GCSE Triple Science...is this really how it is now??

[bethnella]

I had a progress meeting with dd's tutor yesterday, who happens to be head of science. He has explained that next year, Y9, they will start GCSE triple science by spending 1 year doing biology only and sitting the exam! Then in Y10 do Physics for a year, followed by an exam and then Chemistry in Y11!! Is this normal?? I find it hard to understand why? Surely A level biology will be far more difficult if you haven't studied it since Y9!!! Any input would be great! Should I post this in the staff room???

Hells, I don't think DD is planning on taking chemistry for A level! I think the school do it so that there are less exams in Y11. The other local comp does the same, but biology in Y10 instead of chemistry.

hellsbells makes a good point about cross fertilisation of the sciences.

The whole point of introducing the triple and double was to ensure that the majority of pupils studied all three ciences at some level. How they sit side by side (and also with maths) is kinda part of the concept.

In fact, DS school goes further and believes even A level sciences should be avoided in isolation where possible, particularly biology and chemistry.

I'd be really interested to know how the science teachers justify the model at the OP's school.

Word, I'm guessing it comes down to league tables. That's the world we live in, sadly.

I thought studying all 3 sciences until the end of ks4 was compulsory or has that now changed?

I think the only thing compulsory now is not sitting any part of the exam until the whole course is completed. It can't be split into the 'teach B1, test B1' etc anymore. I think!!!

Depends where you are, OP.

My niece is in Wales and taking her GCSEs next month - they are still doing modules and has already sat modules 1 and 2 in all three sciences, so she only module 3 to sit next month

I think bethnella is right. And if they fail/do badly in say B1, they have to resit all three - not just B1.

sassysally DS1 is doing 'triple science' and it says in bold on the choices form that to do that is the equivalent of taking 3 GCSE's in the time allocated for 2, this may be what they are referring too in the 'fast track' posters school.

OP it's so hard isn't it, DS1 is very science based and wants to do some impossible sounding courses at uni but his school has them all doing 12 GCSE's if they do triple science (well he is doing 11 and BTEC engineering) and I can't help think it would be better to do 9 or 10 really well than 12 in 2 years. I am scared about the home work so goodness only knows how they feel!

hellsbells99 they do all three sciences but the final exams are the equivalent of 2 GCSE's for 'double science'. They have messed it around to a ridiculous level.

Hi Lost - yes I understand that but Bethnella is saying her DD will stop doing biology in year 9 and I know it used to be compulsory that all 3 sciences had to be studied to the end of ks4 - hence they can't take 'just' biology and chemistry at GCSE, they have to take all 3 either as double science or 3 separate sciences ('triple').
....but maybe the rules have changed yet again

They do it to try to guarantee at least a C in all three which is more likely if done over three years than two. Looks good on the league tables as school can say they get X kids doing triple science and getting a C but disadvantages the brighter kids by potentially capping their achievement by making them take the first exam two years younger than they would be normally. Stupid practise but not massively uncommon.

Universities prefer fewer (9-10) gcses at higher grades than loads (10-15) at a C but for league tables the latter some schools think looks better.

It's just so bloody low rent. The antithisis of a good education!

I know our school won't let them take a subject for AS level unless they have at least a B at GCSE - so taking an exam in year 9 could potentially affect their choices as they are more likely to get a lower grade than they would have 2 years later as well as the impact of the huge gap since they last studied the subject

Ah yes, I see what you mean hellsbells, it's all just SO stupid!

Making it harder for young people to progress to a level and university in science! . I would kick up a massive fuss about this.

I would kick up a massive fuss about this

Schools are trying to do their best with the crappy situation that Gove has put the exam system in.

I'm all for kicking up a fuss, but it needs to be at the ballot box.

Sorry creamteas but the vast majority of other schools have not reacted to the changes with nonsense such as this! It's just a cop out to blame Gove. The responsibility here lies with the school.

Sorry creamteas but the vast majority of other schools have not reacted to the changes with nonsense such as this

But it is not nonsense for all pupils. Clearly those possessed with a good memory who want to do science A levels will be better off with the all in year 11 approach.

But other children who cannot cope with too many exams in one year and have no intention of taking science A levels, might do better with a year by year approach.

As I said earlier, schools are having to balance the risks of early entry with the risks of over assessment. What ever they do, some children will be better served than others.

DC taking compressed triple science are not likely to fall into the camp of strugglers vis a vis science.

Anyone in that camp can do a double. Or even a single at a push.

I don't know any other school who would defend this for the top set science (who generally do a compressed triple).

I think your're in danger of defending any and every idiotic practice by schools, in an effort to always blame Gove.

TBH, I'm no fan of his, but this is an easily managable situation and is being managed by the majority of schools.

I did my GCSEs four years ago. We did triple science starting from Year 9 and ran modules concurrently - we'd do a week of Biology, a week of Chemistry, a week of Physics, and then we'd do the exams for the three modules. The school in the OP's post is doing it in a ridiculous way!

To be fair moomin they can't do modules aby more.

However, there are plenty of alternatives to the nonsense in the OP.

The real problem is forcing everyone, no matter what their interests and ability, to study science at GCSE. My sister did no science O levels. She got excellent O level results, excellent A level results and a first class degree in history from UCL. She is not by any stretch of the imagination uneducated. She was crap at science though. she'd have struggled to pass chemistry and biology - her physics might have been ok, she got an A for O level maths. I only did physics O level, dropped chemistry and biology not because I was crap at them but because I much preferred history.

Gove's idea of what constitutes a Good Education really doesn't tally with my own. :(

Much as I hate Gove, people have had to study all three sciences for about twenty years now. So that one cannot be layed at his door!

But they DO NOT study "all three sciences"
the foundation level core science curriculum is not something any University department would recognise.

Its been a fight to get Triple Science back into state schools, FFS do not let them take it back OUT again

I'd rather lose triple science than music. Every time.