Dropping Art GCSE?

[emMo13]

DD wants to drop art GCSE because she feels the workload is too high and she doesn’t have enough time to revise for other subjects. DD is a procrastinator but has recently started to get down to it and has now realised she’s started too late. I have been telling her she needs to get her finger out for since half way through year 10, but to no avail. Maybe it’s my shoddy parenting. Regardless, I’m willing to accommodate her wishes because I don’t think that not letting her drop it out of spite is going to achieve anything at this point. I’m 100% sure that if DD replaced the time she was spending doing art, she’d do incredibly well at the rest of her subjects (she has 10 others, and did RE last year), since she spends days on it and nothing else. Yes - it’s a time management thing when it comes to art (I’ve been blasted about that before) but she insists that if she had to do it to a passable quality she’d still spend a significant amount of time on it and there’s no point spending that time just to get a 4 or a 5. Thoughts? Has anyone ever dropped art so late?

Matter far less. Because the curriculum offer tends to be narrower and all students tend to do three sciences etc and have guidance which is designed to keep their options open. With maths, two english, three sciences, a MFL, history or geography, RE and one or two other choices a student at a grammar can't actually go far wrong.

can'tkeepawayforever we're straying....

WTAF
"I suppose I'd also say that schools need to shoulder the responsibility for guiding their students' choices, much more so than parents. That's their job"

It is not a schools job to make options decisions for students. We can guide, guide, give opinions and in some cases heavily persuade, but it is NOT a schools job. Options choices are the students and parents decisions. Why should schools shoulder even more responsibility for rubbish parenting?!

Dermymc very aggressive post but actually schools can't abnegate their responsibility for educational things to parents.

Also, if you read my post (which wasn't long or complicated), I did say shoulder the responsibility for guiding. I didn't say for making the final decision. I'm just wondering what your subject is here because I'm hoping it's not English. God help your students if it is. Parenting responsibilities don't include knowing everything about education and career pathways or the current state of GCSEs. If you don't think this sort of guidance is the responsibility of schools, what functions do you think the taxpayer should reasonably expect the schools to perform? Any?

goodbye
Why do you insist on making digs at people's teaching ability when they don't agree with you?
You've made a pointless sit about whether I can teach bright students, now you're doing the same to another poster.

If you don't think this sort of guidance is the responsibility of schools, what functions do you think the taxpayer should reasonably expect the schools to perform Any?
There used to be a careers service and it was separate to schools with a separate budget. That got scrapped or stripped back to bare bones in the cuts. Now schools are having to do what they can.
I'd argue if people want taxpayer funded careers services and guidance then they should be lobbying MPs and councils rather than expecting schools to pick it up from their budgets (like they are already doing with other young people's services and CAMHS due to cuts affecting students).

If you're lucky then some schools employ someone in house who is a careers specialist (like we do). If not then you have a team of tutors and class teachers who will speak to students about the options.
We can give the information to parents and students but I'm now qualified in CIAG. Teachers aren't trained in career requirements. Careers guidance, like CAMHS, stuff is getting picked up by schools who tend not to have the same specialised support (and why would they? They're schools not CIAG centres or CAMHS). It is reasonable to expect staff to advise on their subject, a child's aptitude for the subject and maybe general comments about post 16 pathways. Anything more than that isn't reasonable to expect, though it's good when it can be offered.

*but I'm not qualified in CIAG (and nor are any of my teaching colleagues).

MaisyPops as far as Dermymc is concerned, s/he posted very aggressively based on a reading error of a short uncomplicated post. That wouldn't be a good trait in an English teacher. So fair point on my part.

As far as you were concerned I did, with reason, based on your long post, feel that you were being incredibly simplistic and talking down - something I know doesn't go down well with bright pupils (many pupils are in fact brighter than their teachers and it's no bad thing for teachers to remember that fact, instead of being all high horsey). So again, fair point on my part.

You may disagree of course, but if teachers insist on posting in their capacity as teachers and make obvious teaching boo boos, then it's fair game to pick them up on it.

