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?

@noblegiraffe Let’s spend our time teaching them to floss or play Fortnite, because that’s what they’re really interested in.

Yes, let them drop maths and study the modern Kulture of Engerland through the media of online games

When I took my O'levels, we only had 7 subjects we could take at that level.

I ended up with 10 but they were not all taken at the same time, I sat English language early and dropped lit so did 7 in one sitting and picked up a couple in VI form.

There were people in my school who did 10 in one sitting. It wasn't the norm but it happened.

Personally I'd like to see more flexibility, I'd like to see a high school certificate as a 'wrapper' containing a mixture of subjects and levels. So it might incorporate a few GCSEs, a level 2 or level 1 BTEC or CTEC and even a level 3 single qualification. Also LAMDA, red cross etc.

Year 9 is wasted in too many schools, the GCSE study is 'started' but in reality outside the core subjects it doesn't always happen.

IMHO year 9 should be:

a) Core subjects, English, maths, science, a language - ideas on what should be 'core' are open for suggestions
b) Extra tuition for anyone who needs it in the core subjects or other subjects they want to take later
c) a range of taster courses for GCSEs (or other exams) and short courses in things like first aid, cooking, using a bank account. Maybe level 1 courses in languages and or other subjects not taken to GCSE.

You could also incorporate a group project or individual in depth piece of work and learning some skills eg touch typing.

Not everyone is academic, not everyone who is academic is good at all the ebacc subjects.

Education should give you the skills to lead the best life you can and secondary education should be a solid foundation for further study and for life.

I can guarantee that the kids of the better-off parents would not be sending them to bank account classes in school time when they could be sending them to classes in something that they couldn’t teach them at home and that would look better on their uni application.

Two tier education systems further entrench social disadvantage.

noblegiraffe
I agree.
A push for 'school to do basic life preparation and work skills because it's wrong to promote a love of learning in case some don't see the value' just lowers the bar for all students.
Instead of planning a curriculum to cater to the lowest denominator, why not look at how to engage and raise aspirations for those who keep getting the message from home that they don't need GCSEs, it's fine to be innumerate, fine to ignore subjects you aren't a fan of.

Putting lots of life topics into schools seems to be a convenient way of allowing adults to be feckless and take no responsibility. Nobody taught me how to apply for a mortgage in school. DH and I didn't have parental coaching. We got on with it.

Designing a curriculum which interests and engages students is not the same thing as asking students to design the curriculum.

I think too much time is wasted on things which 'look better on their uni application' rather than on preparing students for independant life. Certainly for my DDs (both sciences) all that their respective unis were interested in were the subjects studied at A level and the grades achieved.

I bloody loved physics and languages at school. Let’s not assume that students are incapable of enjoying subjects that some may perceive as dull.

And let’s not confuse ‘engaging’ with ‘worthwhile’.

It’s the job of parents to prepare kids for independent life, it’s the job of schools to educate.

I can guarantee that the kids of the better-off parents would not be sending them to bank account classes in school time when they could be sending them to classes in something that they couldn’t teach them at home and that would look better on their uni application.

Quite. I don't expect school to teach my DCs how to function in society, that's my job and I'd be pretty annoyed if they were trying to teach that at school and expecting me to pick up on nuclear physics at home. What do I know though, the DCs get FSM so I'm labelled as a parent who is incapable of bringing up decent children and so need the school to do it for me.

Designing a curriculum which interests and engages students is not the same thing as asking students to design the curriculum.
Not everything worth knowing is going to be exciting and engaging.

There's loads of blogs on the issues chasing 'engagement'. It sees people not teach perfectly great pieces of literature in favour of an easy text about drugs and crime because it will 'engage'.

Sometimes difficult things need teaching. Learning challenging concepts opens doors to exciting topics.
Lots of physics is fascinating, but students won't be able to access that if they're denied the basics because some adults decided it was too much to ask to have them develop a spot of resilience.

A curriculum should be opening doors for students and expanding their minds, not designed around a patronising notion that we shouldn't expect students to learn and engage their minds.

Sorry for the rant but I find it really patronising when I hear adults try to dumb down children's education (see also colleagues who think I shouldn't use big words with ks3 because they're just children who don't need big words. Why wouldn't I want to equip them with a broad vocabulary?)

mad I suspect nobles point was that those who could afford to go private would do so for the better education if there was too much emphasis on life skills. Not that those who can't afford private are incapable of bringing up decent children and so need the school to do it.

Not that those who can't afford private are incapable of bringing up decent children and so need the school to do it.

Oh yes, I get that she wasn't saying that but it's a common view in education that FSM children aren't going to come from naice families.

Senua, no I'm not. I'm saying that a child who is literally making themselves ill at the prospect of an exam in which they will probably not achieve the lowest grade, should perhaps not have to do that exam. Maybe they could (at first) have a go at a more practical test called functional skills (which exists BTW, I'm not going back anywhere) and achieve something there. This might give them the confidence to attempt GCSE - maybe post 16, they might feel they could get 3 or 4. Or maybe they won't. The thing is the school has to enter them for these academic GCSEs.

