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.

Erebus, good luck in your meeting. Please do update us on Friday.

My only concern, in pursuing triple science for your ds may be that if he does double science he is predicted, what? B, B?
So he may come out of triple science with C, C, C? And also perhaps slip lower down in English and MFL as he will have to devote so much time to science?

You may, just may, have to accept that he was placed in double and not triple because it is because he is a competent all rounder, and science is not his specialist subject after all? And there would be nothing wrong with that. Nothing at all.

Also, be careful with the tutoring. If you have to tutor him to get him through triple science at gcse, will you then have to continue with the tutoring at A level? and then at uni? Because if you have to tutor him to ensure he makes the grade than you are effectively pushing him to work above his natural ability level? Which is not sustainable long term, is it?

I am not saying this to be mean, after all it is still not certain my ds will do triple, I suspect he may also fall just below the cut-off (despite currently being on a level 7b in year 9)
I just want you to be prepared.

I think it;s a great weakness in our current education system that triple science is seen as some kind of holy grail and kids who do double are viewed by some as 'apprentice material'. DD1 is doing triple because everyone does at her school, she has no choice. Given the choice she would have done double or none at all. I hope that DS does double not triple. DD2 - it depends what secondary school she ends up at. But I do not believe she would want to do triple either. Science is not the only fruit.

Thanks ship (thought you'd said you were finished with this! )- my son's science teacher is a teacher, too. She's 23 and very keen to impress her superiors. She doesn't have 'years and years of experience' to call on, she doesn't necessarily have a handle on exactly how a DC will or won't cope with A level science after double. And yes, word, exactly. I'm a HCP and will absolutely, readily confess that I know that in some instances, waiting list numbers, for instance, are massaged to make the data look good. I am a bit surprised that a teacher is willing to go into bat in support of the integrity of her entire profession. I wouldn't for mine- but I don't blame the schools necessarily. In the same way as NHS patients got what they asked for- apparently 'short waiting lists at any cost', parents got what they asked for, i.e. 'stellar academic achievement in schools'....

Another science teacher I know - I know quite a few teachers of different subjects!- told me that DS will be better served by doing triple if he's able to pass so he can do well in the 2 areas he's best at. Other people on MN think I should unquestioningly accept whatever I'm told, accepting that 'teacher knows best', cross that I'm even suggesting that teacher just might only be doing what's best for her school stats and her career, safe in the knowledge that DS will make the double science stats look good! I, too, am tired of explaining and linking to my 'proof' that this school apparently only allows DC who'll get A-A* to take triple, and that a ABB student, for example, is only capable of double, despite the fact the 6FC deem that sufficient (they want A level achievers on their stats, too!), and that double science takers have studied a 1/3 less of that single science than the triple-takers.

I have now just discovered, too, that our school's triple science is only 'fast track'. Another popular nearby school does fast track and 'normal track' triple, where the DC gives up another GCSE 'spot' in order to do triple. This would suit DS perfectly. But he's almost caught in the bind of a school that only offers double where a DC is well capable of triple- but it's not an option

I have also, since my last post, been sitting with a group of parents, socially. This topic came up (I didn't raise it, I should add). 2 parents said that their DC had done double science (one got a B, one an A*) and then A level science. Both said their DC felt disadvantaged in the A level class up against the single subject science takers there, and that they would have pushed for single subjects if they knew then what they know now. Both said I should be ready and willing to 'tutor' the gap!

So this is obviously a contentious issue and one's position on it is dependent on who you are and what you've experienced.

And finally, no, I cannot make the school take my DS onto the triple course. They can say no. But I am hoping that, after Friday, DS is either on the triple course -because the school accept that my averagely immature, small, shy DS, who is doing pretty OK in most of his other subjects and has been making good progress in all has received the boot up the bum he needs and will get on with achieving what he is capable of in science; or we have been persuaded that a) he's on double purely for his own benefit and b) that they really don't think he'd get a B in triple, let alone an A.

I am more than happy to listen to reasoned argument from the horse's mouth, as already stated.

Sorry, posted before I edited.

It would be fair to say that imo, DS is completely capable of taking triple science and doing well.

But now I have just been told that it's fast-track triple or double.

So there's nothing there for the 'middle ground', is there?

Numbernine- he's predicted A-A* in double, in 'my top group double' as the teacher said.

In the olden days, (when I was taking O levels) it was generally accepted that Physics was hard, unless you where a maths whizz, Biology was easy, and Chemistry in the middle.

But now, it seems to me that effectively, OPS son's school is saying "ALL the sciences are so hard, that we will only accept DCs who can do three GCSEs in the time normally allocated for 2, and get A /A* for them"

Surely it stands to reason that you would be disadvantaged at A level, if you have only covered (the easiest) 2/3 of the work for you particular subject at GCSE.

I'm confused, What data are they using to make predictions? I can't understand how they could be predicted an A* in double but not triple??? Sounds more than capable to me, but then I don't teach in a high flying secondary :D

Er...yes, choccy- nail-on-head etc. And thank you for posting.

