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?

Given they're in year 8 and will do the new specs how can they even start to teach these next September - the specs won't have been published.... Combination is great but school sound crazy tbh.

but the new specs will only affect English, Maths and possibly Science for this year group , and if the school do igcse potentially not at all. The option subjects will remain as is.

I agree that it's a good spread of subjects. You have the basics (Eng, Maths, Sci) a language, a humanity (so the EBacc is covered) and an expressive art. The only thing missing is some hands-on technology subject - but then perhaps your DD doesn't like tech?

History and RE are a case of learning and remembering lots of facts

I disagree with this. In History there is a lot of analysis and sorting wheat from chaff (compare and contrast source documents, how do you know which ones are reliable, etc). DD always loved RE as there is no right or wrong answer. As long as you can convincingly support your argument, then you get the points.

Great selection.

I do know about music gcse and grade 5 practical and theory ( 3yrs ahead of exam time!) is a great basis for it. She'll find it easy mostly - and not too time consuming. In "the old days" grade 5 was deemed o level equivalent.

Just be aware that, even in a grammar they won't all be of that standard ( we are in an identical situation but year 10 with dd2) and group work/performance / composition is part if it and terribly frustrating when " but they can't play interesting stuff or transpose" - that'll be the 2 grade 1 trumpeters.

Group work is always like that though! Eldest has suffered it at uni. It's a " learning experience". As I explained - she needs to be flexible enough to help them write a simple enough part that fits with the rest!

Agree with senua. History is a lot of analysis, both in essay writing and comparing and contrasting sources.

Obviously you have to know the facts as well.

As long as she is committed to the slog (and it sounds like the school ethos will enable that) then it sounds like a fantastic selection. I know virtually nothing about Music but am a big fan of including at least one creative subject. I agree History is a good option for developing her written communication skills. I wouldn't choose RE but then I was forced to take the Roman Catholic paper

The school does get amazing results, though I struggle with this three year thing a bit as well.

She doesn't want to anything "tech"

DD1s verdict, Music is hard work and likely to be her one C She is a scratch grade 5 dyslexic singer who hasn't done grade 5 theory.

RE is rather formulaic, but interesting in parts.

Geography is a slog just loads of learning facts and type examples (this is from a gradeA/A* scientist for whom understanding the processes is a piece of cake)

Drama and art are Great!, DD would recommend either as people's Art choice. She doesn't seem to have found art ridiculously time consuming, but she isn't that kind of perfectionist.

Her DF really enjoyed Latin (as did my DH, who can still remember enough to make a fair stab at Spanish)

Scientist DF is doing RE as her fourth A level and seems to enjoy it

The three year thing does sound a bit mad. ours is 2yr GCSE course but top ses in first year are doing lots of A level stuff in sciencs and maths so they dont get bord as pretty much covered their main course work. Dragging it out longer at a superslective school seems bit mad!
Would Latin be from scratch or has some been done before? would think probably quite hard if not?

The school does get amazing results

Does it? My kids are at a top ten nationally super-selective. All A at GCSE is still comparatively rare (about 5%). Given the intake is in the top 2% of the cohort, I think that's actually pretty shocking (and is refec. My elder achieved this, but she's bright enough rather than some stellar genius, and she's reasonably hard working rather than some Stakhanovite labourer. I really can't see why every child in the school didn't do as well. Decent enough teaching, bright enough kids, supportive enough parents (otherwise they wouldn't be in the super-selective in the first place): why do 95% of them not get all A?

Well the school is definitely the best in the county, and has recently had outstanding in all areas, so I will just have to trust them that they know what they're doing with the three year courses.

Her music teacher is the right person to ask. However you should be careful as teachers sometimes have an incentive to attract students to their subject (e.g. if they don't have enough students to run 2 classes they might end up teaching a bit of another subject they don't like). So don't just ask "is she musical enough to do Music", ask "what grade might she be able to get in Music". A teacher might say yes to a pupil who might get a C grade, but they might be able to get an A in the subject they would choose instead.

Latin will be from scratch.

Breatheslowly -not sure I agree with you there. For a start, predicting grades over 3 yrs ahead is incredibly difficult, and also most schools are looking at levels of progress these days, based on KS2 results. I would be shooting myself in the foot to "predict" anything lower than this for any student. Over-predicting just to encourage students to take courses though, is madness in this day and age - I teach Drama and if I did that, I'd then have to spend the next 4 years making that over-prediction become reality or I'd have questions to answer (and PLP to lose)

Evil - I don't mean that teachers would overpredict. What I mean is that when asked the question "is my DD musical enough to take GCSE music" a teacher might say yes to a pupil who might achieve a C grade but not really be particularly strong in music. "Yes" could mean anything from "your child is the reincarnation of Mozart" to "they will scrape a pass". Presumably the OP's DD has other subjects that she could take. She might not want a C in Music when she might be able to get an A in Geography. A teacher who needs to bulk out their classes might not elaborate on the "yes". After all if you love Music you might well value each and every grade achieved by a pupil in your subject as a real success. It just might not be as valuable to the pupil as the A in Geography would be.

Therefore asking for some sort of indication of the grade that your child might achieve seems reasonable and I would expect the teacher to be honest, but probably give a range of grades. Perhaps something like "your DD clearly enjoys music but struggles with X & Y at the moment she would be on course for a C/D but with some real effort she might be able to get a B". So you've given a range of 3 grades, without committing to any of them but indicated that the student wouldn't be likely to get A/A*.

If students and parents can't ask about what they might be able to achieve in each subject then how are they meant to make an informed decision about which subjects to take?

I would find it incredibly difficult to accurately predict a GCSE grade for a yr 8 student, and if a parent asked I would say so. I would also point out that baseline data suggests a potential grade of X.

I agree with those saying a 3 yr KS4 is silly, btw- I have 58 kids doing GCSE/BTEC Performing Arts in Yr 10 currently, but had they chosen options in Yr 8, I don't think it would have been anywhere near that number - the majority made huge amount of progress AND discovered a real enjoyment for the subject in Yr 9.

Evil - it's that "baseline data suggests a potential grade of X" that would be useful in picking between subjects, all other things being equal (which obviously they aren't).

I agree with you that children do bloom in some subjects and might not take them if that can't be anticipated. I still have no idea why I took art GCSE, but I actually did very well in it and loved it.

EvilTwins, I believe we live in the same area, so you can guess perhaps which school it is... I have heard so many say a three year ks4?is silly, but in so many ways it is such an amazing school!

If it's where I think it is (have PMd you) then I'm surprised that they do it. I teach at a very different school and in all honesty find it difficult to fill 2 yrs with the GCSE spec, let alone 3.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.