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?

(To state my credentials clearly - I don't teach in secondary. through my children, i know a lot of secondary age children. Some have dropped GCSEs. Where this has happened, it tends to be for quite serious reasons - serious illness or accident, mainly. Obviously, in the non-selective schools, some have started fewer GCSEs than others, and have been guided into specific options)

I don't think I'd immediately shout about life lessons and time management and no-one else understanding the pressures on staffing etc before digging deeper and I wouldn't insist on one of the standard set of extenuating circumstances before saying ok. On the grounds that problems can escalate quite quickly and the idea would be to prevent the situation where extenuating circumstances are present. As I've said several if not many times in different ways: there was a majority of vocal teachers on the thread dismissing the idea of dropping Art out of hand in a way which strongly suggested they would brook no discussion. That mentality is quite worrying, to me at least.

can'tkeepawayforever I really do have to ask again: what is it that leads you to believe comps are doing fewer reformed GCSEs than selectives?

bottom line is several classroom teachers on this thread responded immediately with no way/ life lesson/ time management/ gasp of horror: what would the student do in the timetabled lesson?
Or otherwise pointing out the line is usually no and asking questions about practical considerations
Then followed an attempt to blind with science with a lot of stuff about nuance/ context/ pedagogy (!) etc.
Hang on a minute, for pages you obsessed about nobody answering your question. How you've decided it has been answered but it's blinding with science to show a readonably amount of practical knowlesge on a topic.
It's not blinding with science just because you've chosen to accept answers any more than it would be blinding me with science if my doctor spoke using their professional whilst I was busy telling them how to do their job.
Context and cohort are part of that. Multiple posters have explained it to death on this thread.
And yes pedagogy is part of that. There's been a lot of work looking into study habits in the last few years that's changed my thinking. 2 or 3 years ago I'd have said let them get on with it and study (after all I was a bright student who did fine), but through actually looking at an issue beyond seeking things to confirm my own biases it turns out that students aren't usually best placed to comment on what effective studying and learning looks like. If anything, they tend to be drawn towards ineffective study methods and can end up rehearsing mistakes and misconceptions. So yes, whether we allow a student to sit and get on quietly is a pedagogical decision. Being open to changing your mind and reviewing what's effective as more evidence comes to light is part of being a professional (dare I say it, much better than ' but I think... I saw a few people who... therefore I am right')

Very roughly translated that means teacher says no/ teacher knows best
What's with the silly obsession with 'teacher says no'?
What people are actually saying (and have done repeatedly) is 'people working in education and in schools are best placed to make decisions about their school policies in their contexts and with their cohorts. Those working in schools are best placed to work parents and students where there are extenuating circumstances to come to an appropriate resolution'.

Hardly rocket science, but hey teachers should be responsible for giving almost all GCSE guidance as they're the expert, but should pipe down over issues of curriculum and GCSEs and the practicalities of running a school because they clearly are poor at their job if they don't allow dropping options on demand.

can'tkeepawayforever I really do have to ask again: what is it that leads you to believe comps are doing fewer reformed GCSEs than selectives?
Because as I've already mentioned up thread, comprehensives tend to offer a wider range of courses (e.g. Cambridge nationals, BTEC level 2 etc) in addition to reformed GCSEs.

Comprehensives and selective differ in a number of ways, including context and cohort. Unsurprisingly, that might mean the run in slightly different ways.

what is it that leads you to believe comps are doing fewer reformed GCSEs than selectives?

Have I stated that? I am not sure where?

i have stated that locally neither selectives nor non-selectives allow dropping options in Year 11 except in unusual circumstances, but i have not stated anything about numbers?

Ah, did you mean Obviously, in the non-selective schools, some have started fewer GCSEs than others?

What meant was that in the school I know best, pupils with SEN, or where their level of ability suggests that a full set of 9-10 GCSEs is not in their educational best interests, do fewer GCSEs than their peers. The other blocks are filled with courses that meet their needs - whether that be study skills / life skills / SEN support with core subjects, or some more practical vocational courses.

The local selective schools have no pupils who cannot access GCSEs and therefore all pupils tend to do very similar numbers (some, like the non-selective, offer additional extra-curricular GCSEs, offered after school or at weekends)

MaisyPops I'm off to bed but I'm afraid that an attempt to blind with science is never an adequate answer as far as I'm concerned!

Also, my question wasn't why are you so opposed in your own setting but what different considerations do you see between a comp and a selective in this situation (high achiever, stressed, wanting to drop) and that question has been roundly ignored, despite all the stuff about nuance, context, pedagogy (!) - which is frankly just waffle.

Clarifying again: pupils of similar ability will be doing similar numbers of GCSEs in the selective and non-selective schools - usually 9-10.

However, those who need more vocational courses or who need specific SEN support will obviously take fewer GCSEs, and those pupils are in the non-selective schools.

Well also this from yesterday can'tkeepawayforever:

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

Selectives are tending to do ten reformed GCSEs at the moment. For some reason I've yet to fathom a number of comps around us are doing more.

what different considerations do you see between a comp and a selective in this situation (high achiever, stressed, wanting to drop)

I have answered that question specifically upthread, if you have a look.

