AIBU poor GCSE options?

[hornetgirl]

Short story, I invested a lot of time and emotional energy on trying to get DS into a good school. He passed 11+ in a neighboring borough but we didn't get a place as we were too far away. He didn't get into the very super selective grammar in our borough.

Eventually we got offered our 6th choice for secondary school. It is a previously failing school but now an improving academy. I have decided to run with it as we have no other options and have focused on the positives, which there are many (sports/ close to home etc).

I thought I as doing well until I was browsing the website today and realised that the year 8 GCSE options are really poor. There is no option for triple science offered at all! They do not require a modern foreign language as compulsory and the children only get three options for GCSE above the compulsory ones (one of which is PE) . So basically I ended up stuck in doom again.

This time last year I was hoping for at least a school where he could get 10/11 good GCSEs, now he is stuck in a school where he can only do a max of 9 and is extremely limited in his options. He is quite into his science, will he face trouble later in life with A levels and University if he only can choose double science?

So fed up with this whole sodding business :-(

Thanks Daisies

At DDs school they also sit 9 GCSEs as standard but can do more as fast track (lunch time and after school) if they wish. Especially Languages. Is that a possibility for your son?

PE and PHSE is also compulsory but not as a GCSE.

They do however offer separate sciences, but otherwise it's the same as your school. Assuming that PE/PHSE don't have to be included as GCSE's 9 should give him a good balance.

My DD is likely to do, eng x 2, maths, science x 3, pe, Geog/Hist, 1 other TBC and fast track Spanish. Seems fine to me.

At my son's selective private school they also do a 3 year key stage 3. It's not a bad thing IMO, nothing worse than trying to study drama with loads of kids who don't want to!

Another who would say check if they are compulsory as GCSEs as all schools have to deliver some RE/PSHE / PE lessons. Most don't make them take them as GCSEs though.
that said, I understand the thinking of 'we've got to teach half an option's time on RE, we might as well top it up and do the GCSE, as it's an excellent academic subject with really good transferable skills'.
9 is pretty normal for the new GCSE provision (for able dc).
I have a dd and a ds who have already done GCSEs, and a dd2 going through the same school, but she will end up with fewer as there is no taking extras a year early, and no coursework so it will all be on final exams, so the schools have said no more trying to do 11 or 12.
Also, if your ds is only in Yr7, I wouldn't expect it still to be the same for his GCSEs, as these things change year on year, unfortunately.

With the new GCSEs it's bit advised to take so many as some people were once doing. 8 or 9 is ample. 10/11 are not recommended, even for very bright children.

Triple science is not required for a levels. Although some schools do offer it, it's not usually open for all. At dd's school (and others we know of) it's inly done by a few and only after a 1:1 meeting between child and teachers.

Whilst a language is advised (Ebac) it isn't compulsory at all schools. It is certainly an option but not something everyone has to do.

At dd's school they must all do: 2 English, Maths, Double Science. They can then choose 4 additional subjects - of these they are recommended to choose one language and one humanities, but not compulsory. For those opting for triple science it comes out of those choices.

There is no compulsory GCSE in re or pe at her school though all do those subjects, just not as much lesson time as hose doing the GCSE and no exam.

Lots of good advice here already, but just wanted to add something about options in year 8. Have you looked carefully into how they do options? DD's school do limited options in year 8, and then final options in year 9.

Our school runs as you describe. It's a 3 'O' school - Outstanding, oversubscribed, with an excellent Oxbridge record.

A 3 year KS 3 is years 7, 8 and 9, so KS 4 (GCSEs) in Y10 and Y11. Eton does 10 subjects in year 10 and one may be dropped in Y11. I think bright children can handle the drop to 9-10 GCSEs but do them in 2 years so that other subjects can be carried on for longer which gives a broader education. Eton, of course adds a lot more onto a basic education.

As a science teacher would like to reassure you that DC will not be at a disadvantage if only double science offered.The new combined science curriculum that will be in place when DC gets to GCSE has much more content than current double award.

Thanks Kscience - reassuring. Things have changed a lot since I was that age!

My dd is doing double science. She sits separate papers in biology, chemistry and physics, has separate text books and is taught by subject specialists - although I appreciate this is not the case in all schools. Her chemistry teacher has a PhD and did double award.

Here's my ramblings - hope they help.

My DS1 did triple two years ago. DS2 is currently in Year 11 doing double science which currently consists of 2 units for physics, 2 units for chemistry and 2 units for biology. The school would only allow students getting As at the end of year 10 to do the triple course and they have had to do it after school for 1 and 1/2 hours a week - there was no time to fit triple in the time table. Personally, having looked at what DS2 is trying to learn for the double plus all his other subjects I think it's more than enough and I'm really glad now that DS2 hasn't done the triple - so is he! The sixth form in the next town is one of the top state sixth forms in the country. When we went to look round for DS2, the physics teacher made it clear that not doing triple was not a disadvantage - they would rather two good GCSEs for the double (which is what it equates too) than 3 mediocre GCSEs for the triple.
The fact that the government is trying to make GCSEs harder (doing away with CAs for one thing) means that the number of subjects children can take is likely to fall and some schools will teach the courses over three years rather than two. My daughter (currently yr8) chose her options in March and starts on her GCSE courses in September. I agree with quality not quantity too and really don't think your son will be at a disadvantage if he comes out with 9 decent GCSEs.
There is a real crisis in recruitment and retention of teachers generally - let alone science teachers (certainly in our area anyway - my kids have not all been taught by specialist subject teachers) and this may also be a factor in your son's school not offering triple science.

