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?

Yes, it helps. Learning one language allows the skills of recognising gist, cognates, acquiring vocabulary, understanding "near translation" and so on. And the earlier the better, with languages.

Learning the grammar of any specific language helps with understanding how grammar underpins language. You could argue that this is just another metacognitive skill that is of benefit to most people - thinking about thinking. Of course the grammar of Japanese is very different to the grammar of Russian (post positional, particles rather than word order to indicate grammatical function, very little variation in noun versus prepositional, case endings indicating function of words etc) but having learned one makes it easier to think about what languages need to do in order to succeed and the different ways in which they might do it.

But for most people GCSE languages are just a chance to be exposed to another language and grammar system, a chance to learn a bit about culture, a chance to decide whether this is something which you want to pursue, and, yes, a chance to learn how to order a beer or book a hotel room.

I agree that learning languages earlier is beneficial. They are then learned in the same way that children learn their native language. We lived abroad for a while and DCs attended the local school so became bilingual during that time.

DS is currently teaching himself Japanese. I dont think his low grade GCSE German has helped in any way. On the other hand possibly his early childhood immersion in another language does.

I dont dispute in any way the learning of other languages but wonder if the students who would otherwise drop/disengage from MFL would stay interested if they were able to study a functional course in a number of languages.

Probably not. I can’t remember which review of the primary curriculum it was, but it learning one language vs bits of multiple languages was looked at. The resulting guidance was that schools should very much pick one language and stick to it.

would stay interested if they were able to study a functional course in a number of languages.

Pah! Who needs 'functional' language. Years ago DD went on a school trip to France for a bit of the old immersive. They were supposed to go into a shop and buy a baguette for lunch: lots of s'il vous plaît puis-je avoir... and merci beaucoup. Except what happened was that they grabbed a baguette from the shelf, handed it to the cashier who barcode-swiped it and pointed to the price displayed on the till. No conversation apart from teenage grunts.
These days they probably have some translation-thing on their phone!

I found learning a foreign language was great for understanding English. You pick up the mother tongue without thinking about it so when you have to grapple with a foreign language - learning verbs (regular/irregular), vocab, grammar, tenses, etc, etc - it really makes you think about your own language in more depth.

What a scary discussion. Are you guys serious?

What use is education? Why teach any GCSE? None of the knowledge beyond infant school has any obvious use. The till tells the sum. Even reading is overrated, you can just push icons on your mobile.

Of all subjects Physics is one of those whales that underpins human civilisation. It is fundamental to develop the understanding of the world, the forces of nature, their balance and dynamics, why things work, what is possible, what is impossible and what it would take to make the previously impossible possible. (i.e. why things flow ‘naturally’ in one direction, but it is very hard to make them flow in direction opposite). Physic is the philosophy of real life, it provides models, frameworks to analyse and imagine ideas, events, systems, it underpins our thinking about everything. Think how broadly used in figurative sense are words like momentum, gravity, black hole, action and counter-action, conservation of energy, quantum leap, photon, a force field, a wave. And of course Physics underpins innovation, much of creativity and all of the technology.

Withholding access to learning Physics is no different to withholding access to literacy and indeed to any education beyond primary school. Teaching Physics is essential to develop an emancipated, rounded person able to understand and contribute to the modern world.

Questioning usefulness of subjects like Physics, logically, unavoidably, would lead to the question:

Why having universal free education at all?

Gnome, is your problem that Physics and German spoil the otherwise all stars GCSEs line-up for your DS? Surely the answer is better teaching, teaching through different methods and via different pathways. He could resit them in gap year?

Specific individual difficulties should not be the reason to disapply the whole generation?

cakesandtea far from it. My DS had to take GCSE English 4 times to finally secure a 4. He took the BTEC route after GCSEs having got a small handful of GCSE passes. He is teaching himself Japanese for the challenge of it.

DDs on the other hand both secured A* in physics and have since gone on to science degrees and now beyond.

My DCs are all young adults now so GCSEs are well behind them. Unusually all my DCs were home and we were talking about this subject. All three with slightly different post GCSE choices felt that more maths less physics at GCSE would have been a better approach.

From another perspective my DB with physics degree & phd plus a career spent as a physicist thinks that he would have been better off going down a more maths route.

It is a small sample size.

I am confused, why does your DS teaches himself Japanese for the challenge of it, if learning MFL has no utilitarian use? If it has value for your DC, why not for the others?

Look, everyone on the thread says no. We value knowledge for its own sake, around here, looks like! And that is as it should be.

Shudders

The thing I have found dispiriting on this thread has been how offended some people have seemed to be that I had the effrontery to ask the question.

Students spend a long time at school before they get to make meaningful choices about what they can study. Surely it behoves the people who structure education to ensure that education is fit for purpose?

cakesandtea what is to be confused about? He is a young adult, long past GCSEs he isnt learning Japanese for any exam purpose, he is learning it for interest. His learning now is not informed or supported by the GCSE German he failed to absorb 5 years ago.

