GCSE's taught over 3 years?

[Grumpysfirstwife]

My friends school has decided they will now teach GCSE's over 3 years instead of 2. The letter from the school states this is now considered the most successful way to teach GCSE's as it gives them more opportunity to iron out any problems and that staff don't have to squash in bits of teaching, they can offer it in a calmer more detailed way instead.

Does anyone elses school do this? I'm curious to know if it improves grades or makes school less stressful for the students. It may suit my DD to do this due to a variety of reasons but I wouldn't like to consider moving her if it doesn't help the students achieve their potential.

I don't have any links lljkk, my knowledge comes from having attended a conference a few years back at Cambridge about widening participation (working for a state school, good results but none getting into oxbridge) and it was said then, by a rep from Cambridge. It made my school rethink their early entry policy so it was taken seriously.

Yes oxbridge have pressure to diversify but I doubt that this is high on the list, or, considering prior posters have said this is how their private school does it, an especially relevant criteria. The widening participation schemes I've worked with students to get onto are focused on postcode, school results, economic background, if any family have attended uni. Much more relevant criteria IMO.

If it's part of admission criteria then it should be published admission criteria. To apply admission criteria which are not published would be unacceptable (and lead to a well-deserved public roasting).

The schools I'm aware off (including mine) are no longer doing early entry (league tables) but are going to a 3 year KS4 to ensure coverage of increasingly harder specifications

In our school Year 9 is seen by many children as not really mattering, so not worth doing much work for. I think a move to 3 year GCSEs might help solve this issue.

I'm not saying there aren't links to published criteria, just that I don't have any and I can't be arsed looking for any

Ds1s school (grammar)have done this for some years and it's worked well for him.
Ds2s switched this year. His is the first year group to do 3yr GCse and it suits him brilliantly.
He was able to drop subjects he disliked (except RE ) and focus on good grades.

Lol Bertrand ..err no ..it's a previously failing state ..now academy.
Dd (yr8 atm) is due to start 1 year GCSEs in a wks time ( when the year 11's go and everyone moves up a year).

Surely the point is to go back to the late 80s where people did 8 subjects max, but they were harder.

There were schools in the 80s (well at least early 80s) where people did 12 GCSEs.

My nephew's school does this. It seems a bit of a shame to me to narrow a child's options a year earlier in terms of subjects but I guess subjects are different nowadays, eg science is wider. I hated science so gave up as much as I could as soon as possible, but looking back now I am glad I have at least three years of chemistry and physics - if I had given them up aged 13 that's a whole year of stuff I wouldn't know. Also gave up art and music which I actually enjoyed but didn't have room for, but am glad I got to do them for three years not two.

DSs school is starting this for the current year 8s. He's year 7 so interesting to see how it goes.

"It has meant he will leave school with 15 gcse,"

Universities aren't interested in quantity, but quality. I think having 15 GCSEs is rather pointless. But well done to your son for doing so well anyway.

Back in the day when O levels were still taken it was very unusual to take more than 8 or 9 subjects. Our school curriculum didn't allow for more than 8.

Why will schools still be doing GCSE's early?Surely it's going to become much harder to obtain the top grades.Doing GCSE's early will just lead to really poor results surely?Especially bearing in mind the coursework is far more stringent and with a greater breadth than previous GCSE incarnations.

Science is core, they don't give it up b4 end yr11. Is covered in less depth by some kids, tbf. I think GCSEs finishing in yr9 & 10 has done good or will work well for my DC, so far. Most parents locally see lots of good in it.

I agree, taking 15 GCSE is for the schools benefit. On the plus side it has meant by yr11 he is not worried about the actual exams and knows how to revise successfully. Fortunately he will sit 9 gcse, including core subjects, this year so the school do cover the possible need to do gcse in a set year.

The changing fashions about how many GCSEs to take is interesting. For a while the independent schools seemed to be heading north but that seems to be reversing now, with the ones we are looking at settling at 10-12 max. Also they are moving away from doing them early, with most of them only contemplating French early (rather than the english lang and maths that were possible a year early before).

No school did 12 GCSEs in the early 80's. They were introduced in 1988 - before that was GCE or CSE.
8 O level (GCE) was considered the norm for oxbridge candidates. The fact more are done now shows how much easier they have become.

I see no evidence Oxbridge is in the least bit interested in whether GCSEs are staggered. They might well take a positive view of, e.g. for STEM, if kids took their maths early. The same applies to A levels, though I have seen some other universities dig deeper if they see the A level load spread. Oxbridge does care about excellence and passion in the subjects related to those under study. When I was in charge of maths admissions we did a pre-filter on having A at GCSE (and even that could be relaxed if there was maths competition performance to undo it) and had a range of other filters, but nothing about timing. I think many schools just invent this notion to make their lives easier with regard to league table entries. That's all the timing relates to. * Head teachers will bullshit about this inventing other reasons and alleged insight from uni admissions folk, but do not listen to them.

A 3 year GCSE normally doesn't mean you take any of them early. Not round here.

It means:

1. You take your GCSE options for longer
2. You drop the other subjects earlier.
3. You have less teachers
4. Each teacher has you for more hours per week.

Dropping subjects you don't like can improve behaviour massively.

I'm massively in favour of it. Teaching subjects like history in one hour a week doesn't work. I'd rather have history 2 hours a week and drop geography (for example)

DD did history in one year, but had 5 hours a week, same for art and geography. I think the school might be dropping the "short, fat" GCSEs now though.

flissfloss65
"I agree, taking 15 GCSE is for the schools benefit."

Schools in England are judged on progress 8 so only 8 subjects will count towards the tables. (As I understand it).

But this was last year and may well have changed already

I cannot see any benefit in taking 15 GCSEs. What subjects do you add? Dcs & I did 11, 3 sciences, 2 English, maths, MFL, & then 4 electives. Dcs will all do a creative, I did Latin. What else do you need?

Oh & St George's Medical School in London want you to have done maths GCSE in yr11 with your other GCSEs. There might be other universities which specify but I'm not aware of them.

DD did iGCSE maths in year 11, but in January. Does this count?

I would have been bored silly doing gcses over 3 years. Really glad that my dds have had the two year option. I thought with grammar schools having the brighter pupils that they would only need two years for GCSEs and would want to offer as broad a curriculum as possible for as long as possible.