Do GCSE subjects need to be rethought?

[GnomeDePlume]

Do the subjects taught at GCSE need to be rethought? A couple of subjects especially spring to mind:

• modern languages
• physics

Modern languages: rather than teaching a single language would most students be better served by a course which taught a bit about life in different countries. Some simple do's and donts, how to order a coffee (or other drink of choice), some basic courtesies, basic numbers.

The aim of this course would be to provide students with the tools to allow them to visit different countries.

Physics: would students be better off either studying a general science course or if they have the aptitude to study an extended maths syllabus. Physics could then be introduced later.

Students dont study engineering at GCSE level so why physics? It is such a broad subject, does GCSE level do it any justice at all? Would students be better of being given the tools they will use if they go on to study physics later?

Are there any other subjects which would benefit from a radical rethink?

I disagree.

The MFL one sounds like more cultural general background, it doesn't sound deep enough for a GCSE. Our MFL knowledge is a bit woeful as it is without making it even more superficial.

Physics is one of the pillars of science. It is what enabled my 88 yo DF to fix a broken gatepost without doing any heavy lifting. It helps underpin understanding of levers, electricity, motion, astronomy, glasses etc. I think it is pretty fundamental to understanding the world around us.

I think that GCSE Combined science is exactly what you want, a 'general science course'. Yes, there's loads that has to be missed out, but consider all the history omitted from History GCSE etc.

What I would rethink is the academicization of everything that has occurred with the new syllabus.
There isn't much left for the less academic.

I would also require all schools to do level 2 functional skills numeracy and literacy exam for all students, and then only make students who can pass that do the GCSEs for Maths & English language. And thus have the functional skills as the gatekeeper for level 3 courses and jobs.

I disagree with the idea of a generic modern languages GCSE. I think it's more useful to learn one language in depth, understand some of the grammar and be able to make a good attempt at communicating.

I agree with you that it is not possible for them to understand Physics in any depth unless they have the maths skills needed. Most of those students studying a whole Physics GCSE do have the maths skills to back it up. Other students study a combined science course (worth two GCSEs) a third of which is basic concepts in Physics.

IMO what we need to do us allow schools to assess the students likely to get grades 1-3 in GCSE English and maths and have them do Functional skills L1 and L2 instead. And not punish the school for it.

Too many students are forced (by the govt, effectively) to face papers in these subjects where they cannot do the majority of the work. My ds got EEE in English (retook one), but L2 FS.

Agree the MFL idea is not going to help. Tho we should teach about culture and in fact it is on the GCSE spec.

There are several variants of engineering at GCSE, most schools choose not to teach it.

If you’re picking on Physics, why teach chemistry or biology? They’re also broad subjects. Or history, or maths or pretty much all of them in fact.

Dangerous and pernicious attitude imo which will widen current educational inequalities. Why bother teaching anything? Our generation had to learn a language properly but the next can just get by with a few phrase book tokens .....

I am not 'picking on' physics just thinking that as a subject it might fare a lot better if it were introduced later with a broader maths syllabus earlier. Biology and chemistry are both subjects which the student can 'see'.

All three of my DCs found physics badly taught at GCSE and really came back to it later when they had the maths to understand it better.

For the student who wants to study a single language in depth then I would see no issue. But how many students get switched off from MFL because there is too much grammar and not enough focus on functional skills which can actually be applied?

angelicanto not sure what is pernicious about asking the question?

Many of my colleagues have GCSE (or previous equivalents) language qualifications yet refuse to open their mouths when travelling abroad for work. My 'phrasebook' language skills are the ones which sort out hotel booking issues, order drinks, get taxis.

Physics at GCSE can be 'seen' if it wasn't for your DC's then the issue was probably non specialist teachers and poor resources. Physics equipment is generally more expensive and it's really hard to hang onto good physics teachers, not so much with Chemistry and Biology.

All three of my DCs found physics badly taught at GCSE

Maybe they had bad physics teachers? There is a severe shortage after all.

We need more kids taking Physics at A-level. Getting rid of it at GCSE would make things worse.

A lot of basic physics, things like the solar system, light & heat, dimensions and time, magnetism and so on are what I would consider as essential general knowledge which everyone should learn.

I think from an graduate linguist's point of view that teaching languages as if they were merely aids to a holiday is very reductive. As you seem to have managed to pick up phrase book language skills without studying, presumably most people could if they wanted to. There is a deeper question about why we teach languages and what we think students will gain by the study of a foreign language.

Of course you can't learn a language without learning grammar because you have no way on building on your phrases or understanding the responses. There is actually not very much grammar at GCSE, though this seems to have improved with the new specification.

You could say this about any subject anyway. Why teach English literature? Most people don't need to understand themes in "An Inspector Calls" in their daily life or be able to explain the rhyme scheme in Emily Dickinson. Why teach geography? Most people don't need to know how an ox bow lake is formed or when the National Parks were established. Why teach chemistry? Most people don't need to understand the different ways in which molecules are bonded or the order of reactivity - I've never used it in my daily life though obviously some specialists do.