The thing I have found dispiriting on this thread has been how offended some people have seemed to be that I had the effrontery to ask the question

Hardly effrontery. People just think it's a sad, soulless and reductive view of education, I suspect.

He is a young adult, long past GCSEs he isnt learning Japanese for any exam purpose, he is learning it for interest.

It just proves that youth is wasted on the young.

People just think it's a sad, soulless and reductive view of education, I suspect.
Pretty much.

I'd sooner leave teaching than be complicit in a total dumbing down of the curriculum to the lowest denominator.
A utilitarian version of my subject would mean transactional writing and basic reading skills.
Meanwhile in top private schools students already get a richer English curriculum than I'm allowed to offer. I don't want the gap to get even bigger in the name of 'engagement'.

There's also a profound lack of imagination about it. "I can't see why anybody would ever want to study X...because I don't."

I had naff all interest in design and technology at school. I was shit at it. I could see the possible practical applications but it failed to engage my intellect in any way and I used to dread those lessons. Does that mean it should have been removed from the curriculum? No.

Likewise, just because you personally have no interest in Latin, Physics, Theology or what have you, that doesn't mean nobody else does.

The new Gcses are really unfair on non academic students. The time spent trying to push/support/cajole them to get a 4 is ridiculous and must be so disheartening for students to try so hard and get a grade 1-3. We really do need a return to more practical, skills based options for some children without creating a 2 tier system. The PP who mentioned the level 2 functional skills hot the nail on the head. Basic literacy is needed for every single GCSE now, including PE, drama and tech! Some kids just can not age as these new courses!
IMO a lot of year 9 is a waste and a babysitting exercise, particularly when students have taken their options by January!

I’d like to know why the government are still insisting kids are taught cursive writing like we’re churning out Victorian clerks. Why isn’t touch typing on the curriculum?!

Why isn’t touch typing on the curriculum?!

Because it isn't 1940?

Chosennonetosurvivethenight
Any school with a sensible curriculum design can offer vocational options.
Most schools in my area have vocational pathways still (they're just a bit more purposeful than some of the poor quality game playing old vocational).

Year 9 in most sensible schools is about preparing skills for GCSE. There's always a point between taking options and starting GCSE courses.
If staff choose to waste ks3 then that's their poor decisions.

Well Gnomme, I am confused because it is really incongruent. It does not hold together for you to say you DC discussed over dinner how MFL is pointless while at the same time learning Japanese in their own time, "for the challenge of it". The argument that MFL is pointless and is too challenging/ not engaging does not stand if you quote the example of your DS finding value in challenging himself, and learning something so non-basic. If it's good for your DS, than surely every pupil should have the same opportunity to challenge themselves, to expand their mind in a similar way?

At what point in life your DS was ready for that is down to his individual circumstances, surely not the basis to hollow out secondary education for the whole country.

Technically, Gnomme, your DB’s argument that you need to learn Maths before starting learning Physics does not make much sense. Heavy maths are necessary in Physics only at a very advanced level. The Theory of Relativity for example is pretty much pure maths but you can’t start learning your Physics from there. You need to walk before you run. To advance to the level of Physics where you need to use serious maths, you need to lean most fundamental Physics concepts first. You need to learn those fundamentals early on and step by step as a way to develop a sound way of thinking in a ‘scientific’ way even if you are not a scientist. That was the achievement of the Enlightenment. As someone said upthread, Physics is the first discipline children encounter when they start to play with physical objects. The best way to start is with manual common sense experiments, like dropping a ball, using a magnet with some iron dust to see the magnetic field, stuff you do in primary school. It would be all but impossible to develop a sound scientific mind, the proper systemic analytical thinking, and make it to university having started Physics after Maths GCSE. It just doesn’t hold water.

@thisreallyisafarce...you don’t think the workforce need to touch type? My work is greatly increased helping out older members of staff who are still typing with two fingers whilst staring at the keyboard. The staff with typing skills are much more productive!

DiaryStrife

I think if I tried to teach touch typing to 12 year olds they would laugh in my face. They can do it blindfolded. Curriculum time no more needs to be spent on that than it needs to be spent teaching them how to scratch their undercarriages.

I disagree about the touch typing, having two sons who both use computers for written work. 12 year olds can type more quickly than non touch typing 60 year olds, but they can't type as quickly and accurately as 12 year olds who've been taught to touch type - as my sons were. I'm not saying it should necessarily be taught in school, but I do agree that the focus on handwriting is ridiculously Victorian. Children need to learn how to write legibly if possible as writing by hand is still a part of life - notes, postcards, shopping lists, cheques. But actually more and more of those things are being replaced by emails, apps and online interfaces. They're not going to need to write in beautiful cursive in their working lives. Taking notes at a lecture is much easier when touch typing, so you can watch the lecturer/screen without looking at your laptop or notebook.

I would rather my DD2 had been taught to touch time in y6 than taught some of the grammar in the new curriculum.