Double / Triple Science GCSE

[teacherwith2kids]

DS's (otherwise excellent, very high performing) state comprehensive school does not offer triple science GCSE - even the most able children do double science. This is not seen as a barrier to children within the school who wish to continue with Science, as obviously the AS / A-level teachers are used to it, and in fact the numbers taking Science A-levels are very high.

It's my one issue with the school, asnd as part of rasing it with the 'powers that be' [DS is currently in Year 7, so there may be a chance to influence things if I start campaigning now!) I am interested to know how common it is for non-selective state schools to offer triple science?

Ideally, I would love someone to come along and say 'ah, the data you need is in this data table here'. However, in the absence of that, oh beloved MNetters, would you be able to tell me:

• Type of school (I am not interested in grammar or private schools at the moment. I know that our local residual grammars DO offer triple science, but I know already that DS's school rejects that as a comparison, so I am looking for comparable schools to use in my argument - 'true' comps or secondary moderns)

• Age range (11-16 or 11-18)

• Whether or not they offer triple science as a 'normal' subject choice within the everyday timetable (the school cites lack of time in the timetable as the primary reason behind not offering triple science)

Many thanks in advance! As I say, it's my one grumble about the school, which is otherwise serrving my very able but quirky DS's needs brilliantly, so it's something of a 'luxury grumble'!

Ha! and 84% by 2012!

www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201213/cmselect/cmsctech/665/665we10.htm

I'm thinking of a 'why are you one of the last 16% of the schools in the country not to offer triple science' line...since they pride themselves on being 'ahead' and 'innovative' that may be a suitable line of attack.

Thing is, a true comprehensive will have the children who in other counties might be in a grammar - so they should have the children of high enough ability to go faster...or as other posters have said, use an option block, or start in Year 9. This school does not even offer it as an option....

This is off topic but a thing I'd never heard of was triple science taken as 'core', 'additional' (i.e. the 'double award') then is it 'advanced'? or some such? Leading to 'triple award science' as in 3 GCSEs.

When I went into school to talk to the Head of Science about my DS's suitability to do triple as he wants, versus the double ('top group, though, Mrs Erebus!') his young science teacher thought he might go into, the Head told me that they used to offer the above 'triple' but found that 'employers and even 6th forms didn't understand it and didn't place as high a value on it as triple via the 3 individual sciences' - which to my mind would also imply they think even less of double award!

I wish 2 things: that DS could do triple at the normal pace as 3 option blocks, and he could choose maybe 2 of the three and maybe not do biology.

In your situation, teacher, I think you have to make the best of the situation. They won't have the know-how, facilities or maybe even expertise to introduce triple overnight. Make sure your DC get A- A* in their double and hopefully, come 6th form college application, they'll know your DC couldn't do triple as it wasn't an option. You might have to bridge the double/triple knowledge gap a bit, too, to A level entry, but I am assured that 'double takers' who could have managed (and should have been given the opportunity to try!) triple bridge the gap pretty quickly.

It doesn't have to be structured like that Erebus though. The exact same exams, taken at the same sitting, can lead to three individual science GCSEs, as opposed to one triple science GCSE in further additional science. I also cannot believe that p3, c3 or b3 are particularly difficult to deliver compared with modules 1 and 2 in the three sciences

Erebus That's quite strange, must be different exam boards doing triple different ways.
DD is doing OCR, 3 separates. The core and additional they offer sit combined papers (P1, B1, C1 = Unit 1 and P2, C2,B2 = Unit 2 of core, with the 3s and 4s being additional). She sat Unit 1 of this in yr9, and found the combined paper most confusing. Never completed the core, as school realised could not count 4 science GCSEs. But has found the exams in the format P1. P2, P3 etc much more sensible.

As I said earlier in the thread though, having problems with 6th form (at outstanding comp that only does double science) understanding the separates, and being clear on their requirements for Physics A level.

I don't know about them all, but with AQA triple science can either be done as Biology, Physics, Chemistry or Core, Additional, Further. It is the same units, but arranged differently.

Although it is possible with both, the C/A/F route does lend itself to being split easier over different years (eg Yr9,10,11). With the move to linear exams only, I can see the take up of the C/A/F route becoming more popular than before.

Son @ grammar: foundation in yr10, double science in yr 11, was really poor preparation for a level (far too much writing in foundation for a science subject, very few practicals). OK for the really bright, but the mid needed more prep I think.

daughter @ state comp: triple for top 2 sets optional, but not compulsory. First said that they could take level 1,2,3 of two diff sciences, so you could conceivably do bio + physics, bio + chem, physics + chem (which would sort of be equivalent to separate gcses in bio/chem) but this turned out to be impractical for timetabling. Disadvantage: triple uses up an option.

daughter's best mate @ independent . 3 sciences compulsory - she hates them but good for school. Ridiculous.

Also, daughter's school have just started doing iGCSEs sciences, not sure why, more prestigious I know but not at all sure what motivates her state comp here.

OCR are now offering Core/Additional/Further - with exactly the same units as Phys/Chem/Biol, but allowing exams to be sat in Year9/10/11 so that the overall burden of terminal exams is reduced.