In the same way that a school drawing pupils from long distances by school bus might rule out 'do after school sessions with the art teacher every day' as a first option for the OP, while a local school might have that as the most common solution, a comprehensive or selective school might decide to rule out 'drop the GCSE' as a first option for OP because in their experience, the extra time has not been used wisely and there has then been significant time wasted by senior management saying 'no' to a flood of further requests from other pupils and parents.

Thus a friend's DC in one of the nearest comps did thirteen reformed GCSEs for no good reason and passed only a handful (with 4s). It beggars belief.

can'tkeepawayforever with respect, the question was addressed to MaisyPops who is the one attempting to make the question disappear behind a puff of nuance and context, not you.

Sorry goodbye, that is an unfortunate conflation: I was replying to someone who said that the OP's school did 11ish GCSEs, and I was then referring to the solution your school has, which is to drop GCSEs. I did not mean to imply that your highly selective school offers 11/12 GCSEs - that was unfortunate ophrasing on my part.

Locally, no school does >10 GCSEs unless some are done out of hours - it is theoretically possible to do up to 13 I think at some, but that would involve weekend and evening classes in 3 subjects.

MaisyPops I'm not looking for a lesson on research based teaching thanks. I'm off to read in bed!

Mine is that good leadership involves being finely tuned to each individual pupil and being very aware of embryonic problems which nevertheless signal a problem, precisely to avoid them developing into 'extenuating circumstances'. In other words not barking about life lessons and time management etc but actually doing whatever is required to manage the situation in the best interests of the individual child. Anything less and the responsible person shouldn't be in a leadership position in a school.

There speaks the person who has NO idea of the pressure teachers are under.

Barking on about time management would be appropriate in some contexts. Again, context is everything. As has been repeatedly explained.

I'm not looking for a lesson on research based teaching thanks

Why on earth would teachers try to do their job using research, what a ridiculous idea.

Derrmymc your posts continue to be defensive (rather than the discursive ones between cantkeepawayforever and goodbystranger). Treating people as ‘rude’ because they challenge set views may be how you operate in the classroom but does not persuade me that intransigence is done in the best interests of the students.

pressure teachers are under.
That may contribute to a poor inflexible system but, sadly, you like certain other posters continue to make a virtue of ‘necessity’.

On the other hand I respect the honesty of a previous post by Bobbybobbins
^I agree that there is some inflexibility in every state secondary school including my own! I am not so blinkered as being unable to see this! Most of us are trying our best.
This is an unfortunate feature of limited funding and other practical factors^

I have learnt from certain attitudes here to the OP scenario that contributing causative factors for this ‘necessity’ are not simply economics. There is manifestly an inability of certain school management teams / teachers to be at the least open to the benefit of a more flexible approach for certain pupils that takes into account both the changes in the examined curriculum, other needs and the well publicised trends in young peoples’ mental health.

IMO the mantra that pupils should stick with what they have started is not right for some as may be the case for the OP. Schools should also not just be focussed on extracting soldi exam grades (Maisypops).

I had not previously considered that the ‘learned helplessness theory’ may apply in those critical teenage years from school ‘policy’.

MaisyPops who is the one attempting to make the question disappear behind a puff of nuance and context, not you.
Or is pointing out that nuance and context make a difference to decisions schools make.
Thankfully schools aim to make decisions based on nuance and their cohort and their contexts and not just ploughing on because one member of SLT thinks their opinion based on their previous school is right.
If schools made policy how you're proposing it would be i worked at school X and we did... therefore we should do that here because there is no difference between the schools or situations.

I'm not looking for a lesson on research based teaching thanks
And yet looking at the research is precisely why my views on independent study have changed and why pedagogy matters.

When things were explained earlier, you claimed it was obvious and hardly revolutionary. Then you claimed 'not answering the question' despite repearwd answrds. Then you claim outlining contsxt and cohort makes a difference is being too simplistic. And then claim it's 'blinding with science' and 'teacher says no' (even though most have said there will be flexibility in extebuaing circumstances).
Then you've been snippy about the idea pedagogy matters (how dare pedagogy matter in teaching). And then when it's explained, you continue to go back to 'blinding with science'.

I still can't believe the idea that 'schools will make the decisions for their contexts and their cohorts & have flexibility for extenuating circumstances' can be such a controversial idea.

Schools should also not just be focussed on extractingsoldi exam grades(Maisypops).
Why ever not? Why would we not want to give children the best chance in life?
Please don't try to suggest that it's a case of mental health or results.
Getting our students solid results was part of a wider explanation of what we do at my school (namely, some do 9/10 reformed GCSEs, some do 11 by doing extra curricular ones which can be dropped, some don't do MFL to do extra maths/english, some do fewer GCSEs so they can vocational options).
So yes, we do focus on getting solid grades for our students because we spend a huge amount of time having a range of options for them that enable them to succeed. We also are honest with students at options times. We also allow for swapping options during the start of year 10 for a few weeks in case they've made the wrong choice.
We also have an excellent pastoral base, support for managing time, study skills sessions, teams of on site mentors and access to some counsellors too.

