Critique these gcse options

[Verycold]

English, Maths, 3 sciences, French, History, Latin, RE, Music

Main questions are:

Is Latin worthwhile? What about RE (full course, not just the compulsory bit). And how musical do you have to be for Music?

[Talkinpeace]

RE not GCSE ! tired

[Talkinpeace]

I got DD opted out of GCSE in total and plan to do the same with DS

3 years of GCSEs is silly

[circular]

DD1 did Music GCSE last year, now doing Music A level.

Agree with Theas18 on some of the frustrations. Not so much with in the ability, as her small group were all around Grade 4 to 6/7 standard.
More in that they were all into pop, jazz or musical theatre, she was the only classical/baroque player, so had to get external teacher in for ensemble part if performance.

Her biggest dread was the composition as not at all creative. Until she realised she just had to do something that was theoretically and technically correct, rather than produce a great sound.

Would advise your daughter to keep grade 5 pieces going for the performance, no advantage in performing any higher for GCSE.

[davidjrmum]

My daughter chose music (she has played the tenor horn since she was 7) but really struggled with composition and was spending so much time trying to do her music homework that she was finding it difficult to complete her other homework. She changed to history and is much happier. Music is definitely not an easy option.

[JugglingFromHereToThere]

Well I did Latin O level and don't feel I ever remembered much of it to use outside of Latin lessons/exams. I enjoyed learning a bit about Roman history and studying The Aeneid - but treated it more like an extra English (latin) literature subject as I enjoyed that far more. Languages weren't really my thing.

[throckenholt]

hmm - there is a lot of overlap between french and latin in vocab and grammar.

Personally I think of latin less as a language (in that it isn't a living useful language) - more of an insight into culture and history. Also a good base for a lot of science vocabulary (although much of that is Greek based rather than latin).

[JugglingFromHereToThere]

But then again 3 languages seems quite a lot throckenholt unless that is your strength. I think hopefully you can make your GCSE choices with at least some broad idea of where your strengths lie?
But I'm someone who has always found languages difficult - too much to remember, and too illogical. And for me, I found more meaning and interest in other subjects (typical English attitude too ?!)

[throckenholt]

Personally I would swap RE for either geography or another modern language. You aren't giving her much scope if she decides she likes languages.

[JugglingFromHereToThere]

I think most balanced options are usually possible though lljkk

• when dd made her choices last year there was a huge number of possibilities I thought.

So, I'd be very surprised if DS couldn't do History, Art, and Music for his 3 choices (after all the more or less compulsory ones, including French as his MFL)
I am surprised they don't require people to do a humanity (other than RS at my DCs school) but I suppose it gives the DC a chance to specialise more in arts subjects, and include a tech, or less academic ones like drama or PE.
DS has considered PE especially as he's thought about becoming a teacher, and I agree it could be useful for that.
But career wise obviously things still very much open - he has only just started in Y7 (Mother (AKA Me) possibly over-thinking things slightly at this stage )

[lljkk]

GCSE options chosen this early in y8? Wow. The earliest I had heard of was start thinking about it in Feb of yr8 with final selections made in May yr8.

DS-y9 won't make his selections until March-May next yr and I'm not thinking much about it until we confirm what's possible, especially in the timetable.

[singaporeswing]

I did the same, except German instead of Latin. Having gone on to do a degree in French, the Latin will come in useful for that.

History and RE are very focused on fact-learning and learning how to write essays etc in a particular way. I got A* in both by learning dates, events, names etc off by heart and applying it to a written template for an essay.

Music was my chill-out choice - when everything else was stressing me out, I'd escape to the music room to compose, which again scored me highly.

I was grade 4 flute at that time and scored the highest GCSE mark in the region. Not a soft option at all, but if she is musical then it will come as a welcome break from the essay-writing etc.

[JugglingFromHereToThere]

My DS is only in Y7 but already thinking (OK I've asked him !) what he might continue with for GCSE.
He enjoys both music and art and is good at both too. He plays the trumpet and has recently passed grade 5, and has grade 5 theory under his belt too.
He's getting lots of 1* for his art ATM and has just done his French project (pretty free choice of topic) on the French Impressionists.
He also enjoys PE, especially the rugby he's just started now he's at secondary school. But I think we'll keep that as a non exam subject and just encourage him with all the extra-curricular team sports that go on at his school.
Partly because, after all compulsory subjects, including RS (as it's a faith school) and French (a MFL) there are only really 3 choices to make and I feel one of these should be a strong humanity (not just RS, but either history or geography)
DD made her choices last year (hence prompting DS to think what he might do) She chose History, Geography, and Art (as she also loves her art) She does seem particularly interested in the humanities though also doing extremely well in, and loving, Biology
I think DS's 3 (after English, Maths, 3 Sciences, French, RS) are looking likely to be History, Art, and Music - He said just last night that he thought he'd choose History over Geography. I think Horrible Histories may have been a good influence with them both - they know all the words to the songs which I think gives a pretty good basic knowledge to start from - better than my knowledge of history anyway!
DD studied Latin for 2 years and really enjoyed it but dropped it as can only choose it as a second language after French (as it's not a MFL) and languages aren't her greatest strength. I think DS is likely to do the same - I think Latin for 2 years is still very worthwhile, especially from the history perspective.
Anyway, that's us!

