what grade does your school require to do an A level in that subject?

[user1484040234]

My Kids' school currently requires a B grade to do an A level subject. For next year it's going to be a grade 7 with a grade 7 in Maths to do science subjects. Have other schools changed their requirements with the new linear GCSE/A levels? A 7 is supposed to be an A. This is a local comprehensive school.

the country is crying out for skilled vocational training, especially after Brexit ; why or why cant the country make vocational education a priority.

There was a new "technical" school opened in Lancashire which was aimed at manual skills, trades, etc., but it's closed down because of low numbers of pupils. Quite simply children/parents had the belief that the "trades" were beneath them, so continued to press on with academia. When you had Blair aiming for a completely stupid 50% going to uni, there's a long way to go before we'll get back to more vocational/manual education. Sadly, far too few people want it, and those that do, think it's someone else who should do it, i.e. teachers don't want to teach it, politicians don't want it, parents/children have unrealistic expectations, etc. It's going to take quite a shift in opinion/belief from all sides before there's any real change.

You see that's the point, i would have loved to have been able to study, such vital skills for the country . However, due to the fact of being Dyspraxic and Dyslexic i would likely blow a house up if i studied to be an electrician.

There are though many children with limited academic qualifications that process the ability to be ; potentially talented and innovative industry. In doing so people could make themselves not replaceable and thus guaranteed highly paid work; for life !

Our local college offers lots of vocational subjects from age 16+ and also Access courses to Higher Ed, for those without A levels, and of course A levels. This is in addition to extensive apprenticeships.
It's not surprising that schools can't offer vocational subjects with all the cuts to education.

A way of introducing it would be to allow companies, to reduce corporation taxes . ! Perhaps we could have a form of the YTS introduced for vocational education. Students earning so £35-£50 a week subsidized by Govt and Employers 50-50.

It's not surprising that schools can't offer vocational subjects with all the cuts to education.

But in the high spend years of Labour, they didn't either. So I don't think it's all about the money. My son's school has loads of tech, including 3d printers, laser cutters, CAD computers, routers, etc., but they still make the kids spend a term making a wooden fish and another term hammering a metal trowel into shape - that's exactly what I did 40 years ago, so it's just not changed! Unless a pupil chooses to take it to GCSE, they don't even get to see the more advanced tech equipment, let alone use it. Why aren't they "marketing" the tech to the pupils before GCSE decision making to try to encourage more to choose it? I really don't think there's the "will" in schools to push the tech, except for the less academic, so basically, if you're doing OK at the academic side, they'll not push you into manual skills, tech, etc.

A way of introducing it would be to allow companies, to reduce corporation taxes .

By participating in the scheme, big corporations such as building companies etc could train educate students as well as reducing thier tax bills .

There has to be 'carrot' otherwise nobody is interested.

There seems to be at the moment , a growing movement across both the public and Govt of attacking big companies with a 'stick' ; regarding tax avoidance without any offerings of a 'carrot' to refrain from it.

Perhaps schemes like these would encourage companies to invest in people , if their tax liabilities could be shelved or limited!

Perhaps we could have a form of the YTS introduced for vocational education.

The modern apprenticeship scheme does that. It's taking forever to get rolled out, but more and more employers are now offering it. The demand is there, but places are limited because the colleges offer very few places as they're also more interested in classrooms rather than workshops. That means, it's mainly the bigger employers who do it as they have in-house teaching facilities.

Why should B/C grade students be expected to pick vocational subjects at 16? What's wrong with two more years of History, or Biology?

I think B/C grade students should choose what they want.
When I did PC PgCE there were A grade students wanting to take vocational qualifications at college and being put off/ told they couldn't subjects like Hairdressing, Travel and Tourism, and Childcare.
These courses were marketed at those who weren't academic, which is great as some of the units from each can be sought after by different employers. But if the academic ones choose a vocation they certainly shouldn't be put off.

