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?

As a secondary teacher I can assure you that there’s no evidence that the primary curriculum is dedicated to teaching kids to write in beautiful cursive.

Ontopofthesunset

And what about annotating a text? What about writing when their computers don't work anymore, or they don't have them, in another country or if they can no longer afford to purchase technology?

Writing quickly and legibly by hand is a fundamental, irreplaceable skill. We dispense with it at our peril.

cakesandtea nobody said that learning MFL was pointless the discussion was more that learning a wider 'how to get by, be polite, understand cultural norms' for a number of countries might be more useful for most students.

This was from a small group of people who had both studies MFL at school and who had also at least for part of their lives been bilingual in English and another European language.

I was out for lunch yesterday with a few friends. They started talking about how amazing it is that telephones take your voice and pass it along a wire and make it come out of the other end. None had absolutely any idea how they work and it was agreed that telephones are clearly magic. Mobile phones even more so, because they pass your voice through thin air! Except they aren't magic at all, and how they work is covered on the physics GCSE. No maths required for the explanation either.

I know I'm biased because I'm a physics teacher, but actually physics is hugely important - and increasingly so in the modern, technology based, world.

Personally, I think poor physics teaching is a serious problem which absolutely needs to be addressed. I don't know the solution though - perhaps better working conditions would be a good start in helping to retain decent teachers.

Thisreallyisafarce
Not only that but the idea of 21st century skills and preparing kids for jobs that don't exist yet has been regurgitated my entire teaching career. I'm not entirely what these 21st century skills are.

When I was in school a big deal was made about how handwriting wouldn't be needed because now schools have some computers handwriting will be obsolete and everyone will type everything and all exams will be typed etc. Still not come true. People still need legible writing.

might be more useful

Education is not just about 'usefulness' - how many times has this been said on this thread?

No doubt, spending the only years young people will spend in free, full-time education could be more usefully spent teaching them to scan items on a supermarket checkout, to apply a fake tan, to groom a dog, since those are jobs a large percentage of them might, realistically, end up doing.

But where do the astronauts then come from?

Yes, I said in my post that children need to learn to write legibly as it is still a necessary skill. I think that fast, accurate typing is also a necessary skill, and more important than neat handwriting.

Ontopofthesunset

I disagree. Cursive writing is an underpinning for fast, accurate writing without reliance on tech.

Loads of Americans print, even very educated ones. Did you see the close up of Brett Kavanaugh's notes? One of the smart US PhD students I knew printed everything in block capitals. Cursive or joined up writing is useful and quick, but it's not essential.

Anyway, it is a particular bugbear of mine, as both my sons have mild dysgraphia. Because they were able children, at primary school it was assumed they were messy because they weren't trying and they got so many dispiriting comments about the appearance of their work rather than the content.

Ontopofthesunset

I have a semi-cursive, semi-print writing hand, too. Lots of people do, as adults. However, it's generally true that cursive is faster, so they are taught to do that first. They can adapt it to preference later.

There is some evidence that handwriting is better for learning than typing, both when taking notes and when learning to read:

www.nytimes.com/2014/06/03/science/whats-lost-as-handwriting-fades.html?smid=tw-share&_r=0

Kestrel beat me to it, but there is growing evidence that note-taking should be done by hand.

I think we will soon start to see a backlash against laptops in lecture theaters for students who do not have disabilities (distraction issues as well as the fact that computers are less good for note-taking).

maisypops
Which vocational pathways are they taking?
My school only offers GCSEs apart from the Cambridge National in health and Social care. There has been talk of offering the new Btec /tech awards but it's not happened yet.

I teach an Arts subject that used to have a great GCSE until 2016. 60% practical and 40% controlled assessment. Now it's 70% written work and 30% practical. It's been great for the academic and talented kids but unfair to the ones with weak writing skills. Same with PE, our school has an exceptional PE dept and we have talented students looking at a grade 3 or 4 due to the barrier of the written work.

Apologies for typos/predictive text!

From the OP: 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.
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.

Gmomme please own up to your proposal. You were quite consistent. You didn't suggest it is pointless learning, you suggest it is pointless teaching Physics and MFL. You suggest teaching Physics after GCSEs for selected students. You also invited to list other subjects worth 'rethinking' in this way.

Fundamentally, you propose to roll back comprehensive free universal secondary education by subtly hollowing out the NC content, watering it down into irrelevance and making the access to quality curriculum a privilege accessible to those who go to university. Back to pre-Dickensian times, or rather to pre-Enlightenment, as you take aim at Physics - the fundamental subject for the analysis and understanding of the world, and one that gives access to science and technology jobs and generally teaches how to think about any topic.

Chosennonetosurvivethenight
New BTECs and Cambridge National in house.
We also do some NVQs (I think but might be wrong) provided by external providers like training academies and youth project charities for our most at risk of NEET pupils to try and get them enough to access their chosen level 3 pathway post16.

maisypops
Interesting. Exactly what we need.

cakesandtea I did not suggest that either subject was in anyway 'pointless' whether to learn or teach. What I suggested was that students may be better served by learning the subjects differently.

Could students cover sufficient basic physics concepts in a more general science type course?

A broader maths curriculum could take in more applied maths as well as more statistics (both key for scientific study).

A MFL course which allowed students to look at more than one country/language may encourage students who would otherwise completely abandon MFL (whether by option choice or simply non-participation) to continue with a culturally broader education.

Re-examining subjects and their teaching is a good thing. A calm discussion is interesting. Hyperbolic claims dont aid the discussion.

Could students cover sufficient basic physics concepts in a more general science type course?

But why? Why shouldn't students - in the main - be learning about more complex concepts (which the majority cope with without problems)?

It isn't hyperbolic to say you seem to want to dilute the curriculum for no other reason than that your children would have found it easier.

Not a good enough argument.

But GCSE physics, is pretty basic, and accessible to those without particularly good maths skills. Just because your kids' teacher wasn't able to deliver the curriculum properly doesn't mean the curriculum needs simplifying even more.

And there's plenty of applied maths and stats at A level for those who want to do science!

I think that a grade 5 in physics will teach you a lot of important concepts in an accessible way with a bare minimum of sums.

I got an A in Double Science and passed Physics A Level without Maths A Level and with some very dodgy Maths skills.

My physics education stopped in 1983 at CSE level. In the mock exam one of the questions was 'do nuclear power stations glow in the dark?'. The 'correct' answer was 'no'. My physicist brother and a family friend who was an industrial chemist had a merry afternoon debating the question. As I recall the conclusion was that the answer depended on what was meant by 'nuclear power station', 'glow' and 'the dark'.

Fortunately the family aptitude for maths & sciences only skipped a single generation and has shown itself again in my DCs.

While I can see that for some students the study of a single MFL could be beneficial an awful lot of students drop or detach from MFL lessons at the earliest opportunity. Many schools offer little or no choice in the language studied.

A number of PPs have posted that students should be encouraged to study subjects because they will support future study. Isnt this academic utilitarianism?