award to students getting level 6 or above in sats. However, since y9 don't do sats anymore then I'm not sure if this is still valid? I know some schools don't do is as they can't/won't get enough specalist teachers. So all in all I would certainly want to my children to have that option and if you think that they have or will have any inclination to take sciences beyond GCSE then enure they avoid BTEC like the plague.

That's intersting Willmum- never knew double would offer very little actual science. Quote sad really.

I know DD would prefer to do some real science than an extra option choice, which woul be either Drama, Rs or History.

What will be a difficult one though, is when they are weaker in one of the three sciences. How would say a C in physics compare with an A* in Drama?

Willmum - meant to add re the Sats results, level 6 sounds quite low. All of the top set at DDs non- selective comp were at least that by the end of yr8.

Is that level 6 thing definately right? Dd1 is at the start of year 8 and just got level 7 in a test.

I still think that doing triple takes up too much time, to the detriment of another subject.
Don't forget that, if kids really are that keen on science, they can always read beyond the curriculum in their own time! GCSE students are getting to the age where they should be self-starters, esp if they are thinking of studying it for A Level or beyond.

Am pondering this dictum by scaryteacher:

"My job is to make sure my ds has the right set of GCSEs to enable him to do A levels and then Uni."

Did you mean your job as the mother of this particular teenager? Or your job as the mother of a teenager?

Just interested, because I remember my parents struggling a little over this one. In the event, it turned out their attitude (of course our bright children should be encouraged to go to uni) was right in exactly 50% of the cases: I and my younger brother did go to uni and it was absolutely the right thing for us. My other two brothers did other things (manual work, started own business) and it turned out to have been right for them. But my elder bro did struggle for many years because my parents' assumptions, though perfectly reasonable on paper, were not actually right for the person he was. He should have been firmer with them (no, I am not doing French, yes I am taking this job).

Out of my two, I am keeping my options open, but would find it very likely that uni is right for one of them and not for the other. And tbh as a university teacher, I do not want to see the wrong kind of student in my class. And by the wrong kind of student I mean one who isn't there because he wanted to be, but because it was expected of him. A Third is not a great qualification these days.

I would not let this be the decider. Some schools push three sciences as if it is a badge of honour but don't get great results or shoehorn brighter kids into sciences where they might do better in other subjects. Both 2 oldest ds have had to do triple science. T year 6 I would have probably said this would suit them as they breezed Mathhs. Now it is great for one not for the other whose linguistic abilities have soared in the third form at secondary school and is pushed to do his third language in a twilight class as he is doing three sciences. You dont know what areas your dcs will blossom in.

I am a science teacher and the science course now is taught as a single, double or triple GCSE award. each stage is made up of equal amounts of Biology, chemistry and physics.
This happened because, historically 20 years ago The Government decided that students needed a general grounding in all sciences. this is beginning to swing back again to a more flexible system. General science has been the norm for all this time.
Most schools will offer double science, from which you can easily do A levels in any of the sciences. Triple is harder to timetable as it needs more time than the timetable can fit. Many schools only offer triple to the brightest for this reason and it is taught in a rush (sometimes less good preparation for A level). Offering GCSE courses in year 9 is a way round this.
However, I would base my choice of school on how it feels when you go on a tour of the school. courses change all the time and there is no telling what the future holds

Yes the level 6 thing is definitly right. See here; www.teachernet.gov.uk/teachingandlearning/subjects/science/ I bet there are schools that don't offer it though!

Lydwatt makes a good point in that triple science is hard to timetable. Our school does not give anymore time to triple then double so it only gets offered to the top set, and then its a real struggle. It does mean it doesn't take up another option but also means its really hard going.

Regarding whether an A* in drama is better than a C in physics, as a physics teacher I'm maybe biased. However, this is a really good question and sadly it sums up a lot or what is wrong in education.

At uni, places are offered on a points basis with the highest scores getting the most points, in the vast majority of cases no weight is given to the subject taken so whilst the sciences/maths are deemed to be amongst the hardest if not the hardest A levels, and media studies one of the easiest, a A in media studies is worth more points than a B in physics!

This is really sad as it does not encourage students to take on more academically rigorous subjects.

Being a science teacher, even i find what you say about drama as a little hard to take!

A timetable should be balanced. Fitting in triple science, with the loss of Arts subjects is wrong as we need all aspects of our knowledge and culture nurtured and cared for in our society.

Our school has moved to a 2 year key stage 3, giving three years to GCSE subjects. This allows for more flexible timetabling and has allowed us to offer triple much more readily. Seems to be working well at our mixed comprehensive.

This is my fisrt time on this site. I could do with help. My eldest is in year 10 He was on the triple science course. He got dropped to double this week. He has some health problems and has low attendance (nothing unauthorised). About 10 days ago his teacher did speak to me to say dropping him was a thought. He doesn't want to drop. She said he would have to improve his grades and attendance. For the first time ever he began to make sure he had painkillers on him and took his asthma medicine. He got earlier nights and revised hard for a mock. In the mock he got A* and took no time off. His other grades so far are A,A,A,C in the various papers he's already sat. Like I said on Tuesday he was dropped. He's devastated. The attendance i can't argue with but how do I explain that his grades are not good enough. Why aren't they good enough?

I am a scientist and I only have double science GCSE. Triple really isn't necessary. By the time they've done A levels and a degree or two GCSEs are a long and distant memory.

I am a scientist and I only have double science GCSE. Triple really isn't necessary. By the time they've done A levels and a degree or two GCSEs are a long and distant memory.

Novamum I think you need to talk to the teacher again and get her to clarify what the problem is as his grades look fine to me.