DS1 is at a mid-level, alrightish comp with intake from a relatively deprived area. School specialises in Science, intake of around 160 a year. Age range of 11-16 with a partnership in place for 16-18 with the nearest other comp. They do offer triple science to those in the top set, in fact they are desperate for those deemed able to take it. DS1 is very scientifically minded (it helps that I was doing a Bio based undergrad when he hit his obsessional sciencey phase at around 8) and the Head was so keen for DS1 to take the triple and still do a language that he made an exception to their usual 'blocking' of options, so letting him chose an A, 2 Bs and a C instead of A, B and 2 Cs.

I think that was mostly because the Head was very keen for DS1 to take the requisite GCSEs for the EBAC though, and DS1 said if he was going to do triple science, he would drop French so that he could still take IT. There has been a shifting and DS1 is now taking triple science, IT and French :)

DS2 is at the other local comp in year 7 and hasn't a clue if they offer triple science. It is 11-18 and a drama specialising school with an intake of 280ish. So far, the only GCSE information I can get out of the school is that they offer Dance in year 8 as it is an additional fluff qualification. DS2 is more concerned with taking that to hone his street dance skills than considering any sort of academic future. If the school do triple science though, he will be taking it barring any major loss of motivation/brain power between now and then.

OP, I really would put your school under a lot of pressure about this!

It's not so much 'how it looks' or whether you can bridge the gap between double and triple (I'm sure you can)...it's more about valuing science.

How can a school say it trully values science if it doesn't even offer the triple?

I would contact the HOD and ask them outright for their opinion on it!

The answer I got was "well we send people off to do natural sciences at russell group unis so we must be doing something right" - which is true for the top (in a grammar so high end) but not for the middle/bottom of grammar school - it just those people who could/should be ending up in tech-y former poly /post 92 unis to do more applied science.. Frustrating for all.

I really agree with wordfactory about value, but would argue the same applies to modern languages (daughter gets to do triple science but only one lang, can pick up a second in yr 10, but that seems a bit late to me and her - whole swathe of careers not open to her). I would go and talk to them though.

Perhaps they prefer to send people to RG universities rather than former ploys? Just a thought. If it was me, and I was capable of doing something interesting at an RG university or applied science at a former poly I know what I'd do.

Having said that I agree that all schools should offer triple. For those kids that want to do it, and are capable, it's a disgrace if they are prevented from doing it. In exactly the same way as it's a disgrace if kids that want to do arts subjects are prevented from doing them (which happens rather more often). My Y8 DS hasn't made up his mind about whether he wants to do triple science yet, but he's well on track to do it by his school's criteria. I'm rather saddened that his school doesn't offer the opportunity to do double maths GCSE though, since he is excellent at maths and would easily be able to cope with it and do well.

Oh, and I agree with samonly about mdl too, even though they are about as far from being my thing as it;s possible to be. Language skills are so valuable, and every kid should have the opportunity to acquire them in a meaningful useful way. At DSs school they do French GCSE early (Y9) and they start German in Y8 which they can continue to GCSE in Y11 unless they swap to Spanish in Y10. DS has already told me he is sticking with German, not just because he is doing well at it (he is) but because he thinks only 2 years of Spanish 'won't be enough'. It;s a shame. IME Spanish is a more useful language. Ah well.

Why do you think Spanish is more useful?

Because my job involves global travelling. And IME the people I work with in Germany, and the people in eg airports, taxi drivers, hotels etc, all speak excellent English (many German international businesses actually choose to work in English). In Spain and in South and Central America - very very different story. It can be really difficult, English is not the automatic second language, in many of those countries, and there is resistance to going with the flow and working in English, using English language software etc (which Germans are by and large happy to do, also the people in Eastern Europe for whom German is often a bridging/common language - as is English). Strangely, I've found more resistance to using English and more devotion to sticking to German in Austria than in Germany. They do, admittedly, still like speaking German in some Baltic countries, but they prefer their own languages and they are fine with English, the german thing was always a stand against using Russian (or so I'm told by my colleagues). Me, I'm quite comfortable with written German, in a business or travel context, although I can't speak it at all, but my close colleagues all agree that the future for them is English (or Chinese) whereas the Spanish speaking people I meet are still pretty wedded to sticking to their own language(s) (there is more than one version of 'Spanish' of course).

RussiansOnTheSpree, of course they should be sending the top to the Russell Group unis, but the bottom 50% of their science cohort should get an equivalent preparation for their a levels to those who are doing triple science gcses elsewhere - at no point in the first term of AS did anyone say "you will have to catch up on knowledge that other people have had drummed into them since Yr 9" - I'm guessing that the top of the class could work this out for themselves/ listened to their parents / tutors. Essentially this relies on the top being self-starters who don't need much teaching but leaves the rest in the lurch. It's the uneven playing field that I object to and the narrowing of opportunity.

I would be interested to see figures using double science / triple science at GCSE as predictors for a level choice - does anyone know of any?

State comprehensive girls school with @850 pupils does offer triple science in timetable. Equivalent boys school in same town only offers double science. They share 6th form. Comprehensive with 1600 pupils specialising in sport & performing arts does offer triple.

Outstanding state comp, 11-16, small (c120 in each year group), offers triple science to top two sets, starting in Yr 9, in addition to their 4 option choices. For those not in top two sets, I believe it is then possible to choose it as one of the option groups.

Dd at a true comp. age range 11-18.

Yes they offer triple science.