Options in year 8 versus year 9

[notnowbernadette]

I'm considering secondary schools for my dd and I've noticed that one of the key differences between local schools is that some choose GCSE options in year 8 and others in year 9. This means pupils could have no further lessons in subjects like geography beyond year 8. I cant help but feel Year 8 is particularly early especially for a child that struggles to settle into secondary school or is young in their year. I guess schools feel they need to do this to get good grades but I would be interested to know which approach you think is best.

My DTs school has just changed to choosing at year 8. For them it's a great idea, they are very focused on what they want to do and hated stuff like drama and are pleased they can drop it.

I still think it maybe too young - at their school they do French from y7 and then another language from y8, so they've only had the experience of learning German for a few months before having to decide whether they want to carry on for GCSE. It's not really long enough imo.

One of their teachers was saying she was sceptical at first but there's quite a few disruptive children in her class that really don't want to be there so it's good that they'll get to drop the subject and those that do want to do it won't have to put up with their behaviour.

I'm really on the fence! Of course it's all change for GCSEs anyway, so it's kind of hard to know the difference it will make compared to my oldest who chose in y9.

DS likes food & excelled at performance drama... but hated the GCSE syllabuses so no way would do them at GCSE. We couldn't know that until the options evening. Those last minute decisions not to continue them would have happened the same if he had not chosen until yr9 or even yr10.

DD was convinced she would do art. Loved it, excelled at it (now says she dodged a bullet due to crazy workload!). Not completely rejected until yr9, actually, long after initial selections. I suppose we could have been naive parents who didn't try to talk her out of that high workload, so she could have chosen it not realising. But that mistake would have been the same if she chose in yr9, no?

I think it depends on how many options they can take and the cohort.

I do think a couple of hours a week could be given towards a sort of general studies type non GCSE class. But it wouldn't be popular with parents or teachers.

Dd's school let them drop art, music, drama, tech and some languages at the start of Y9, which is great as it means they get a proper amount of time for the ones they retain, and are taught in classes with others who take that subject seriously.

They aren't allowed to drop humanities until Y10 though, which is just as well for DD because she wasn't keen on any of them a year ago (and would probably have picked all arts subjects instead if allowed) but she's really engaged with them this last year and now plans to take all 3 humanities for GCSE.

I would question any school who lets them drop history or geography early as to whether they are chasing GCSE results at the expense of a rounded education. I also think aged 12 is just too young to make those decisions

Year 8 seems to early. Given the focus upon consistency I think all children should study a broad range to the end of year 9.

I think most children do take a broad range of subjects, whether they make the decision in year 8 or year 9. But subjects will eventually have to be dropped, otherwise the workload would be too high.

I think it is a shame that subjects like DT, drama, art, it and dance are dropped altogether, but they can be enjoyed outside of school.

Lots of schools that let students drop important subjects by y9 are doing the children a great disservice regarding an all round education. In many schools that do not insist on a language or a humanity, these subjects have been studied properly for two years. The same with art, music, tech etc. Education is not all about what subjects you use as an adult. At this age it is about breadth, sampling different subjects and making an effort. Children appear able to dictate to schools by not making an effort, not engaging and parents agreeing that this is ok because their child "hates" a subject! I bet few top independent schools would put up with this and these schools will continue to punch above their weight. High standards and high expectations. A child that gets 7 or 8 grade GCSEs in 2 years and has studied other subjects for 3 years before that has to be brighter than one who has taken 3 years to do 8 or 9 GCSE subjects but gets the same grades.

I do however believe that some children are better served by alternative courses and need a tailored education.

That rigidity is another good reason to never send my kids private, then.

All this fuss for a cut off that usually comes end of yr9, anyway. If the all-rounded education is so great, then why not make folk take 1-1.5 yrs of unrelated courses in order to get a university degree too (like I had to for my American university degree). Pah.

That rigidity as you call it ensures far greater numbers of privately educated children get to the top universities. If other children want to aspire to this, then a good work ethic and ability to engage in a broader education would help. Instead, too many people think a narrow education is good enough when it isn't, especially for bright children and frankly plays into the hands of people who want grammar schools!

