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?

And just to be clear, given the cross posts, no you still have not answered the question. Yes, context matters of course but still no answer as to why you think the context is so different for a high achieving student in a segregated selective situation as compared to a high achieving student in a comprehensive situation. All you did was keep repeating the idea that nuance was all and pedagogy etc etc but actually no answer at all as to why the considerations should differ in this particular situation between a high achieving student in a grammar and a comp.

Goodbye - we should call this a day

15 minutes later

Goodbye - as if you still haven't answered my question from earlier that has already been explained by multiple posters

Aka I'm trying to appear reasonable but really I'm spoiling for an argument.

Do I get bonus points if the next reply is some claim 'it' s ok if you don't want to answer or can't answer'. That's been the response to every other answer.

I'm busy MaisyPops apologies for going between things and not giving you my full attention and taking a short break (Mary McCartney's Crispy Topping called).

Also, surely I said you call it a day, not me .

Perhaps the way to resolve this (bearing in mind I'm out of commission after we start supper in c 10 mins), would be for you to very kindly answer the question as put to you in my last post but one. You know, you answer, yourself, directly, explaining to me in simple terms that I might understand, the thing I'm querying in that post (and all the previous multiple posts to which I got no answer beyond 'I answered and other posters answered so I don't need to answer it's all about nuance'). That would be good thank you.

why the considerations should differ in this particular situation between a high achieving student in a grammar and a comp.

As I have said, locally - highly selective - the high achieving student would not be treated as you do in your selective - ie there is no encouraging / suggesting / identifying students to drop lower performing GCSEs, and dropping GCSEs is only allowed under the type of extreme extenuating circumstances that would lead to this in all schools - significant illness etc.

So in this particular situation, high performing students in 1 selective would be treated differently from high performing students in your selective.

Why might this be? I would suggest that it is because the schools have come to different policy decisions, based on their own context and their own specific cohort and experience. not to do with 'the type of school', just to do with 'different schools making different decisions' , as has been said multiple times.

Well done for flying the flag cant.

as has been said multiple times.
Very very very true.

It's amusing how someone can say a topic needs leaving and yet come back multiple times within an hour seeking to goad people into answering questions tjay have already been answered multiple times.

As I have said, locally - highly selective - the high achieving student would not be treated as you do in your selective - ie there is no encouraging / suggesting / identifying students to drop lower performing GCSEs, and dropping GCSEs is only allowed under the type of extreme extenuating circumstances that would lead to this in all schools - significant illness etc.
Since this is still continuing,
can’tkeepawayforever does this local selective school timetable 12 GCSEs in year 10 and 11 in year 11. I suspect not. It is reasonable for very bright pupils without health issues (that now includes stress) to continue with 10. So that does not apply to OP.

I think this repeated phrase ‘based on their own context’ is basically camouflage for certain schools with poor leadership or middle management. This thread has illustrated that sticking to systems can be priorised over flexibility in considering what is best for individual pupils. Teachers may not discern signs of stress that a parent sees.

Paediatricians know to take heed of parents when they become worried about their children. I would have hoped that teachers taking horse decisions would do the same and not contribute to the growing problem of MH issues.

Not ‘horse’, I meant ‘those’ although I like the image produced by autocorrect of horse decisions.

I think this repeated phrase ‘based on their own context’ is basically camouflage for certain schools with poor leadership or middle management.

Absolutely sendsummer. That's precisely what it is. So far we've had a lot of evasive non answers to the question I asked, but it was apparent from the start that these schools suffer poor middle and/ or senior leaders. It's good that someone has been more direct than I thought it politic for me to be.

"‘based on their own context’ is basically camouflage for certain schools with poor leadership or middle management."

So you are saying that the local highly selective school has poor leadership or middle management?

Or that 'its own context' is that it doesn't do 12/11 GCSEs and therefore makes different decisions from goodbye's school.

'Own context', as I meant it, means

• timetable
• option arrangements
• expected number of GCSEs
• staffing
• funding
• cohort (behaviour, ability, socio-economic circumstances etc)
• distance travelled by cohort to school
• ethos etc

2 schools, with equally high quality leadership, teaching and management, could differ in some or all of these, and this would influence the decisions that they make.

For example, a school I know of offers significant guided time after school for Art work where students are struggling. However, that wouldn't work in the local selective context where some bus for up to an hour to school and the buses leave at a specific time. That would influence decisions made about a situation similar to OP's.

iirc (and I do as I have just looked it up ), the OP's DD a) had significant out of school commitments and b) even in early November was threatening to just sit in the lesson and do no work if they didn't get their own way.

"‘based on their own context’ is basically camouflage for certain schools with poor leadership or middle management."

Did you mean to be so rude?

