How many hours HW/night in Yr 7...and how do you help them tackle it?

[Solo2]

DTs - currently in Yr 6 - get about 1 hour's homework a night but a lot of that can be spread into the w/e too.

In Yr 7, the official number of hour's homework/night will be 2 hours every night, with an average of 3 subjects per night. There will still be some flexibility over the week/ w/e but it looks as if most children do end up doing the full 2 hrs per night to manage the work load (this is a v academic school BTW, so none of this is a surprise).

I was wondering if this was about average in terms of numbers of hrs/night for 11 yr olds? I was also wondering how best to support my twin sons with this volume of work (which wouldn't include additional musical instrument practice each night as well - in theory!)?

Currently in Yr 6, one DT is largely independent now, able to focus on organising his work, getting it done but is still often tired and needs to leave some till the w/e. So it mounts up. Other DT needs much more support in terms of getting down to it, presenting it in an acceptable way (slapdash/ get away with minimal effort sort of boy, as many are!) and staying 'on task'. Lots of w/es are taken up with homework staggered across the entire w/e and nothing much else and it's only going to get harder.

Occasionally, both get homework (usually maths) that they struggle with and need my support and can easily take 2 full hrs to do that homework alone on one night, although they're supposed to stop at one hr really.

I'm trying to plan for the following year when they're in the senior part of the school and wonder how others support their DCs (especially boys) at that stage? Do you force them to get it done from the minute they arrive home - or have a break first and some food? If we do that now, then they get too tired to tackel it later and so it mounts up and takes over the w/e.

Tell me your typical experiences with 11 yr olds and how to help them manage at least 2 hrs work after school - and possibly after an evening club too?

Thanks for the advice on twins word factory, but as the mother of twins myself I still stand by my opinion.

I agree that age is to some extent arbitrary, but for the vast majority of the population it is a very good guideline, and will ensure that as many children are as ready as they can be for the exam process. Yes some will be capable of acheiving A* at 13. But what about the pupil that you submit for exam and they only get A or B despite expectations. I know someone in this position. At 14 they took a science GCSE, predicted A acheived a D. they, and their parents now feel that she has been robbed of a chance of a higher grade. And it is all very well to say resit. That is not so easy.

If a child is ready at 13 they will still be capable at 16.

I am not saying hold them back by reducing the rate of learning. Reduced the rate at which they cover the national prescription prescribed content yes - but enrich their learning with additional content.

These kids are going to have to cover additional content at some point (i..e. what do they do when they have done all the exams?) - why do it at the end? Why not do it to supplement, enrich and re-inforce the national curriculum content, all the time giving them an additional bank of knowledge and applications to support them in exams AND allowing them time to mature as much as they can for the GCSEs so they can acheive the very best they can.

At my DTs school, I think only the children who are likely to get an A* even at an earlier stage will do that exam earlier than age 16. They do iGCSEs and PreUs as well as A levels, I think and the idea is that the core curriculum can be insufficient for some children so they want to broaden the range of the subjects.

Another reason I think things are done earlier on is to make it less arduous when doing it later - eg this week, my 10 yr olds have started learning how to write a formal, structured 'essay', as opposed to an ordinary piece of prose. Presumably no one is expecting them to be in any way perfect but if you can begin to grasp essential concepts of s structred essay at age 10, then by age 12, for eg, it should be more or less second nature.

Similarly, they're doing a Shakespeare play in Eng Lit next term, approached as you might do it for O level - eg looking at themes, characterisation, using relevant quotes from the text to substantiate opinions and answers etc. Again, they won't be doing this at the level of 16 yr old understanding but it does get them in the swing of things.

I remember now something said to me about the school was that the children get so used to doing exams and tests that when they have really important ones, they take them in their stride because they've been 'tested' since age 3 to 4. I suppose a counter argument for this is that they acquire a phobia of exams because of recurrent anxiety about being tested! It all depends on the individual child.

Blimey, I didn't learn how to write essays until age 14. We were all quickly very good at it

This thread has taken an interesting turn since y7 DS came home with a science Edexcel GCSE workbook yesterday ([hshock]; school mooting idea of him taking it at end of y8; presume it's mostly exam not coursework).
A lot of the objections raised here are what's in my head (lack of maturity, enrichment would be better, The exam answers are very prescribed, he's not reliable yet...).
The other side (for us) is that I know DS works best when given a challenge. So I am slightly minded to go ahead with the GCSE idea on a very tentative basis, but the report of a 14yo predicted A who got a D, isn't encouraging!

