Sitting GCSEs early?

[StrawberryDaiquiriPlease]

Is it true schools are now pushing pupils through GCSEs as early as Year 7?

What is the point of this?
Some very traditional schools do not believe in sitting more than 8 GCSEs so what is this idea to push pupils through as many as possible as soon as possible?
Is it really deep high quality education or are we just cramming pupils before exams?

y9 is the earliest completion I've heard of as a routine thing and it's very frowned upon on MN. Weirdly enough, everyone I know IRL thinks that y9 to finish some GCSEs is great, takes so much of the pressure off.

or are we just cramming pupils before exams?

I'm convinced that's exactly what the old system was (when everything finished at end of y11). Some MNers agree with me & most say completely untrue. (I am foreign so no personal experience, went thru very different system, could not be further from final-term-exam emphasis if they tried).

I think when GCSEs were modular and allowed multiple retakes, it was more attractive to get children to take some of them early. But now they are all going back to final-exam-only, I would guess the tendency to take them early will die out. I really don't understand schools putting children forward for exams early when they are not likely to score top grades, but that does seem to happen in some places.

DS is year 10, and he has done two GCSEs this year: his school gets the top sets in Maths and French to take them one year early. Maths I was fine with - he could probably have done it a couple of years ago, to be honest - but French less so, as he has only been learning it since year 7 and to my mind is not really that good. He will probably still get an A* though, as it was a modular GCSE and really very easy.

It does take a bit of the pressure off next year, but not that much: he will still be carrying on with French (I think they do some other, non-GCSE qualification next year), and Maths (they either do some other qualification or start on AS work).

Someone else was arguing that actually there will be more early GCSEs now that linear with June sittings is the only option, I can't remember the logic but it sounded pretty sound.
The logic of sitting early is to get very best results on the ones that matter most, that really matter, to focus on them. For 97% of kids who aren't aiming for the most competitive university courses, it's a very sound strategy.

I think linear will increase early entry as well.

Taking key exams such as Math and English in year 10, means that a resit can be taken in year 11 if necessary.

Also it will be easier for students to do the core, additional, further root to triple science with exams in different years, than biology, chemistry physics with all the exams at the end.

Year 7? I think that must be a garble, for that is the year that new students arrive in secondaries (unless middle schools area).

Our school only does early entry for top set mathematicians (to give enough time for them to do an extra further maths or stats A level) or MFL when it is a bilingual (or close to bilingual) speaker.

Sitting a year or two early means that children will be doing A levels and GCSEs at the same time. Thats a big pressure on young children, for what gain?

Don't some universities like the GCSEs to be taken in one sitting though?

Never heard of that.

A small minority like A levels to be taken together, but I think that is about it.

I've seen Universities ask for a number of GCSEs at the same sitting. It's all game playing by school management so that they can be confident as early as possible about how many pupils will get 5 A*-C. It isn't for the benefit of the pupils at all (true of most things in education now, sadly).

I think the problem is more that if pupils want to do very competitive courses at uni, such as medicine or vet, they need as many A*s & As as possible. If they take them early they may get Bs instead. Also if they take 2 or 3 early and then get 7 As in year 11, universities might feel that if they had taken them all in one go they might not have got the 7 As due to increased workload. I think this probably only applies to those very competitive courses, but I have heard both of these given as a reason for not taking subjects early.

Back in the days of O Levels (yes I am that old) it wasn't that uncommon to take one or two subjects early.

One of the private schools near wear I lived all the top set did O Levels a year early and then spent 3 years in the VI form.

I teach at a good school. We don't enter anyone early for their GCSEs. We give them the best shot at A* possible which in most subjects means taking the exam after 5 years of secondary school.
When modular exams were in place the earliest a module was sat was year 9.

DD1s school does all GCSEs (they do 12) in Y10, at one sitting, using the linear exams (terminal exams, no early modules, but some of the subjects do have controlled assessments). Te school has been doing this for years, it's fine. Most people who know the school seem agreed the kids there have a very high quality education.

Russians, do the children then spend 3 years on A levels after doing GCSEs a year early?

I think I answered this question from you in another thread. They do 4 or 5 A levels to A2 (I suppose A/S will be gone now so that distinction is redundant) plus gen studies plus crit thinking plus the Extended project thing. The three year 6th form gives them the opportunity to maximize effort/enjoyment at the pointy end.

Back in the dark ages my school stopped doing O level maths a year early because pupils got more better grades with a years more practice and maturity.

The top set did a calculus Add maths paper along side so we didn't get bored.