I've been trying to persuade ds to leave a private school for our local state school & one of the reasons he doesn't want to us because the state choose gcse options at the end of year 8 & he wants to keep music, drama home ec & DT for another year while still being allowed to drop art. At the state school he would only be able to keep 1/2 of those subjects.

Another thing to bear in mind for those who like their DC to study a range of subjects for longer is that they have so many subjects and there are only so many lessons to go around! In Y7/8 there were several subjects that DC only fewer than 1 lesson a week (they did them on rotation for part of the year) in so really another year of that wasn't going to be of any particular benefit.

why are children allowed to pick and choose aged 13?

Y9 DD did that. She's summer-born and the option-choosing started in the autum term, with final deadline by spring 1/2 term. Her views on some subjects have changed/matured since she was 12 in Y8.

Y8 options for anything but Drama would have lost her a year of a subject she was content with. In fact although she's not fond of Drama (introvert) she has come to terms with it this year, so I'm glad she couldn't drop it in Y8.

Y9 options choosing was tricky enough with an almost arbitrary choice of four from a whittled down shortlist of seven. We've lost stuff she quite liked including one subject which in theory is one of her very best. She did pick Art and Music though, which I'm pleased about because otherwise her KS4 would have been entirely EBacc-compliant 'academic'.

I don't think having two year GCSE courses is why more children from private school go on to university.

I don't think either way is better, just different. And I can see advantages to both. And yes to the fact that the lessons in year 7&8 are spread very thinly. It must be very frustrating to be good at music, for example, and know you want to take it further, but only have one lesson a week.

The problem is when the choices are set in stone. Schools should be flexible and allow children to change their minds in year 9.

I think it's wrong to choose in yr8. It's far too early and the idea that kids can (for example) not study history or do art in yr 9 isn't exactly giving them a broad education. Surely it's mostly about schools trying to get higher GCSE results. Personally I'd rather my DC got a few lower grades, but a more rounded education.

I started a thread about this a few months ago as nearly all the schools round here are doing 3 yr courses but my children's does 2 yrs.They have started The English and Maths syllabus just before Easter though.
I wondered whether they do more exams with 3 yr courses in general.

My son Is taking 9 GCSEs - incl 2 English and 2 science so only 7 subjects or 6 if you choose triple science. Which is weirdly what I did for OLevels in the 80s.

I wonder if more schools may go to 3 years after the first lot of the new GCSEs

My daughter will take 10 or 11, if she does triple science. Which i think would be a lot of work to complete in two years. That might be why they are going down the three year route?

It so difficult to know what's best, I think 11 is an awful lot if work, especially now they are moving towards final exams and no course work. But at least she doesn't have to drop subjects she likes. On the other hand, concentrating in 8 or 9 would probably give better average grades, but children might have to make difficult decisions on subjects to drop. I think it might be one if those instances where you have to trust the school?

Having picked her option, Y9 DD is now set for 11 (include the three from triple science).

It's not a standing start for GCSEs in Y10 though e.g. I recall them spending a while on nuGCSE maths topic Venn Diagrams in Y7. The new GCSEs seem to have 're-energised' KS3 a bit, perhaps not enough here but better than it was.

11 is not needed by any university so why schools allow this is a mystery. Far better to do 10 max and do enrichment subjects so they have a bit of general knowledge. 9 O levels in my school but over 2 years. We were allowed to do one science though!

9 at both ds & dd's school though at ds's school you can do an extra curricular one as well to make 10.

"That rigidity as you call it ensures far greater numbers of privately educated children get to the top universities. If other children want to aspire to this, then a good work ethic and ability to engage in a broader education would help. Instead, too many people think a narrow education is good enough when it isn't, especially for bright children and frankly plays into the hands of people who want grammar schools!"

That reads as extremely snobby & elitist. I wish it was faster to figure out who on MN I have nothing in common with.

In DS's school they seem to have made a good sensible mix. So the core subjects start in yr9 (though I'm pretty sure they don't start the English lit texts as they reckon the kids will get bored). They keep all other options open though, so don't drop any subjects until the start of year 10. If they're doing triple science they take 10, otherwise 9. They can still opt to do Further Maths or another language as an extra on top, though that's only for the very bright and keen ones.

Doing 11 GCSEs isn't required by universities but it does mean they keep more options open, and get a broader overall education. I can't see it's a bad thing.