[breatheslowly]

If you don't ask the right questions, you may not get the answer you need to be able to make an informed decision and teachers are enthusiastic with incentives to keep the numbers taking their subject up. I still stand by that - some teachers do sell their subject and want to keep numbers up. It isn't unreasonable to point this out.

[BikeRunSki]

I did O level Music about 100 years ago. I am not that musical, struggled with the aural and oral, but made up for it on the History and Theory though. Got a C. Was around Grade 4 standard flute and 3 piano at the start of the course.

[AntoinetteCosway]

Your daughter sounds intelligent OP so I'm sure she is doint both, but can I just check that when you say English you mean English and English Literature? Most people do both but there is a separate, single English GCSE too and it's really aimed at people of much lower aptitude.

[BettyOff]

Very, all schools have pros and cons and if you're happy with the school and your DD is happy there then you don't need to worry too much about it. If they are going above and beyond the syllabus hopefully it's to make the subjects more interesting and engaging for the students and concentrating on being more than just an A* machine.

I did music GCSE quite a while ago so a lot may have changed under duress because the teacher told my DF I'd definitely get an A. I was grade 5 violin but hasn't done any theory grades. My grade in the performance aspect was fine but we also had to do a lot of composition that I was crap at & it pulled me down to a C. I still wish I'd done PE instead!

Other than that they seem like great subject choices. As many others have said they leave her open to lots of different A level mixes & therefore lots of different career paths. Latin is a good one to do as it is very useful throughout life, my school didn't offer it but I'd love to have done it knowing what I know now.

[Verycold]

Fine, so should I take dd out of the school today or can it wait till after Christmas?

The school has won numerous awards, has Ofsted outstanding in all categories, gets a glowing write up in the good schools guide...

All bollocks I'm sure.

Reading through your post though, what stands out to me is that the school prides itself on not just being about grades, but about developing the whole person, which is what makes it so appealing!!

[friday16]

They explain it by saying it gives them time to go above and beyond the syllabus.

I'm sorry, but with extensive experience of both my own children, and close friends' children, in various super-selective settings, that's just bollocks. Firstly, you have to ask why: unless all the pupils are getting A*, why would you spend time on things not on the syllabus when you could be doing work to improve their grades? Secondly, you have again to ask why: given such schools teach up to twelve (and in some cases more) GCSEs, and pupils then drop down to three or four A Levels, what is the benefit of all this extra depth? Thirdly, what evidence is there that this claimed additional work helps the pupils and A Level or later? And finally, and most damningly, what evidence is there that it actually happens: if you have the subject knowledge, why not ask the school to show you a lesson plan for some work that goes above and beyond the syllabus? Because I can virtually guarantee you that it's a shadow,

I'm afraid it's one of those self-serving myths, rather like the justifications made for teaching iGCSE even though it's easier and now the favourite of failing comps or switching to Pre-U even though most schools have rejected it out of hand and universities treat it like plutonium.

A certain sort of school tries to claim, and a certain sort of parent is willing to accept, that GCSEs are in some way debased coinage, and are so easy that anyone could get a A, so we as a school have decided to switch to an alternative which offers more rigour, depth and has both a wetter nose and a glossy coat, which universities can't get enough of. OK, headmaster, presumably you made this decision in the aftermath of that year in which everyone did, in fact, get A in every subject? Ah, no. That's odd, headmaster, because if everyone can get an A* in every subject owing to how easy the exams are, how come your pupils don't? Ah, says the headmaster, that's because we're doing things in more depth and using more rigorous exams.

Parents and the school can then explain away why a cohort from the 2% of the ability range, taught usually in smaller classes, without any of the issues of dealing with FSM, EAL and so on, could still only manage to get about 10% of the cohort, if that, through to all A* at GCSE. And they do it by taking other exams that allegedly have more rigour, although there is no evidence beyond the marketing material of the awarding body of this, and/or claiming that they have their KS4 teachers focused on matters far more intellectual than mere GCSE results.

It's just a smokescreen.

[EvilTwins]

Yes of course, but you began this by suggesting that teachers shouldn't be trusted in this matter as they're all going to tell children to take their subject in order to keep numbers up!

In reality, schools give plenty of guidance.

[breatheslowly]

That's fine, but on an individual level, shouldn't every pupil be given some sort of guidance on which subjects they take, both to maximise their chances of good grades and to match their interests? It's all very well to do lots of hand wringing and avoid the question, but you would be doing a disservice to a pupil if you didn't at least try to find a solution to the hypothetical "music or geography" question for them.

[EvilTwins]

You're missing my point- baseline data, from which the appropriate GCSE grade is extrapolated does not take stuff like talent into account. If I have a child in GCSE Performing Arts who is quite keen, but not terribly talented, and who got a L5 in KS2 SATS, then that child is capable of. GCSE grade A no matter what I think.

These are the sticks ofsted use to bash schools with.

[breatheslowly]

Won't a music teacher be able to spot a child with/without an aptitude in music? I'm sure I could have been taught enough to get a pass of some sort in music GCSE, but don't have any talent in it. Any of my music teachers could have spotted that.

[EvilTwins]

I think that's a bit odd. But suggests that everyone ought to come out with A/A* grades, which they don't. I know lots do... Shame - as I said earlier, so many of my current Yr10s developed their interest in Yr 9.

[Verycold]

It is that one. They explain it by saying it gives them time to go above and beyond the syllabus.

[EvilTwins]

Breathe- thing is, for all except English, Maths & Science, the baseline is an amalgamation of KS2 data, so it would suggest the same grade for everything.