Another student I knew achieved F, G, G, 1, 1, U, U, U. I feel as if there might have been a more productive KS4 pathway for them. That's what I'm saying. Schools need more flexibility in a few cases.

Sorry just saw Noble's post, I agree actually, and a 3 is worth having, especially in MFL for example, tough exams this year. I guess I am being a bit flippant - but certainly there should be a place for some alternative, not for those who will get 2-3 maybe 4, but for those who will spend two years looking in fear at an inaccessible exam. There aren't loads of them but maybe all the more reason to think of them?

Steppemum great post about MFL

common view in education that FSM children aren't going to come from naice families.

Statistically they are less likely to come from naice areas and go to naice schools. FSM kids in secondary (not primary) are also more likely to come from families distanced from the job market for whatever reason. They are also way more likely to fail to get good GCSEs. It’s not a promise that that’s the case, just that it’s more likely.

The better-off families wouldn’t necessarily be sending their kids private but could get their kids into a grammar or build a ‘private style’ free school (see Toby Young) or ensure that their kid gets into the ‘academic stream’ by tutoring or whatever.

It happens in every system where there are vocational/practical and academic options.

Designing a curriculum which interests and engages students is not the same thing as asking students to design the curriculum.

i’m not sure putting engaging and interesting at the heart of your curriculum design is the best pathway tbh. For a start kids aren’t a homologous group and one engages and interests one child, might bore another to tears.

Secondly I suspect it’s a slippery slope from there to lessons/ activities that are engaging/interesting/WOW but not terribly effective. And that’s almost certainly quite counterproductive in terms of children’s wanting to study a subject further.

I completely disagree with the OP’s assessment of Physics.

Physics is the first science that a child encounters, for example when they discover gravity as they drop Food off their high chair. They spend their first few years learning all about forces, and make progress to learning about energy.

Biology is the next science discipline that they can pick up.

Chemistry is very abstract, so not really suited to brains less that 13 years old. Yes, I know we do investigations into materials, but are just biding time.

I have not in any of my posts said that physics is dull, unimportant etc. What I have suggested is that it could be better taught beyond a general science type course after an extended maths syllabus.

Undoubtedly my views have been skewed by physics being badly taught to my DCs up to GCSE level (better taught at A level).

Interstingly my DB (physics graduate & phd) thinks he would have been better off studying maths rather than physics as it is the maths which underpins theoretical physics.

For a start kids aren’t a homologous group and one engages and interests one child, might bore another to tears.

And any push to do 'engaging' really translates to 'make all the choices around the few who might disengage at the expense of the majority rather than broaden the horizons of all students and support those who are disengaged'.

That’s all very well gnome, but
A) so many children won’t get as far as physics if you start teaching it later
B) you can learn a lot about physics and how it works even if you never get the hang of the maths

**
What I have suggested is that it could be better taught beyond a general science type course after an extended maths syllabus.

Which means that the vast majority of kids would do no physics ever.

OP there is a correlation between Maths ability and doing well at Physics. However if you take Foundation level GCSE Physics or the Combined Science equivalent rather than Higher then the amount of Maths required is lower.
The courses are designed to be co-teachable with the Maths GCSE syllabus and the new 9-1 courses more clearly set out the Maths skills required than the old GCSEs.
I regret the passing of Core science which is one GCSE and making combined science (equivalent to the old Double the new minimum).
MFL (and other languages e.g. Mandarin) GCSE results are badly skewed by native speakers and I think there could be a need to distinguish this in the way that the iGCSE does by having separate exams for first language and second language pupils.

Even A level Sciences are supposed to be accessible with only GCSE maths. It is possible to take A level Physics without Maths but in practice very few students do so because they are looking to take degrees in engineering for example which require both A levels.

It’s not really surprising that the further maths students are finding the theoretical physics at ALevel easier is it? By and large they tend to be the most able mathematicians in a cohort. In addition to which they may well be covering some of the content in other lessons.

The only way you can even that out, would be to bring the ALevel maths and further maths content into GCSE. I don’t think that’s feasible. And you’d end up having to condense 11 years of physics teaching into 2 years.

Right, let's bin all knowledge that can't be used to purchase a small inflatable beachball and that bucket and spade.

Alternatively, we could use the time children spend in full-time education to teach them as many concepts and skills as possible.

By teaching them the mechanics of one language, we enable them to learn another. Thus, we foster development of the linguistic abilities that enable the rigorous study of history, the sciences, space, of international diplomacy, of cross-cultural sports collaboration - I could go on.

Where would we be, if nobody in China spoke English and nobody in the U.K. spoke Mandarin or Cantonese?

We might be able to order char siu bao - oh, and some flip flops!

My limited experience was that physics A level was largely dropped by students not studying maths and further maths A level. Not simply that the maths A level students found the physics easier but that the non A level maths students couldnt manage the physics course.

Possibly this was because of teaching, possibly syllabus, possibly students just not suited.

Does learning grammar in one language help with learning another language? If the languages have a similar sentence construction perhaps but if they are very different does it help?