Our area does 3 year GCSEs. (There's 3 outstanding comps within a 5 mile radius here) A big draw for kids is that it allows them to change their minds without affecting their exam.
It's not a sign of low attainment. Ks3 is condensed and they call year 9 the bridging year so y10/11 is not so full on. I went to an academic private school and remember the jump from O level to A level being big so I guess rushing KS3 and taking extra time in ks4 works well.
Our comp has a science specialism which is fortunate as my kids seem to enjoy it. They offer single, double, triple and you can take 1 or 2 individual sciences (say Physics and Chemistry)
The Science teachers made it very clear that you could do double or take say Biology GCSE and cope with A level later.
Our school makes PE a compulsory qualification too. The sporty kids do BTEC while the less sporty do GCSE. I'm not an expert in the difference between the 2 qualifications. They have 2 PE double lessons (= 4 hours) and excellent onsite playing fields so I guess they turn it into a qualification. I'm not sporty at all but my kids enjoy sport/PE and hopefully they'll pick up an enjoyment or sport that will continue into adulthood.
Compulsory RE - you need to blame the law. My kids are taking the short course and have to endure an hour a week for that.

How many grammar schoos do 3 year GCSE's? Very few. The secondary moderns or those with lots of middle and lower attainers like 3 year GCSEs beause they get better results - the pupils have much more teaching. It is a results driven decision. However, narrowing down subjects early is not a broad education. Schools are judged "outstanding" on results and progress but lots of bright children would be bored by 3 year GCSE courses with only 8 or 9 subjects.

bojo you're out of touch on this one I'm afraid. The trend is very, very strongly towards a three year KS4 in grammars at the moment, including at the top superselectives. These schools are moving to a three year KS4 to accommodate the new tougher regime. It has nothing whatsoever to do with low achievers but everything to do with the new specifications. If you're in doubt, ask the GSHA.

All our local grammar schools do 3 year GCSEs.

PE is a much more academic subject than you might expect- many boys I know took it because they thought it would be an easy option and were unpleasantly surprised.

Many schools of all types make you choose between history and geography.

MFL not being compulsory does not mean he can't do one.

Studying RE to year 11 is statutory (don't start me on that!) but the GCSE course is interesting and challenging.

My ds's (extremely high achieving) grammar school have just changed this year to choosing options in y8.

I'm not convinced it's the best idea - I think 12/13 is pretty young to be making those decisions and stopping various subjects - but it's not a sign of low attainment.

"I am so ANGRY with myself for failing him. If only I could pay for private schooling"

But where is the evidence you have ?

Ds was at an independent school - did 9 . Now at university. He does not believe 9 GCSEs (i.e. relatively few compared to some schools ) ever made the difference between offers or not. Had 2 options outside the compulsory choices - one compulsory choice, tbf, was an MFL - he had to - your DS could choose to. For DS, Geography had to go the way of all flesh.

Re Music etc , I suspect DS's enthusiasm for music outweighed his talent. So, he did not do GCSE etc but he did do EC lessons in the interests of broader education/ enjoyment.

And (committed atheist he) chose RS (and I do get the point about having to do it at all ) - loved it and then took it in 6th form. It is a sound academic subject as far as I can see.

I doubt you have let your son down OP.

From what you have said it looks like English x 2, Science x 2, Maths and RE are conpulsory GCSEs. They will also have compulsory lessons in PE/PSHE and then they will have 3 option choices. In the hundreds of schools I work in (including giving advice to students on options choices) I cannot recall one that has had PE GCSE as compulsory.

Those are the exact same choices my DS has. 2x English 2x (or 3x if top set) sciences, 1x maths, 1x RE and 3 options. His options have to include one of computing, MFL, history or geography to make sure they fill the EBACC basket for achievement/progress 8. So MFL isn't compulsory, but you can opt for one (or two.) 9 subjects at GCSE is perfectly normal and gives plenty of breadth.

I would not go near a school that fails to at least offer triple science. Likewise with failing to offer a decent range of MFL. IMHO it is an abject failure to make adequate provision for the needs of able kids. I'd be concerned about either RE (depending on syllabus) or PE compulsory at GCSE. DS is entering third year and not choosing GCSEs at year 3 entry. For third year some choices do have to be made, but it's down to around 13 proper subjects with a view to choosing 10 from that in fourth year. They can choose to drop down to double science in fourth year if they want another arts side CGSE, but over 2/3 do triple. I think Y8 is too early to finalize GCSE - we had enough trouble figuring out the broader 3rd year.

"I would not go near a school that fails to at least offer triple science. Likewise with failing to offer a decent range of MFL. IMHO it is an abject failure to make adequate provision for the needs of able kids"

Not much 'H' in the 'O' is there?

And why the fuck should the needs of "able kids" take priority? Taking double science does not handicap an able child in any way, and provides an incredibly useful qualification for a slightly less able one. And "a decent range of MFL"? What are you going to cut to pay the teacher of Madarin?

roguedad is your DS in a state school?

roguedad is your DS in a state school?
Good question. .

Genuine question roguedad , - what are the 13 proper subjects ? Maybe I am just not understanding the point here, but that sounds a lot .

Oh and I know it's a digression but Bertrand - What are you going to cut to pay the teacher of Mandarin? - er, if , indeed, you can find one.

The super selective, very high performing grammar in my town does a 3 year KS4 and only 10 GCSEs. Can't really say they aren't catering for the more able DC! They regularly get 99 or 100% 5 A* to C (though not entirely surprising with their intake) and 99% go on to university, mostly Russell group. They decided years ago that 10 GCSEs were plenty, gave plenty of breadth and concentrated on quality over quantity. I consider it a Special School as the DC there have their own particular needs.

(PS, my DC go to the comp. )