Highlighting the issues of a 'drop on demand' in year 11 policy doesn't mean that no concern is given to students, especially when it's been said repeatedly that some flexibility is available.

The thing is, say a pupil does extra curricular activities for 4 hours 5 days a week. Maybe they are also Head Boy/Girl with extra duties for school.

Then they turn round and say they 'don't have enough time' to do their revision, please can they drop a subject.

Should the school just say 'yes', or should they at least explore the possibility of dropping a couple of the extra activities, just for the 6 months leading to GCSEs?

goodbye is arguing they should just say yes. Most others are saying explore other possibilities first. That doesn't mean the ultimate decision won't be to drop, just that it wouldn't be an automatic yes.

Why is someone doing 12 GCSEs anyway? That sounds like a massive amount of work. And totally unnecessary as 8/9 is adequate for university entrance. How on earth is the OP's school fitting everything in? However, I do think the idea that an employer will be put off by a 5 in art when all the academic subjects are 8s nonsense. I got a C for music, everything else As and Bs and was offered an Oxbridge place (didn't get in because of the entrance exam but that wasn't anything to do with the GCSEs)

I did 8 at a grammar school.

DS is doing 8 at a high performing comp (if he were doing triple science he'd get 9 but he wants to do language/humanity A levels so not interested in more than the double).

TTT I'm not 'arguing' for anything of the sort. I'm simply saying that the automatic 'No' except where circumstances are already at the extenuating point (which in practice means a serious mental health issue has already presented, or there's been a death in the close family etc) is typical of a poor quality - by which I mean poorly led - school. Of course there's an argument for resilience, so of course there can't be an automatic 'Yes'. I think I've already said that the teachers themselves should be watching for signs of stress and being pro-active where necessary, so in some cases the school might be suggesting it as a solution rather than waiting passively for a student or parent to make a request.

I do find the collective manner of most of the classroom teachers on this thread quite interesting. I'ts highly likely to reflect their manner towards their students, which raises other interesting points.

Fair enough MaisyPops for the focus on 9 to 10 solid grades as you have now qualified. However the best life chances may be delivered by 8 to 9 higher grades from a less stresses student after dropping a subject, similarly to what has been accepted practice for A levels from 4 to 3.

You do seem to have also shifted your initial position from
No school I've worked in would let a student drop a subject this late unless there were significantly extenuating circumstances (e.g. were dual registered with an alternative provision provider / significant SEND issues).

to a potentially more moderate

Highlighting the issues of a 'drop on demand' in year 11 policy doesn't mean that no concern is given to students, especially when it's been said repeatedly that some flexibility is available.

I agree with Goodbyestrange that preventive action is better than expecting a stressed teenager to have the strength to fight their corner against a system that by default will refuse their request.

sendsummer
The flexibility is in extenuating circumstances. Dropping on demand isn't an option at any school I've worked in (and that's a range from outstanding high performing through to struggling in special measures) for a range of reasons.
There is flexibility if required. The key is required, and usually that will mean other avenues of support have been exhausted and (crucially) home and the student have done their bit. If other measures have been put in and not worked then there may be grounds to say something is extenuating circumstances.

The OP raised this as an issue a while ago about dropping a subject. There was lots of advice given about how to move forward. Taking the new thread at face value then there doesn't seem to be any indication that earlier advice was acted on. There were many steps suggested and advice given. Sticking head in the sand and pushing to drop isn't preventative. It's not addressing an issue and then hoping someone will make your life easier If you kick it down the line.
Unless an update confirms other steps have been put in place before now, it's unlikely to be extenuating circumstances as the first port of call for situations similar to this is subject support and some intervention combined with agreed study timetables with home (maybe getting invited to a study skills revision session if school run them).

Most others are saying explore other possibilities first. That doesn't mean the ultimate decision won't be to drop, just that it wouldn't be an automatic yes.
This.
I've known students drop for medical issues. I've known them drop due to long term absence for pastoral reasons unrelated to the subject. I've known students have to sit exams for a vocational subject early but have been allowed to use time in that lesson to revise once they've completed the course (not terribly effective in my experience).
I've had students drop subjects where they've been doing music or sport to a national/international level and despite putting things in place, the standard curriculum wasn't working. I've known students need to be given study materials to do at football academy because they are educated off site and part of that means study with a tutor supervising. I've known subjects get dropped when there's been CAMHS involved. I've seen subjects dropped when we're having real issues pushing for EHCP and so school/home agree to treat as SEND and adapt. There's been subjects dropped when core subjects were at risk and it places a student on the edge of missing out on their level 3 course.

That wouldn't mean we'd let anyone part of a local sports team or youth music group drop a subject on demand because they didn't manage their time properly. We also wouldn't allow someone to drop because they wanted 7s and didn't want a 5. Neither of those things are extenuating, especially if left to year 11 and then the request is 'well can they not just drop X'.