GCSE too simple? too hard?

[Autumnsky]

From some articles I read and experience from DH, I have this impression, that GCSE is too simple to prepare students for University(science and engineering). Also , from DS's secondary school experience, I feel his is not challenged so much for his secondary.

However, from the GCSE results at our local normal secondaries schools( we are not in a grammar area, the overall standard is just average national)is only 50-60% rate for A-C in 5 subjects include math and English. And some secondaries are only around 30-50%.

Now , the new GCSE is going to be graded as 1-9 to cater for a big range of abilities. But just think about the school, they have to provide different education for different levels. Some students are complaining they are bored, some just can't catch up.

Would it be a good idea that from Y9 or Y10, students can choose different path according their future career plan? For students who don't want to go to University, they maybe can choose an easier option but with broad knowledge, and for students who want continue University, they can have a GCSE which is hard, fill the gap between GCSE and A level a bit. So they can get better prepared for University?

At our DS's school, the "higher end" of the Maths classes are already working at higher level GCSE Maths, and they've only just started in year 9 (Those who've already achieved equivalent C grade at Foundation level GCSE Maths at end of Year 8). The plan is that they'll be at the level of A/A* in higher level Maths GCSE at end of year 9, so they're going to do Further Maths GCSE in years 10 and 11, and the top end even starting the A level Maths course in year 11 so they can do further Maths A level in the sixth form.

It does indeed seem that for the more able pupils, the GCSE standard is too low, but yes, too high for others. Same with science, they start the GCSE course a year early in year 9 and once they've taught to the highest GCSE standards, they start the A level course, again in year 11. It really bridges the huge gap between GCSE and A level to start the A level course early, even months before the GCSE is sat!

I think it's all about researching and choosing your secondary school wisely. We chose DS's school because they were open and upfront about stretching the most able pupils eg, like the Maths dept offering further maths as part of the normal timetable. We were really put off other schools who couldn't really offer anything extra - for two of them, the best they could offer for able Maths pupils was the National Maths Challenge competition which is OK, but not really helpful for working towards Maths/Science A levels at top grades in anticipation of Science or Engineering at Uni.

I do feel that the current system is aimed at the "average" student and can fail the most-able and least-able unless the school and teachers really put their all into catering for the extremes of the spectrum.

Well you can to some extent.
e.g. Science. The able keen ones do triple science. This has 50% more content than the standard double science.

I did Physics to A level, and my degree was Maths. I think there is a lot of content even in double science GCSE.

I don't think GCSEs should be about preparing for university as such. They should be about providing a broad common education, but which provide enough foundation for A levels. I think it would be a shame to have your A level choices dependent too much on a pathway you choose in y9 which would happen under your scheme. Y8/9 is very early for specialising.

A levels are about preparing for university. Yes there is a big step up, but the kids are older and have chosen the subjects, so should be prepared to work. I think the new 9-1 grades will help the most able pupils as they will be striving for 9s at GCSEs rather than being able to get A* without having to work too much. I think it is not developing the work ethic which stumps many kids at A level from what I've read here.

No, if it wasn't for the ebacc being compulsory, I can think of two near me that would be hounding everyone onto solely vocational subjects to boost their ( as in the schools) pass rate. Letting them choose early would offer an easy get out route for any school not wanting pupils messing up their pass rate.

I agree with taxguru re able children. Except our local secondary doesn't bother with the maths challenge. One maths gcse and double science is their offering for able children. At least with GCSEs up to a 9 there is at least some bargaining power for a coasting a* pupil to be offered something more challenging.

Agree with teen the purpose of GCSEs is firstly to provide a good, all round education and secondly to prepare pupils for A level. It is A levels that prepare pupils for university.
Having said that though the whole education system is designed not just for going to university but also with finding a career and life in the real world.
For Science more able pupils should have the opportunity to take Triple science (or 3 separate Sciences in Physics, Chemistry and Biology). This is supposed to be a national entitlement so schools should be offering this option not just Double Science.
GCSEs have changed significantly since they were first introduced in the late 1980s so your DHs experience of them is probably outdated.
Agree with taxguru with respect to choosing a secondary school and making sure they cater for the needs of able children. The overall percentages for GCSE tells you very little about a school, you need to look at what above average intake children achieve if that's appropriate for your child. Some schools have good enrichment programmes for gifted and talented pupils e.g. schemes where they visit local universities.
I don't agree with taxguru that early entry for GCSE or even A level is the best way to challenge more able dcs though. In fact it could penalise them as the first GCSE entry now counts for league tables and top universities prefer pupils to have taken GCSEs (or A levels) in one sitting.
Would it be a good idea that from Y9 or Y10, students can choose different path according their future career plan? For students who don't want to go to University, they maybe can choose an easier option but with broad knowledge, and for students who want continue University, they can have a GCSE which is hard, fill the gap between GCSE and A level a bit. So they can get better prepared for University?
This is definitely not a good idea OP. First of all, students don't decide for themselves which level of qualification they would like to do - it's decided on the basis of their ability and potential i.e. teacher assessments. The 2 exams at aged 16 route was proposed by the former education secretary but was overwhelmingly rejected.