MaisyPops my point was about guidance for options at GCSE, not careers advice. Quite different.

goodbyestranger
I got to the point of being simplistic because having explained nuances repeatedly, expressing a simple summary conveyed it. The talking down emerged form repeated pointless claims from about questions not being answered (even when answered were quoted again).

my point was about guidance for options at GCSE, not careers advice. Quite different.
You literally just said: Parenting responsibilities don't include knowing everything about education and career pathways or the current state of GCSEs. If you don't think this sort of guidance is the responsibility of schools, what functions do you think the taxpayer should reasonably expect the schools to perform? Any?
You mentioned GCSE and careers. So whh get snippy when you get an answer about careers and GCSE options?

For bright pupils like the one in the Op surely the school guidance would be Ebacc plus 1/2 options? That would be the subjects as outlined by goodbye with the potential to drop 1 science and substitute an extra MFL/Humanity for those weak in Maths. RE would also be negotiable if not a Faith school.

To get to the recommended 9/10 max there is only 1 option which I would have thought could be any technology/Art/practical the pupil had an interest in and was willing to work at.

It may seem off topic but actually the root of the Op's DD's problems looks to be trying to cover all bases / please herself and everyone else by doing 2 too many subjects. The existence of the Ebacc and current guidance widely reported should be plenty to support and advise parents, pupils and schools on the approach for academic students. As a parent I would expect a school to point me in the direction of this if my DD was proposing something different. I wouldn't expect the school to be coercing my DD to do more than 10 but I am aware of the pressure some parents / pupils put on schools to do extra. So I can understand the frustrations teachers must feel when being expected to be the bad guy in getting pupils to stick to the core plus 1.

I think the issues in best advising less academic pupils are much more complex because there is a need to balance maximising useful academics within their capabilities at the same time as opening up alternative pathways. That is a different topic and certainly an issue for comprehensives but not super selectives.

Dropping a subject is not an option because “he or she will now be able to apply themselves better in other subjects.” Unfortunately the process by which you, as a student have not applied yourself is a learning curve and one in which you must learn from. This is called learning from one’s own mistakes and I’m getting increasingly frustrated and concerned when I’m hearing parents/cares allowing “soft” opt out options. Every time someone intervenes with a child’s learning process (making mistakes) is a form of hindering them.
GCSEs are notoriously difficult.. remember we all had to do them, but I don’t remember moaning to my mother that I was overwhelmed with the work required to undertake them because I hadn’t applied myself throughout the duration of the course. By accepting this should be how schools operate is ludicrous. You are telling other students that they can adopt the same attitude and then just “drop” it when things become too much for them.

I agree that some students may drop subjects, but for circumstances beyond their control. Not applying yourself in year 10 is just laziness and she’s learning this now - good for her! Applying herself now and pushing through is a much better approach. She will learn to apply herself more and develop time management skills. She may not get an 8 or 9, but if she skilled it’s not unachievable either. As the exam boards look for quality over quantity.

Once she’s at college she can drop the subjects and concentrate on 3 or 4 options. Like I said GCSEs are hard. but that’s the point, they are meant to test us so that we can differentiate between one another’s knowledge and skills. Giving a child a leg up by allowing additional time in other subjects isn’t fair.

Good luck to your daughter I’m sure after her initial Jan blues and panic she will organise herself and seek the support required to successfully complete all of her GCSEs!

maths, two english, three sciences, a MFL, history or geography, RE and one or two other choices

Goodbye, that is exactly what I mean by narrowing the curriculum.

By comparison, very able DD and all her classmates in a good comp with a 3 year KS3 studied in Y9:
Maths, English, 3 sciences, History and Geography and RE, 2 MFLs (or 1 MFL + SEN support), 3 blocks of different DT subjects, Art, Drama, Music, Computing (as in coding, not 'use of computers') and obviously PE.

Yes, DD then narrowed down to what you describe in Y10 (no RE, but 2 MFL, 1 creative and 1 DT subject) - but it was the preservation of a broad curriculum for all in Y9, whether their final destinations are more or less academic, which I see as important where a good proportion will have no exposure to e.g. drama, music, 'general knowledge' of history, geography etc outside school.

On the 'GCSE guidance by schools', I agree with howabout that this is in fact a FAR more difficult challenge for less academic pupils. I have always admired whoever put together the option blocks for DC's school - the black art of looking entirely flexible while in fact subtly channelling pupils of every ability into sensible GCSE combinations!