"IMO what we need to do us allow schools to assess the students likely to get grades 1-3 in GCSE English and maths and have them do Functional skills L1 and L2 instead. And not punish the school for it."

That is an excellent suggestion, and far too sensible for the governnment to approve. How much time and resources are wasted getting young people to retake maths and English GCSEs umpteen times, only for them to fail repeatedly? While they are retaking those subjects these young people aren't able to learn anything else to any extent.

Students who get a grade 2 or below don’t have to resit GCSE, they can sit functional skills instead.

The problem with not entering lower attaining pupils for GCSE because they probably won’t get a 4 is that they then definitely won’t get a 4. It’s the same reason that they ended up scrapping the old Foundation paper that only went up to a D grade.

The foundation paper went up to a C grade.

No, the old Foundation paper, back when it was Higher, Intermediate and Foundation went up to a D grade.

That’s why they scrapped it, it capped students at a ‘fail’ at level 2 before they’d even sat the exam.

Unfortunately they didn’t do what teachers wanted and introduce a notional C grade on Foundation, they also got rid of Intermediate and changed the system to just Foundation (up to a C) and Higher.

So basically OP you want a completely dumbed down NC for all...?

noblegiraffe The quality of GCSE physics teaching was definitely an issue though DD2 did find the same teacher far better at A level. DD1 having had the same teacher didnt go on to study physics at A level. However she is now a biochemist with a particular interest in biophysics

Ontopofthesunset I think the question of why we teach languages is an intersting one. If it isnt to facilitate visits to a country as a tourist/business visitor what is it for?

The same with any subject. What is it for? I dont think this is a bad question to ask. DCs spend 5 years at secondary school leading up to GCSEs and their equivalents. That is a long time to spend on something which doesnt have a clear purpose.

Should the subjects which are not going to be carried onto further study divert onto a more functional path? This could be the same for academic students as for non academic students.

I hate the EBacc. It makes no sense for many students to be forced to take all of language/science/humanity and for all but the brightest students(those hoping for a top University) it will make no difference to them at all. Its all for the benefit of the school.

For average students (which means most) the most important thing is that they take a selection of subjects theyre interested in, which they have a chance of getting decent grades in, but EBacc means schools are offering very restricted choices.

A purely utilitarian view of the curriculum is incredibly depressing.

What is it for? To pass on the best that has been thought and achieved to future generations, so that they can stand on the shoulders of giants and not have an incredibly narrow view of the word based around what they immediately need to be able to do or understand.

titchy dumbed down or equiping students with skills they can use?

Does GCSE really pass on the best or does it just fill the time until the age of 16 or so when students are better able to learn from the best?

“The same with any subject. What is it for?”

I enjoy doing cryptic crosswords. I have found that having an A level in French has helped
I stand corrected noblegiraffe. DD took her GCSEs in 2016, and they only had the higher and foundation paper.

GnomeDePlume DD had a useless physics teacher, so she did a lot of revision for physics GCSE. She ended up learning by rote to pass the exam because she simply didn’t understand it. However, she did manage to get an A*.

I would say that learning subjects you will never use again isn’t a waste of time. It provides a rounded education – and comes in really useful for crosswords and pub quizzes

OK Noble, I take your point about no chance of a 4 if you don't do it. But astudent in my tutor group was in tears (and making themselves ill) at the prospect of English GCSE exam - they just couldn't access it. I asked their teacher who said they wouldn't get a grade 1. Honestly - I don't see the point of them sitting it at all. This was a student with lots to offer as well, who did well in other subjects. There needs to be more flexibility.

But as to what it's for - what's wrong with learning for its own sake, just to increase knowledge and understanding of how things are?

Realistically a GCSE in a language is not going to enable you to conduct business in that language or even to really get by as a tourist, but it will give you the foundations of language skills that you would be able to develop if you were interested. As with most GCSE courses, it is an introduction to a higher level of study for those who want to take it on.

Introducing foreign languages at a basic level exposes everyone to the building blocks of language in general, to the idea that not everyone communicates in the same way, that the way languages are constructed varies and often to interesting reflection about the way we use our own language and how that works. It's also a stepping stone to the academic study of linguistics. Learning another language at a higher level naturally enables you to access literature, culture, business, film, whatever rocks your boat.

Philosophically, there is of course a utilitarian element to everything that is taught at school, but the most practical and widely skills are actually taught before GCSE - functional literacy, functional maths.

I’d say that the very basics of physics, which is what you get from a level 4/5 in the combined science GCSEs, are far more useful than bloody enjambments and caesuras. Heat, light, electricity, efficiency, speed and acceleration, friction, kinetic and potential energy, and inverse square laws are the building blocks of the world around you, and you can’t understand any of the huge changes and political interventions that will be needed to minimise the effects of climate change without a basic understanding of physics. The whole modern world around you is effectively “magic” if you haven’t got a grasp of physical concepts.

I’m midway through helping my second teen scale Mount GCSEs and the thing that I really wish above all else that they could skip is sodding poetry, because they struggle so badly to produce the required analysis and it’s such a niche skill but yet made into a compulsory hoop for absolutely every child who can read and write.