Early entry for GCSE = worse results, statistics show.

[noblegiraffe]

I know quite a few posters here have expressed concerns about their DC's schools entering students early for GCSE exams, and it turns out rightly so. Students entered early for Maths or English GCSEs do worse than those entered at the end of Y11 even when you take resits into account.

(note: early entry is not the same as taking modules in Y10, it is completing the entire GCSE before the end of Y11)

The DFE has just published a report analysing the statistics and found 'The statistical evidence so far indicates that for lower achieving pupils, there is little discernable benefit in early entry other than increasing opportunities to retake before the end of KS4 which still does not improve the overall comparative result. For pupils who achieve level 4 or above at KS2 (and would therefore be expected to achieve grade A*-C at GCSE) the average final grade is lower for early entrants. Higher attaining pupils are therefore being disadvantaged by entering early and not achieving their full potential.'

Bonsoir I'm certainly not labouring under the illusion that KS3 is the GCSE syllabus. KS3 is supposed to be y7-9. The GCSE syllabus starts after that. For schools like DD1's school, they find that the amount of material which is required to be covered by the NC between y7-9 (inclusive) can easily be covered (and exceeded) in Y7-8 which means the students are ready to start on their GCSE courses at the beginning of Y9. They then take the 'standard' two years to follow those courses.

I think there is a qualitative difference between this approach and the approach in some schools where a two year GCSE syllabus is crammed into one year, and then examined at the end of that year. I suspect that the results for schools which have taken the accelerate KS3 approach will be better than those that try and fast track individual subjects (except possibly for maths and native speakers of MFLs).

I am a tutor and I am convinced that taking GCSE's early is a really bad idea for everyone except very bright students who can learn syllabus material very very quickly.

I tutor maths and sciences to secondary students. Many of my students can be perfectly competent at these subjects but just need a bit more consolidation than average to grasp concepts (which is why the parents are paying for tutoring - obviously). These students are being entered early for exams and it drives me bananas.

A student who would most likely be able to do a higher maths paper in year 11 and possibly gain a solid B grade, is entered at Foundation level for year 10. This gives him a whole year less to consolidate maths concepts and on top of that, the maximum he can now achieve is a grade C! A student who takes a lot of time to take on board concepts is entered for some science exams in mid year 9, requiring the school to try and cram two thirds of a 2 year syllabus into a term and a half. No wonder he is just confused! Then he thinks he "can't do" science and failure leads to further failure.

It all leads to schools rushing through syllabuses or missing great chunks out and actively prevents the "slightly slower to consolidate learning" student from learning anything much as it is all moving too fast. This then sets them up for failure. It is much harder to pick up a mess of half-grasped concepts and sort it out in a year, than it would be to have taught it more slowly, steadily and thoroughly and taken an extra year or two in the first place!

I'm convinced it is all just because of league tables of GCSE passes, where the school are trying to maximise their statistics. It may lead to more grade C's overall, but I'm sure it must cause fewer higher grades and has been really bad for the students I have taught!