This & other discussions are clarifying why I think somewhere like Oxbridge would be wrong choice for DS, anyway. He's not that kind of thinker; he's a broad spectrum performer, not a purist, and needs the most room for creativity & lateral thinking & multi-disciplinary approaches, not being narrowly passionate. They specialise too young in England imo, anyway.

haunted I'm not saying that accelerated learning and early exams should be de rigour, quite the opposite.
I would never say it is a good idea for anyone who isn't ready.

But for those pupils who will ace a GCSE at 13/14 it stills seems to me pointless to wait.

At DS school, the majority of top set French will sit early. They then have options.

1. Continue with French at an accelerated level, resulting in an unusually high level of fluency by the end.
2. Continue with French at a less acclerected level and add in another language, usually Spanish, Mandarin, Russian or for the Latin scholars, ancient Greek.
3. Continue with French at a less accelerated level and spend additional time on any subject the pupil feels they need help with.
4. Drop French and take up another GCSE.

I'm happy that DS will find an option that will suit him amongst those choices.

What WF wrote follows well with what I think school is thinking about DS taking such an early GCSE.

I think idea is for DS to take the generic "science" GCSE first, which is mostly based on general knowledge/facts and not about understanding relationships, and then with that under his belt he could proceed to focusing on specific science subjects which require more interpretation/lateral thinking/ancillary skills.

Anyway, something else for me to ask, assuming the whole barmy scheme doesn't fizzle out.

Sorry ragged - the way that science is taught all modules require interpretation and ancillary skills which are constantly developing. Taking it early you do put the children at a disadvantage in at least 30-50% of the paper is dependent on these skills and not pure knowledge.

Science is my specialisms

I think pupils should be allowed to mature along with their understanding of the subject and the way they generally process knowledge and how to demonstrate it before they take GCSEs and A levels.

I really don't think it should be a case of stuffing in the syllabus and regurgitating it for the exam as soon as poss, then moving on.

It also leads to the situation that people in Higher Ed talk about when students only expect to cover what is "in the exam" - they don't understand the need to read around their subject independently. They just want the facts for the exam and that's it.

Education is supposed to be about drawing out, not stuffing in.

No one is arguing with that Katisha but some students simply do all that very quickly.

I'll be honest, DS will have covered the sylabus in French and read around the subject far more than most other students all by the end of year nine.
I would not countenance acceleration otherwise.

I do think it's sad and very telling though that so many are so adamantly against it without knowing the individuals involved. If people can't see that what generally works for students is never going to be a universal truth..then we have a problem no?

But it seems to be the generally accepted norm now that pupils will take certain GCSEs early.
IMO this is for the league tables and not for the benefit of the pupils generally speaking.
Surely generally it must be better for pupils to take exams when they are more mature, with all the attendant skills and abilities that come with being 16 rather than 13/14?

I think the whole league table thing has skewed what is happening with exams. Sure some v bright kids have always taken things like maths early, but I think things have now gone too far and far too many pupils are crammed for a GCSE in a year.

Oh I agree with that Katisha.

I think the current trend for students generally taking them early because it is school policy is as absurd as refusing to allow any students from taking early because it is school policy.

Schools should react to individual pupils.

Personally I think that if two hours of homework per night in Y7 is needed to achieve early entry then that is also absurd. There is more to life than passing GCSEs in Y9.

I agree that that seems a lot.
My DS yr 8 gets about half that, but to be fair his school days are long.

seems to be the generally accepted norm now that pupils will take certain GCSEs early.... IMO this is for the league tables

DS is at a private school & none of his GCSE results will be published until after he finishes y11, so not true in his case.

Suggestion of GCSE in y8 might suggest lack of imagination on his teacher's part wrt enrichment in other ways, something I shall have to pursue!

Apologies to "Haunted" if I under-estimated the science GCSE; I was inferring from the study booklet DS has which seems to require answers that are very much about memory of facts, not lateral thinking and integrating skillsets. But must admit I hadn't studied it at length.

So much to get one's mind around!

WRT the OP question. My DD was hopelessly organised in yr6 and could never do homework without constant attention, but seems to have transformed over the summer. To prepare her we have several plastic in-trays so she can organise books at home (work to do and work done) and I also bought her an office type "things to do today" book. She adds all new homework to this as she receives it and then prioritises on a daily basis depending on when work is due in. The school says it it 1.5-2hrs per night but to be honest she has probably never had more than 50mins in any one evening and has not had any comments back she is not achieving required standard. She does not seem to need my help anymore either. I think the DC just have to be disciplined and not allow backlog to build up and if they have nights when they do activities to plan for this the night before and get as much as they can out the way.