Of course schools make different decisions based on their own context. We were taken over by an "outstanding" school in a very affluent area. Some of the policies they tried to impose failed almost immediately because we were an academy in a poor social area. Having SLT walk into assembly with their university gowns on made them look and seem even more different, instead of students aspiring to that goal, they just saw teachers as different and alien to their life experiences. SLT demanded every student took their books home. Then were surprised when 50% of the students didn't bring them back. Context is everything.

"all as to why the considerations should differ in this particular situation between a high achieving student in a grammar and a comp."

Green my best answer to this would be that we don't know the full context. We don't know if all of the 10 subjects definitely count for progress 8. We don't know what pressures are on that school data wise. We don't know how that student is really performing (only have parents word). We don't know the history eg has parent/student tried to contact or engage with school previously? We don't know if the school "allows" students to drop subjects or has previously. We don't know what extra provision the school may be able to offer. There are so so many unknown variables that it is impossible to pin this down to a grammar v comp debate.

So you are saying that the local highly selective school has poor leadership or middle management?
No, that it has a sensible number of GCSEs for a bright cohort and therefore the OP scenario. is not relevant to it.

Derymymc very defensive.
‘Decisions by context’ are fine and sensible when taken by good teachers and SLT. However poor decisions and intransigence can be camouflaged by this defence which is only a generalisation.

Not defensive send. Just showing another point of view. My schools experience won't be the same as the school down the road. Doesn't mean either way is right or wrong, just different.

It would all depend on the quality of the team.

Teachers on this thread, on the one hand have said that parents should take responsibility for their DCs’ option choices and career paths because they have neither the resources or career guidance expertise. On the other hand they seem reluctant to entertain the possibility that parental decisions in the context of the OP’s situation, taken in the best interests of their DC could be right.

Struggling to see how Art at a 5 is likely to count for Progress 8 with an academic student with 11 other subjects.

If what Teen says is correct about significant extra-curriculars and the student wanting to drop the subject in November I am at a loss as to why a school wouldn't have agreed then. It does very much look like them "milking" the academic DC to get as many 5-7 possible rather than encouraging them to get a solid 7 8/9 plus a couple of insurance / fun options which would be much more in the individual bright student's interest.

can't keep awayforever our school does ten reformed GCSEs as standard. We're coming up to a blip year where eleven is standard and then reverting to ten as standard. I don't know where you got 12/ 11 from. I didn't say it. DD4 did the FSMQ in addition but that was only a minority of the cohort. Therefore the 'context' would involve a student in the OP's DD situation dropping to 9.

From my first post I asked about the number of GCSE and whether they were the new reformed exams because it was no clear the OP's DD had room for manoeuvre in terms of minimum number for an able student who didn't want to compromise her options at university level. There's been some very shaky close reading on this thread.

Agree howabout

If a school says this is not possible because of complex curricular needs of mixed cohort and not wanting to set a precedent, then this echos Goodbyestranger’s point, ie that such a school system does not allow and therefore disadvantages a pupil when in another school they would be allowed more flexibility.

howabout the OP's DD hasn't had an answer yet I don't think. But the group of teachers on this thread who threw up their virtual hands in horror seem to suggest the old knee jerk 'no' response to even sensible suggestions is pretty widespread. No surprises there. I suspect more schools have flaky leadership than have good leadership in England at the moment.

I must be the queen of cross posts, if nothing else.

And shaky typing on my part: no (it was clear the OP's DD had room for manoeuvre).

Sensible suggestions from your pov green. As many teachers have tried to explain, what seems sensible on a micro (ie student) level can have consequences at a macro (school wide) level. For example if all students at a school were able to drop subjects (seemingly easily at parents say so), it would suddenly become very popular. Having a 99% no policy apart from extenuating circumstances stops this from happening.

This is definitely a never the twain shall meet thread, our opinions depend on our experiences.

Dermymic strawman argument as sensible criteria for decisions don’t result in the polar extremes that you suggest.

Most here agree on what is a sensible number of reformed GCSEs to take (and that may be less for certain abilities or SEN or stress). That should be a starting point. Flexibility from listening to the occasional parental concerns and after sensible thoughtful discussion with the pupils at the end of year 10 and revisiting at this point in year 11 would be the next step.

Having a 99% no policy apart from extenuating circumstances
Since there is now at least 10% prevalence of MH isssues in teenagers and most of those won’t be diagnosed until after Year 9 option choices, the ‘99% no policy’ in any case is no longer fit for purpose and runs the risk of aggravating the beginnings of MH problems. These are likely not to be picked up by teachers and therefore acknowledged as ‘extenuating circumstances’

A 99% no policy to GCSEs in excess of 10 with a requirement to drop extras if workload problems start to arise would certainly make a lot more sense. Effectively this is what a lot of privates / selectives do by making extra options "off-timetable".