Double science v. triple. Has DS blown it?

[Erebus]

I will be absolutely honest and say that, at parents eve tonight, the bomb shell was that DS1 is being considered for 'top set double science' not triple science- though which 'set' is rather neither here nor there!

I am rather 'taken aback' that he's not in the top 3rd of his 270 strong-year group (Y9), tbh! I acknowledge that his school is the county's top performing comp, academically so, yes, the competition may be a bit stiffer than completely 'average', but! In Dec his level was 6.2 or 6 low as they call it, and it was the only report he's every gotten a '2' for effort ('usually tries his best, but not always'). Always had a '1' for everything to date.

His 'in class' work has let him down, he got a 4.8 for his last experiment (she only looked at the last 2 or 3 marks, but of course will have an overall overview of DS, won't she?), and when asked why tonight, he said that the 2 other boys he works with were mucking around and they got no experimental data to work with... but he got 76% for the exam they did last week in class (certainly top quarter of the 3rd group in science, there being 2 A groups, 1 B group, his, all 30 DC apiece). Do not misunderstand me- I know DS wouldn't the beacon of diligence trying to pull it all together in class!- but I do sort of think they really haven't given their more 'OK, enough coasting, time to knuckle down boys children' time to show that they now 'get it', and that playtime, as such, is over. I think he had his first real shock tonight, actually. The level 2 'for effort' didn't do it (but his achievement mark was well in the upper half of the school's expected level).

The teacher said 'it's better he gets As or A* in double science than does less well in 3', which is undeniable. BUT DS is capable! My 'complaint' about the school would be they let the kids coast in Y8, no homework, no pressure; then 'wham!' Y9. MUCH more homework, much more focus. I readily concede we are half way through Y9 but I sort of feel DS only got his first yellow card, in Jan, with his report for science, but has just been told, 7 weeks later (today), he has 2 weeks to change their minds for double v. triple science. That's 2 lessons (though the teacher says she will rearrange the prac. groups). He was almost in tears (the teacher didn't see) as we left her as he knows that he needs triple science to be allowed to do science A level at Peter Symonds in Winchester (High performing 6FC). Until tonight he was harbouring a dream of 'maybe science or Engineering at uni'- but, well, he's blown that, hasn't he? A DC who is only allowed to do double science at a school that offers triple isn't 'Science At Uni' material, is he?

Sorry, really, for the ramble but I really, genuinely thought that DS's 'science' future was 'on course'; that is B grade English/humanity performance and possibly even C grade MFL (yet, oddly, A at Maths?!) was counterbalanced by 'solid science'. But it would appear not.

I don't really know what I want you lot to say. I don't know what I'm 'asking'. I just feel, well a bit pole-axed by tonight's revelation, I guess. And I know they aren't really likely to change their minds.

But as the OP has said, there is a difference bewteen a pupil ebing in a school that doesn't offer the triple, and being in a school that does but not doing it.

The former is excused. Sixth forms and universities understand that the pupils have no choice. They are not ebing offered the more rigorous course. The failing is with the school not the pupil.

The later is trickier.

Your latest post op suggests that he also wants to do computer studies, will struggle with MFL and as many, many others have said his NC science level is not particularly high therefore why are you pursuing making your DS's education a battle rather than a joy. Computer studies on its own is a very difficult course and there are few who achieve good results therefore he will need to put a lot of time and effort into this as with MFL in order to gain a decent grade.

I am with Books in terms of your hysteria and views on differing qualifications/routes and I would suggest you take a less blinkered view stop reading MN! and do some research; not only with 6th forms, but also universities and employers.

Yes, wordfactory, I understand that. But in schools where triple science is offered only 20% of pupils take triple. Are you therefore telling me that the others, who come out with high double science cannot take it at A level college? That the college will immediately dismiss them? Because I, for one, don't believe it.
There is a very high achieving, well regarded 6th form near us, I spoke to them last month when we were helping ds choose his gcse options.
They emphatically stated that a dc who has high double science results, from a school which offers triple, has as much chance on A level science as a pupil from the same school with lower level triple science scores.

Because triple is only offered to the top few. They cannot and do not disregard pupils whose ability is above average but not the upper-echalons-of-triple-science-level.

If the OP's local 6th form does not do this, then perhaps the fault lies with them, not with OP's ds's school?

You are way too involved, OP.

I'm a parent, lijkk. It's my job. It's what we do.

cricketballs, do you mean that a 6 high, based on what I've already told you our school expects (ie don't be mislead by others stating their Y8 DC is on level 9 in science or whatever- they obviously measure differently as science doesn't go to level 9!) of their end of Y9 science isn't particularly high? As stated, they say they expect the majority of pupils to be between 5 high and 6 high at the end of the year, with a few at 7. A third of the 270 of them gets to do triple, and 95% of those 90 odd DC get A-A* in their triple science subjects.

I do understand that being on-target for a 'B' in a MFL these days, rather than an A is considered tantamount to 'struggling'.

I don't know about computer studies- the numbers taking it are limited by the timetable, and they've recently reorganised their IT, hence newly offered courses like CIDA. We need to look into this, further.

It would be fair to say the more 'highly regarded' of the local 6FC do look a little less favourable at double science results from our school as they offer triple. The other 6FC is far less bothered- but also has a very high post AS level drop out in science.

I am a bit irritated with being told I am hysterical. 155 messages tends to make me think it's a bit of a general hot topic! You tell me to do my research. What do you think all this is then? I've told you what I know, who I've spoken to, what the general consensus of opinion is, and am getting different view points. Not immediately agreeing with yours and so hanging my head in shame does not make me 'hysterical'.

Anyway, we'll have to see what response we get from the school when we write in on Monday. Horse's mouth, etc.