Why can't you be a 'brilliant academic' from Oxbridge who is also a fantastic hairdresser ! Similarly why can't some interested in childcare be a ace fully qualified ' Nutritionist'

Why can't an academic from Oxford University be a brilliant Hairdresser / or a Chef!

Sorry, i start making mistakes when i post without my glasses on.

To put it into context, if you get a B/6 at GCSE, then on average, for most subjects, you'd get a C at A-level (based on the 2016 Transition Matrix).
That's why schools require 6/7s.

7 for maths and sciences. 4s/5s for other subjects depending on the child (as performance depends on maturity to some extent).

But there are passing grades below a C.

One of our local sixth forms requires a 6 in Maths and English to do anything.

For DD, who is predicted 7-8 for everything except maths, that's somewhat annoying. She wants to take history, art and English (all predicted 8-ish), but may well have to go elsewhere with her probable 5 in maths.

But there are passing grades below a C.

Maybe a "pass" in the education world, but a lot of professional courses require grade C's, and when you're in the real world, you'd be competing for jobs/courses etc against others with higher grades.

My nephew reached the published "minimum requirements" for his chosen courses, but didn't get a place from various providers simply because they could fill their training courses with people who got higher grades.

So those jobs aren't for students who get Ds then. I find it sad that at 16 we seem to be saying that if you can't get Bs and As that you don't get the chance to study a subject you love, just because you might get below a C at A level. My favourite ever A level class (in many years of teaching) had the full range of A* to E. And the student enjoyed it the most was the boy who got a D. He went off to join the police force. Biology was irrelevant to that, but he loved it and wanted to do more of it before he started his career. I loved teaching him.

So. Having been to ope. Evenings. They seem to generally want 6's in the harder subjects.
My son want to do further maths, maths and physics and hes needs a 7 in either physics or maths and a 6 in the other....but a 4 in English.

I thought 4 is low C yes, so currently a pass, but our Head, at the GCSE info evening on Wednesday, indicated this would probably change before our current Year 10s sit it and would no longer be a pass

It's extraordinary, when the DfE made the announcement that the 4 was now a 'standard pass' and would always be a pass for resit purposes deliberately the evening before the Article 50 Notification was made in order to bury the news from the public, that they didn't consider that it might also bury it from those people who need to know this information professionally. They didn't want people to realise that they'd lowered the pass grade for the new GCSEs just weeks before they were due to be sat.

www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/603594/ESC_letter.pdf

"Under the new system, a grade 4 and above will be equivalent to a C and above. This is - and will remain - the level that pupils must achieve in order not to be required to continue studying English and maths post 16. Therefore, a GCSE pass at new grade 4 will continue to have real currency for individual pupils as they progress to further study and employment. Where employers, FE providers and universities currently accept a grade C we would expect them to continue recognising a grade 4."

Our local (outstanding if relevant) 6th form wants level 6 to do Maths, science and English, anything else 5 level 5 and above. When DD1 went it was minimum of B to do any subject. I think the issue this year is going into the unknown with the new gsce's.

I went to dd2's parents evening last night and one teacher was quite candid and said they couldn't give an accurate prediction as they had in previous year as they had no idea what the grade boundaries were going to be in next years exams as no information has been released.

You don't need a Maths GCSE to take science

at the school GillyBeanz is aware of

IMVHO, that is just setting them up to fail. You can't seriously expect a young person who is unable to achieve a GCSE in maths, to cope ith the maths needed for a Science A-level.

7s mostly, you need at least five 6s to be allowed to apply to A level, then 7s in the subject you are applying to

Sorry, I got it wrong, what I meant was they don't have to have good results and if are retaking GCSE Maths and/or receiving 1 to 1 support they can continue to A level Science.
If they completely fail, I'm sure they couldn't take Physics for example.
Nothing is published in the info about not being able to continue.

However, to continue with a Language they have to have equivalent of A*/A at GCSE, well published in the info