Daen- me neither ('What criteria they use')- Yes, DS is deemed to be, right now, 6M. Their own stats show that they expect a range of '5.8-6.8 with 'a few' at 7' by the end of Y9. There are 270 DC per year, 88 get to do triple. A third. We are half way through Y9. DS has had his wake-up call, so could be expected, measured on the progress he's already made at this school (half way through his 5 years here!) that DS could make 6H by the end of the year. Apparently not good enough.

I am cross that in the 5 mins we had with the science teacher in a crowded, frantic room, (bearing in mind we genuinely thought DS was triple material) suddenly DS's steady, good progress to date (bar a 'second level' 'effort' grade in Jan this year, as did many in the class..) though been good, isn't 'good enough'. Yes-, well above average in the last test, but 4.8 in two experiment/practical classes, not good, but he's male, 13 ffs, small, shy. He isn't about to throw his arm up and tell the teacher he's sick of the mucking about and indecision in his 2 fellow experimentalists, is he?! We are reminded that DS didn't do as well as expected in his Y8 (aged 12) 'assessment' because he missed out an entire double fold of questions which we know because we have been reminded of this often. (Sorry if this is 'drip feed' but just another one of these 'things' that rank DS down though none are really 'how clever at sciences this child?' determiners.)

I readily concede that I am now of a higher level of 'understanding'. I now 'get' that the school only allows its guaranteed success stories to demonstrate their brilliance. I now know that they have no program to allow the 'a bit less able than really clever' to get 3 'B's in triple; but they sure as hell know how to get the double science kids to 2 x A-A -because they have so many who might've achieved 3 x B's in triple but do not have that option! hence 2 A-A in double- well done, school! I now recognise that there is no 'normal track' triple available.

This is all futile (but cathartic!). DS needs to be able to do normal pace triple science. He is completely capable of this. But the school do not offer this. So we have to decide whether to do everything in our and his power, via tutors etc to persuade the school he won't be a 'fail' in triple though we don't consider a B as a fail; or accept that 2 good grades in double, despite our knowledge that he will be 1/3 less prepared than some/many of his fellow A level students in Chem or Phys (as long as he gets in, from a 'triple' school but with 'only' a double), is 'OK' and won't prevent him form doing what he wants in future.

So I will reiterate: DS should be doing triple, normal paced science.

His school do not offer this.

Should he be trying his best at fast-track triple?

Or accepting double with the attendant caveats?

Well, I'll bite.

Since you now have more detail on the fast-track only option for triple; I would still err towards sticking with double. Reasons:

1. It'll be much less stressful for him and you for him to be working at a normal rather than bonkers pace.

2. It will look much better if he has higher grades in double than lower grades in triple

(really, really trying not to be rude, but are you basing this 'predicted grade' you've now talked of on the teacher saying 'it's better to get A/A...' or did they actually predict him that, because a level 6 usually puts a student on target for grade Bs, not A/As - many, many people have told you this?)

3. Which science A levels is he thinking of? Physics and chem? Or just physics? Whichever, I would look at helping him (even tutoring) to catch up on the missed bits of the topics before the start of yr 12 for JUST the subjects he's continuing to A level (rather than all 3, iyswim).

4. It might help him gain better grades in other subjects, especially the key ones of Maths (most crucial for Engineering) and English.

5. As an aside, has he been offered the option of Further Maths? (That could be more important for a Uni offer).

Lastly, please don't think that posters (mainly teachers) who are saying 'if they are on target for a B they will find A level hard' are saying that B grades are not worth having. Far from it. But getting a B grade at GCSE does not mean that a student should or will get a grade B at A level; they are likely to get lower than that. A and A* at GCSE students do not get straight As at A level - they are exponentially harder and come as a shock to many, if not most students. That's why there are universities with lower entrance criteria: so that there is a suitable tertiary course for all of the top 50% of students.

HTH and you all come to a good decision.

Sorry if I seemed to be stating the obvious, OP. It just seems that some people on this thread still don't get it.

In your position, I'd do my damndest to get him onto the triple, and then agree privately that he might "sacrifice" working on one of his least favourite GCSE options, so that he can put all his effort into the science work.

In fact if they insist on him only doing the double, it would still be worth "secretly sacrificing" work on another subject and spending the time doing the additional part of the science with a tutor, even if he is not able to sit the triple exam.

Sorry, 5) was meant to also say and help him with A level maths which is notoriously as difficult a jump from GCSE as science is, and obviously even more important to his engineering aspirations than science.

Choccy, I get it perfectly. I am just concerned that the OP seems to think her ds will get A/A at double. With a current level of 6B, predicted 6A by the end of the year he is on track to get B's at double. Not A/A.

Which means whilst he may be standard paced triple science material, he is not fast-track triple science material.
And I think the pressure he will be put under could be detrimental to his other subjects and detrimental to his love of Science.

Would it perhaps be better for him to take double, work his socks off (get a tutor) to achieve A*/A and if the love of Science is still there then get a tutor to help him bridge the gap to A level?

Well done, BLNN; much more succinct than my ramble...