A level 6 is not particularly high, especially if there are students in your DS's school with higher levels. Triple science is not for the faint hearted therefore there is a realistic view from schools as to who are those capable of achieving and not having to work excessively to the detriment of other subjects.

I suggested research - not holding a viewpoint that despite others telling you is not the case and keeping to that argument research; MN is not solid research but a good starting point as long as you actually take the posts suggesting that you are not correct on board.

My comment regarding your hysteria is that you are so focused on your DS studying engineering at uni that you are not looking at the wider picture of his future - a full and rounded education with the best results possible for your child is the best route even if this means double science.

The big concern I now have and this is a major worry is your statement that the school have only recently introduced CiDA - this qualification has a certification end date of 31st December 2014 and Edexcel have stated that they are not going to apply for reactivation and that they will only offer GCSE or BTEC for ICT at level 2

apologies - I was talking about DiDA in terms of the accreditation and CiDA has been accredited from 2012

A level 7 is possible at KS3 and many, many students get 7a-7c.

Two classes worth each year at my comp.

And we measure to national curriculum standards as does every state school in this country (not sure where you get the idea that school measure differently )

Has anyone said that their child is at a level 9? As far as I'm aware, national curriculum official levels in Science go up to a level 7, but some schools may teacher assess at a level 8 if they believe that a child is at this level, which is why some posters have been saying that their child's target is an 8C or whatever (please correct me if this is wrong).
As has been stated, all state schools measure to National Curriculum levels, not different scales. All people have been trying to do is express their surprise that at a high performing comp only very few 'exceptional' pupils would be working at level 7 at the end of Y9 and check that you have the correct information about this, but you seem very defensive about it. No one is disputing that the school is high performing.

Word factory, I know of no bias against students leaving with double award instead of triple and trying to get onto science courses in our sixth form or any of the local institutions around us.

Quite the opposite. There is a lot of financial value in students entering sixth form and no where can afford to turn anyone away!

My son is in one of two top set Science groups in a "good" average comp (65% 5 GCSEs A-C). He is in Year 8. He says just a couple are on 7c, approx 5 are on 6a and the majority are on 6b or 6c with a few on 5a. He says that those on 5a have recently been moved down a group. So, I guess from this that being on a 6c a year from now in Year 9 would put you on the borderline (at this particular school.

I'll say it again, the local sixth form (in Winchester) are quite happy with double science even from your school!

metronome AFAIK the NC levels are the same for every subject. The go from 1 to 8 and then exceptional performance. The KS3 science tests, tested to a maximum of level 7 but teacher assessment can go up to EP (although it is rare).

Nationally, about 17% of children reach level 7 at the end of year 9, with the following 34% reaching level 6 and about 1% of boys reaching level 8.

Triple science over 2 years is a big big ask if he's only scraping 6b at this point in Year 9. With the move back to terminal exams it is a huge risk.

to be honest, I don't think op wants to hear any of this but instead, is only looking for support for her position against the school.

Dd's high performing CE comp (85% A* - c including English and maths) sounds similar to your son's school in terms of intake. At her school about 30% of y9s achieve L7. And about 70% achieve L6+. The general rule of thumb there is that the L7s take triple (started in Y9 as these would have been L6B + at the end of Y8, those that don't get L7 at the end of Y9 - they still give them SATs papers at the end of Y9 - get dropped to double). L6s at the end of Y9 get entered for higher tier. L5s get entered for foundation. L4s do single science over 2 years. A huge number of foundation students achieved a B on the Y10 exam as they scored highly on the papers and scored As and Bs on controlled coursework. Could be your son's school is taking a similar approach. L6s are targetted at B though lots achieved higher last year.

I had noticed that, which is a shame because I suspect that the only thing preventing the OPs DS from doing science A-levels in the future might well be the OP.

Are you a secondary science teacher, Shipwrecked? My understanding was that the current expectations for progress were 2 levels per key stage, so that a child at level 5 at the end of year 6 would be expected to be level 7 by the end of year 9. So not only are the DS's levels not high but he's made less than expected progress across KS3. This assumes that he was a level 5 and not an uplevelled 4a.

I think that the best indicator of A level performance is the GCSE grade, rather than whether they did dual or triple.

And by the time you get to A levels, the A level grade is more important than whether you did 2 or 3 sciences at GCSE.

Even most medical schools are not specifying triple science, if science A levels are chosen.

yes clay, I am. And I would also largely agree with you about the levels.
However, its difficult to make such judgments about a child without knowing him.

More troubling is your first sentence, which I completely agree with.

ER, can I say that I have always loved your name!

I will let you know what the school say once we have talked to them.

We will know far more about the whole thing then. I consider myself now far better informed about double versus triple.

Shipwrecked - yours is pretty good too.

Mine is my favourite organelle.

that's such a biogeek thing!!

As a (fellow) biology teacher. I was very envious when I first saw it...

I think you're getting a rather hard time, Erebus. I do understand where you're coming from and why you are concerned, even if I don't share your view. I suspect that your son will do just fine whatever version of Science he takes as he has good parental support, which seems to be the most important thing.

Shipwrecked agree re endo's name, have been tempted many times to copy and become golgi body or ribosome.
And also yes to grade being a better predictor, i said it early on in the thread, and i will say it again out of my 40 odd AS students this year (from a total AS bio cohort of nearly 100) you would not be able to differentiate between the students who have done triple or core/additional if you walked into my classroom and listened, or indeed tested them formally.
And re medicine, my own ds only did bio and chem GCSEs (ie he has not done physics since y9) he has an offer for medicine and score 100/100 ums on the recent bio 4 (year 13) paper, i know of at least another dozen kids who last year went off to do medicine at various unis all with double science, but the OP persists in the notion that "it is not possible" because she has heard rumours, rather than read information form the many of us on here who teach huge numbers of students every year.