Not having the opportunity to do triple science

[ramennoddles]

DD goes to a private school and is studying for her GCSEs. Her school doesn't offer triple science because it is time consuming. However, DD likes science and generally does well in it. Will her not being able to do triple put her at a disadvantage because of the sterotype that less kids who are less able at science do double? If she applies to sixth form to do A levels, how can she prepare for topics she missed in double when she does her 16+? Do you have any advice as to what she should do?

She could self study the other components so that she was more familiar with those topics only explored in triple for the purposes of studying the related A levels, she wouldn't need to sit the exam.

I've been through similar. Moved my twins after setting had taken place so despite both being capable of triple science they were placed in double because there was no room in the triple sets. The Head of Science thought I would be reassured by the fact that 25% of the current 6th Form doing Science had the double award It's true that having double will not prevent them doing Science at 6th Form and Uni - it will however be more difficult for my children in my area.

I would not go near a school not offering triple science, and preferably computer science as well. In the private sector it's totally unacceptable. And Oxbridge in STEM is a lot more interested in single-minded passion for the subject, not a lot of peripheral twaddle. I hope Fffion is taking the mickey!

roguedad,

It is interesting. As a scientist, I was inclined to agree with you - my DCs' high performing comprehensive only offers double at GCSE.

I then did the research alluded to in my posts - a comparison with comprehensives with similar intakes who offered triple, contact with universities etc, as well as significant challenge to the school itself.

The A-level science data indicated no detriment (at a numbers-taking-the-subjects level and, as far as the data was available, grade by grade comparison) in taking A-level individual sciences following double at the double-offering school. the only possible issue was with Physics, in the sense that the numbers taking physics A-level at the double-offering school was slightly lower in the initial years I looked at, but it wasn't borne out by study of further years.

The university / further study destinatons were very similar - ie equivalent numbers from double and triple offering comprehensives with similar intakes were going on to study science subjects at comparable universities.

And, to my surprise, the universities I contacted supported the idea that they treated double from a double taking school as the same as triple from a triple taking school, and had similar proportions of excellent students from both routes.

All this was sightly galling, as i wanted to use data from results and information from universities as a lever to force the school to start offering triple..... but i couldn't collect the persuasive data that i needed....

Not taking the mickey. What parts of my posts do you take objection to?

My dd did double science and is now doing chemistry and biology at A level. The only requirement was that she got an A grade or above.

I also feel that a fee paying school should at least offer the option of triple sciences. It may not be ‘required’ but may help to bridge the jump to A levels. And some kids just want to take them.

Most kids at our school take 10 GCSEs so there is enough space for other subjects even with 3 Sciences.

Virtually all kids at DS / DD's school do 10, some do more as some additional languages, and some specialist other subjects, are offered after school.

Double science, 2 English, Maths, two humanities, 2 languages and a creative subject is a pretty normal combination - or some trade a humanity / language for a Tech subject or for Computer Science or for a second creative subject (e.g. Music + Drama, or Music + Art).

It's that 'depth vs breadth' thing, isn't it? 10 GCSE / 4 AS / 3 or 4 A levels seems to me a good gradual restriction of breadth - and as i say, results for those who do Science A-levels, the breadth at GCSE doesn't seem to cause any problems when they come to the depth of A-level and choosing degree subjects.

DS, it turns out, isn't a scientist, so doing double has worked fine for him DD is a gifted scientist, but also an extremely gifted artist, so for her the ability to do Art & another Design subject, plus a couple of languages, is likely to serve her in great stead for architecture / engineering, both of which she is attracted towards. Should she move more 'pure sciencey', that hasn't been ruled out.

Private school cannot offer unlimited choices. A small school simply cannot offer combined and separate sciences. A small school is going to be non-selective, and the majority will only want combined science. A separate science stream would really be quite unfeasable for most small schools.

There is a possibility of twilight sessions but this can be quite messy with trying to teach the further modules in synch with the compulsory ones. It's not impossible, though, for motivated students and teachers.

My DCs all went to large selective independent schools and did the iGCSE for separate sciences. I was fine with their choices as they did not take up an option block. I would not have been impressed if they had to drop a much-loved subject for the sake of it.

If you DC needs to take separate sciences, don't send them to a school that doesn't offer it, but don't judge that school badly either.

It is probably also worth remembering that the structure of the Science GCSE has changed.

In the past, it was possible to take triple exams in two different ways - either as 3 'subject' bands or as 3 'level' bands (core, ?additional and ?higher), each of which bands covered three subjects.

So it used to be possible to teach double universally, then 'top up' some students with a further module each for triple.

Now, double is still offered as two 'cross subject slices', but triple MUST be taught and examined as three separate subject pillars ... and the subject content for the two routes doesn't fully overlap. So triple students need to start as triple on day 1, be taught largely or entirely separately from double candidates, and have limited opportunity to 'step down'.

Combined with the much larger content of the new double (in discussion with science teachers, not far off the content of the old triple), and the fact that good grades in double is much better than poorer grades in 3 separate sciences means, I suspect, that there will be an increasing move towards double.

DD took GCSEs last year and the one student in her A level biology class who took double science did struggle as she hadn't studied any of unit 3. She subsequently dropped out.

The son of one of my friends goes to an independent school and took all iGCSEs. He took biology and physics, but no chemistry. (The school didn't do double and triple science, but individual science options). He couldn't get into another 6th form to do biology because he didn't do any chemistry at all in years 10 and 11.

DD is doing A levels in biology and chemistry and says that doing chemistry is a massive help as there is some cross over.

Yes, Ffion, parents should check before choosing a school whether it offers triple science.

Most of the old "unit 3 " topics are in the new Combined Science though. As this is no longer modular, it isn't possible to "top up" the units in the way suggested by some of the PP.
It's difficult to give a definite answer as the current Y11 are the first to try out this new syllabus, but the general consensus is that the new Combined Science (Double award equivalent) is better preparation for A level than the previous course. So comments that "people with double were behind or dropped out" may well not be the case in future years.
parents should check before choosing a school whether it offers triple science.
Yes, but schools can change what they offer after the time of application especially if there are changes in the syllabus/specification. The new syllabus is more content heavy so either schools are starting the Triple Science a year early in Y9 or increasing hours for Science in Y10 and 11 therefore reducing the number of GCSE options or not offering Triple at all (which seems to be the case with the OPs school).

When DD did triple science it took up one of her options. So you could choose triple science plus 3 options, or double science pus 4 options. They all ended up with the same number of GCSEs.

At dds school taking Triple Science meant pupils only had 2 other GCSE options available, which was imo very restrictive, whereas if you chose Double you had 3 other options. What I meant was the reduction in the number of additional options rather than the total number of GCSEs.

I don't think losing one option is restrictive.
DD has GCSEs in:

English x 2
Maths
Science x 3
Geography
Art
History
Citizenship

So a good range of subject types. The only thing she might have done was French, but the school are rubbish at foreign languages, and DD had no confidence in any of the teachers.

In my experience double vs triple doesn't really matter by the time you get to A levels. Triple isn't harder than double, just some additional topics, and the gap from GCSE to A level is so big anyway that the extra you may have done in triple doesn't give a huge advantage.

If schools offer triple to top set only, then those students are likely to do better at A level anyway than the double students, who were presumably therefore not in the top set, if you see what I mean.

When I was teaching we offered triple, but not dependent on ability - some chose it because they liked science, some very good scientists didn't choose it because they wanted the other option for something else like a second language.

What I would say is that if you're doing double, and you're good at science, you are better off doing triple as the additional work to get that extra GCSE is less than doing a completely different extra subject.