Would it be a good idea that from Y9 or Y10, students can choose different path according their future career plan?

I think they do, at least it's pretty clear DC's schools have different pathways that mean specific combos of GCSEs & even what level GCSE to aim for. Lower ability kids sit the lower tier papers so they are working on a paper which suits their range of abilities, high ability kids sit the higher tier, etc.

As llijk describes some schools have different pathways. This is called streaming. It can suit dc who are high ability all round and those who are below average. But it doesn't suit dcs who are much better in one subject area e.g. Maths than others e.g. English (or vice versa) and doesn't always work that well for pupils of middle ability.
Personally I think that the decision about Higher or Foundation tiers shouldn't always be made before pupils even start the course.
However not all subjects currently have tiered GCSEs and there are going to be even fewer tiered GCSE subjects under the 9-1 curriculum so will be less relevant to the OP.

Our school doesn't enforce pathways, though I presume they guide if a student selects an inappropriate set of options.

Higher and Foundation tier were not decided upon as such until after the January mocks. Obviously bottom set kids wouldn't have covered the higher syllabus for maths, but for borderline sets they would decide later.

I remember having a conversation with DD in Feb y11 re Foundation v Higher science papers.

mmmm, pathways is looser than just streaming where we are, because pathway can handle some range of mixed ability (a genius in math & science but a dunce in English & history would be accommodated for). And the decision about which tier paper to sit often isn't made before they start. It's more flexible & subtle than Catslife describes. But it might mean that some kids weren't offered more than one / any language, or high achievers not able to take catering because those places offered first to lower sets, etc.

Yes llijk most schools do operate a pathway system that is flexible. There is currently overlap between the Foundation and Higher GCSE system so that middle ability pupils can move from one course to another at a later date as appropriate. I agree that this is a good system.
I suspect however that the OP is asking for a more rigid system from aged 13-14 to separate out the "academic" and low achievers at the start opf the course and it is this suggestion that I don't agree with as it's too inflexible.

Years ago, there were O levels and CSEs. A grade 1 CSE was equivalent to a level 6 (lowest level passing grade) at O level. At my school, teachers decided who did what subject by subject.

Well, GCSEs are not designed to prepare students for Science and Engineering courses at University. That is what A-levels do.

GCSEs give a general, rounded education to all students.

I know GCSE is not directly preparing students for University. But because GCSE is catering for too wide ability ranges, GCSE is too simple for able students, and consequently lowered A levels as well. And apparently, as GCSE is not challenged enough for able students, it is depending on individual school to make up for it. That's what I think it's not right. For math, DS1's school is providing additional math for top set. I know some other schools are doing it as well. But some schools are not, then what about their able students?

And at the same time, some students at the bottom set have to struggle through GCSE, maybe get E, F. Wouldn't it be more efficient to provide tailored stuff to them? Like math, maybe consolidate what useful for actual life? I say this, as I have meet some people from my work place who is not even able to do percentage, average , such basic stuff.

There's not just one GCSE though. There are different tiers of papers. There are different difficulties of questions, designed to stretch the most able. Give the examiners some credit!

As my DH works in an Russell University , for engineering. His class has nearly 50% overseas students, although English students entered on AAA, but the overall performance is not as strong as Europe students, especially Germany. So I am wondering about why.
But of course, I did think Germany is very strong on science and engineering, maybe their engineer students are the most able students. As for Britain, there are lots of able students have gone to medicine, banking. So maybe this is part of the reason. Now , it's very hard to find an able British PHD candidates. If there is one coming to look around,quite a few professors and lecturers would try to get him to choose their own subject.

Autmnsky could it be that in Europe pupils study for A level equivalent courses for 3 years rather than 2 years in the UK. I went to RG uni and remember being rather intimated by visiting German students on an exchange programme. They were several years older than us and it also takes them longer to complete their degrees.
Now , it's very hard to find an able British PHD candidates. If there is one coming to look around,quite a few professors and lecturers would try to get him to choose their own subject.
Isn't this rather sexist OP? There are several women with PhDs on MN.

When I did my engineering degree, we were 4% foreign.

I am wondering if your DH's class studies statistics.