MaisyPops, with respect, you've been simplistic from the start.

Clearly in the context of guidance for GCSEs, staff should advise which subjects are required for which career pathways. That is basic stuff and nothing to do with funding for careers advice later on.

MaisyPops, with respect, you've been simplistic from the start.
Hardly when i was explaining different things schools would be considered only to be told 'see that's what I mean when schools say no'.
Then mentioned (repeatedly) how all those factors will be reflected on by schools with different contexts and cohorts.

Then you mentioned GCSEs and careers and got snippy when a reply contained GCSEs and careers.
Now this...
Clearly in the context of guidance for GCSEs, staff should advise which subjects are required for which career pathways. That is basic stuff and nothing to do with funding for careers advice later on.

And yet just up thread I said:
It is reasonable to expect staff to advise on their subject, a child's aptitude for the subject and maybe general comments about post 16 pathways. Anything more than that isn't reasonable to expect, though it's good when it can be offered.

You're very good at conveniently refusing to engage with what people say whilst repeatedly claiming people don't answer your questions.

can'tkeepawayforever I've already said myself that the situation for the less academic is more complex, particularly in a world where the reforms are geared towards the more able. Although this DC is at the more able end and so advice to her in a comp shouldn't, in theory, differ from advice given had she been in a selective.

I didn't catch the first thread but I would be interested to know whether it was the school who insisted on eleven GCSE plus one taken in Y10 or the DC herself or the parent, who didn't like the idea of fewer GCSEs (which is the way the world is going). That said I suppose my own DD4 did eleven if you count the FSMQ as of equal weighting to a GCSE in terms of work and she also did Art. But it's the doing of twelve subjects in Y10 which seems a bit daft.

can'tkeepawayforever in an ideal world I'd like my DC to keep doing as many subjects as possible in the first years of secondary but I do find it far easier to make a virtue of whichever curriculum offer is current at their school. I've seen lots of curriculum changes since 2001 (when DD1 joined the school) and there's always rage from some parents when there's any change, but it is actually better to turn any change into a positive. Some of mine have been delighted to drop DT for example, or Art and concentrate on things they do far prefer rather than drag it out through Y9. I think it tends to send a better message to the DC too if a parent goes oh actually this is quite good, rather than being the parent who insists on sending copious e-mails and requesting meetings to express outrage at the narrowing of the curriculum or the taking of GCSEs early etc etc. But I admit I am supremely lazy and don't want to expend energy when I know it will do no good.

MaisyPops well all I can say is that I found your initial posts simplistic and they were addressed to me.

As to your last posts, I think if we shrink it down it simply means we agree :)

Last post not posts.

I've already said on somethings I agree with you.

But then if we agree on GCSE advice vs careers (part of my reply I've just quoted) , i dont the snippy reply of 'but gcse and careers are totally different'.

Ultimately there is a level of reasonable advice. Staff talking about their subjects is reasonable. Staff being expected to link GCSEs options advice to all sorts of career pathways is a CIAG issue and that's not what staff are trained in.

Staff at our school seem both able and willing to know what their subjects facilitate/ what dropping them might rule out but I accept not all teachers are as good.

Incidentally all the careers advice inflicted on my DC at school by outside providers has been utterly dire. Thus DD3 (11A*) was encouraged to leave the school to do to the local college to do hairdressing (she's now a London barrister at the sharper end of law) and every one of the others was given equally rubbish advice.

Caveat: hairdressers are invaluable I love mine and can't wait for my much needed appointment on Thursday :)

Apologies for all these typos. I meant encouraged to leave to go to the local college.

Staff at our school seem both able and willing to know what their subjects facilitate/ what dropping them might rule out but I accept not all teachers are as good.
I've already said staff are able to advise on their subject.
Yet again it's 'well my DC school is obviously excellent but obviously other teachers aren't capable of...'

MaisyPops I've interviewed dozens and dozens of qualified teachers in my time for posts up to and incl HT and I can't tell you how underwhelmed I've been on numerous occasions.

What right do schools have in deciding whether or not you are dropping a subject? It's your choice surely.

No, of course it’s not the child’s choice to pick and choose which lessons they turn up to.