Before sacrificing any subject, I would research VERY carefully whether a low grade in a subject, or double rather than triple science, would look worse to a prospective 6th form college.

ie is the child with
9 As / A*s / maybe 1 B but with double science preferable to the child with
8 decent grades but 1 very poor 1, but triple science.

Certainly as (in a past life) someone who was involved in recruitment into industry, we would have definitely favoured the first candidate over the second, even if the exact subjects were a marginally less good fit for the job. The competencies and attitudes of the former - that all subjects matter, consistent, hard-working, strong across the board - would have outweighed the supposedly 'better subject mix' of the latter.

I don't know whether this is still the case.

The extra units (unit 3s for the board we do) are of equivalent demand to the preceding units. I think that's an important point. The extra unit increases breadth. The assessment objectives are the same in each unit. The content is what differs. Additional Science (all the unit 2s) is not "easier" than Chemistry (units 1, 2 and 3).

I will say again, from my experience of teaching current spec GCSE Science rather than O levels, that it is not usual for a student to achieve very differently (by more than a grade) across the three subjects. That is because of the common assessment objectives. If you understand how to interpret data, you can generally do that for heat loss or MMR uptake more or less equally.

It would be lovely to be able to offer a completely tailored curriculum for every student, but the reality is that any route we choose has to be followed by a multiple of a class size.

I mean, one wonders how many foundation level DC in say English or Maths who got the top mark available, a C, might have achieved a B were they entered for the higher level? You see that a fair bit here on MN. Swathes of comps the length and breadth of the country indulged in 'easier' equivalences in order to secure places on accursed League Tables, didn't they?

A school where I grew up tried this recently. They entered their top maths 'foundation' set for higher to see if they could get Bs instead of the high Cs they were predicted. Pretty much the entire set got a D or dropped off the bottom of the higher paper and failed. It's not something they'll be trying again in a hurry.

We are judged not on C grades, but on progress for individual students. If a student got a level 5 at KS2, they have to get a B at GCSE. "Playing it safe" and entering them for foundation would be very foolish if they could get a B if they sat the higher tier paper.

Here's my twopenn'orth as a chemistry teacher with 10 years' experience in a high performing (similar to OP's) comprehensive school.

1. I don't get why 'a few' students would be awarded level 7 at the end of KS3. At our school (92% 5A*-C inc E + M), at least 1/3 of students achieve level 7. A few achieve level 8 (which is possible now that SATs are not compulsory for TA).

2. A level 6 at the end of KS3 is not a great indicator of success in Physics or Chemistry A Level. Sorry to be brutally honest. It just isn't. I have taught many level 7 students with A and A* at GCSE who have really struggled with A levels (and got Us or Es). Likewise, I have taught many students Chemistry A level who have studied dual award science and gone on to study medicine and/or science/engineering at top universities.

3. I would not want to teach a level 6 student triple science in the time given to double science. It would have to be taught at lightning pace, with much work self-taught as homework.

My top set year 9 group are currently all working at level 7. I know that there are a number in the group who would struggle with triple science in double science time - and would hate it. They wouldn't have time to develop the depth of understanding in the core science part to take on A levels, let alone understand concept such as moles.

There has been some very good advice given here (largely ignored) and I think you should heed it.

Sorry - just realised that the last post probably comes across as aggressive. Was in a rush to pick DS up from school.

I utterly sympathise with your situation. At our school, students take triple science out of an option block. It is an open-access course - anyone can take it. We have some foundation students this year. Ironically, many students moan that they then can't take triple as it then narrows the option blocks too much to take other subjects. It seems you can never please everyone.

I, personally, think that your DS would really find triple in double time a struggle. It may be that he will mature a great deal over the next few years (I taught one student who was in bottom set year 9 who went on to be in top set in year 11) but may not be currently in a place where he could cope with learning science at that pace.

radical my neice took triple as an option , which seems a good half way house.

At DD's school the triple set does it in the same timetable as the double, but they started at the beginning of year 9. The pace is fast.

At DS' school everyone takes triple (not as an option) and they don't seem to have started the curiculum yet...

The lack of 'normal pace' triple is our stumbling block.

I have already stated that I know DS is capable of doing well in triple science but I am under no illusion that he is super-clever or G&T, so fast-track triple could well be too much for him.

I too cannot explain the (link posted) '5.8 (or 'high') to 6.8 with a few at level 7 by the end of Y9' either, seeing as the school do get a third of their pupils to A-A* in triple every year. I do recall a mass letter home in Y8 warning us that our DC's science level may appear to have stalled or even gone back one sublevel in the next report as they we measuring attainment in science differently now as a result of the government's edict that different qualities were to be emphasised from now on. Which is also when level 8 disappeared. So possibly they are not measuring the same thing as others' schools on here.

I don't think a pupil needs to be a star for the fast tracked triple.

DD is certainly not a science geek. And maths is by far her weakest subject.

From what I see, a pupil needs to be committed to a fair bit of graft. The pace is very fast. The information covered is not particularly difficult but it is broad. There are tests in each subject at the end of every unit. It feels like barely a week passes without a test in one of the sciences.

In DD's set a number of clever but lazy girls have been bumped.