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?

With respect Maisy Pops, you can know nothing about the leadership at our school so it's pretty silly to make the 'make no bones' comment that you did. I think I'm in a better position to make a judgement than you are. You just sound unimaginative tbh. Not quite sure why secondary school teachers on MN are so often so insistent always that they know the secret of life.

Also, the 'image' of high results? What does that even mean?!!!!

If super selectives don't achieve high results for their students then there's no point in their being. That doesn't mean that they're only about exam results though. The results are incidental to the education.

Gosh, I see how lucky we were geographically to escape these narrow views.

GCSE Art is a huge amount of work. My DD is doing A levels one of which is Art. Unless she wants to do creative stuff or include an art subject in her A levels I would support her.
By the way, its not your parenting that's put her here! I have 3 (youngest now doing A levels) & honestly they're all different when it comes to studying. But if she'll let you, write out a revision timetable with her & ask her how you can help keep her focused.

It's a common pattern that's all. I was drawing on my experience just like you free on yours when deciding your children's school must be better than everyone else's on here.

I'm not unimaginative at all. I've already shared multiple ways my school supports students. There's nothing unimaginative about saying how a particular situation in one school may not translate to other schools with different contexts.

For what it's worth, there are examples of amazing practice at my school, but just because it's the right call for a handful of students in my school context doesn't mean it should be rolled out as a blanket policy in the school down the road.
Sometimes on MN it's possible to get "well X worked with my DC therefore another school should do it". More often than not things are more complicated than that.

Not quite sure why secondary school teachers on MN are so often so insistent always that they know the secret of life.
Nobody says that.

I certainly don't think my DCs school is the 'best'. I simply said that it was on track to be at the top of the table. That may be my measure of the 'best' too, or not.

Perhaps the thing about sitting in the timetabled lesson wouldn't work with a student in a mixed comp. If a teacher is relatively proficient it should, but you seem to be assuming they're not. I can't know that but it seems a reasonable solution to the 'What would the student do?!' question posed earlier.

The basic situation doesn't alter across the school divide. The issues are identical Maisy Pops. The DD is a high achiever in a comp. Same situation as any other high achiever. The fact that her school caters for lower ability students too doesn't alter that fact. I thought comps were supposed to cater for every need.

Perhaps the thing about sitting in the timetabled lesson wouldn't work with a student in a mixed comp. If a teacher is relatively proficient it should, but you seem to be assuming they're not.
It has nothing to do with teacher proficiency.
It's about who sets work for 8 hours a fortnight?
Do the students have enough skills in effective study habits to manage their study effectively (vs looking busy and quiet whislt gaining limited learning)?
Are they developing good exam technique during the time or just rehearsing their current level (so not really gaining much)?
If students are completing meaningful work over the 6 months left, does it get marked?
If so is the subject teacher expected to mark and give feedback on top of their main teaching responsibilities?
If not, how does anyone know the student isn't reinforcing misconceptions?
Does a non selective comprehensive start saying that's an option for only the chosen few who are deemed to be 'nice kids with nice parents?
Will there be a situation where if your parents shout the loudest then you can do what you want?
What's the implication if/when students learn they can not manage their work on a subject & then underperform to drop the subject?
What about subjects like MFL when the inevitable y11 requests come in to drop it (happens every year for some groups), does the MFL teacher teach 14 students whilst the other 12 do their own thing?
How does that start affecting staffing and curriculum options if students start wanting to drop subjects in y11 because they don't like the grade they'll get?
How do schools teach time management and resilience whilst also saying you can opt out later if you feel like it?

Comprehensives cater for a full range. Catering for a full range doesn't mean saying you can not make any changes to your study habits and then you can drop a subject in y11 because you're a nice kid. It might mean that tutorial time can be freed up (staffing dependent) for her to art in the art rooms. It could mean some tutorial time is given at ks4 for students to revise and catch up under the guidance of their tutor. It could mean having the student and their art teacher sit and make a plan and checklist. It could mean giving the student an appointment with a learning mentor or support staff who can help them work on organisational skills and prioritising.

There are lots of options.

MaisyPops that's a long old list of objections to what really is relatively simple to achieve. It demonstrates what I meant by the sort of school which asks what's the question/ no is the answer, while actually only really emitting white noise. I've no idea why you introduce the concept of 'nice parents' and 'nice kid' (more than once) - it's quite dubious tbh.

Anyhow, what I've described works in some schools and clearly isn't even on the radar of others. That's fine, but I know which sort of school environment my DC were in, and that's certainly not the rigid unimaginative one. With luck the OP's DD isn't at one of those either.

That should read: I know which sort of school environment I'd rather my DC were in.

Not objections. Things to consider before deciding whether to roll something out in a different school context.

The 'nice parent/child comes from how schools then manage it when there's
similar situations and one child ends up with it granted but not another. Is it going to be an option only available if your parents are in the know and push school? Is it only going to be an option if you're a nice well behaved child who is a higher achiever (Even though it may have benefits for middle ability students if there's staffing capacity and it's well planned)? Are some students going to be told they can't because they've been unsettled in year 10? What would the line be? Would the line be publicly communicated? Would it be an in the know policy on the sly? How would school deal with a situation where (for example) 12 high achieving girls have been allowed to do X but they've refused it to Y who is as capable as them?

It's not about asking questions and school saying no (which you keep saying). It's about school needing to consider all those angles before making decisions based on 'well one settled able child wants to drop a subject'.

Asking questions, anticipating issues and considering what might need to be in place isn't rigid or unimaginative. It's a fairly basic part of school leadership. Some schools will ask those questions and come up with option A, another might decide on B, another might decide it's not viable in their context. All of those are valid pathways.

It would be a silly school who started making GCSE options decisions on the hoof and making it up as they go along.

MaisyPops, I would expect a successful school, which continues to be successful, to have considered all angles. I doubt you can really teach the SLT in such a school very much which they don't know or haven't thought about already.

Goodbye, I think your very lengthy involvement with a single school of a specific, rare type has lots of advantages in giving you expertise when talking about it - certainly much greater expertise than someone who has had a single DC there for a small number of years.

On the other hand, it's like deep and specific knowledge of any small field - it means that you may not have a particularly deep knowledge of a much wider related field than others might who have a wider but shallower experience.

Maisy - IIRC - works in a decent, average comprehensive : a type of school very common around the country, and therefore perhaps more familiar to most than a highly superselective. I find her perspective interesting because she is an 'insider' in a very common school type, in the same way as I find yours interesting as a 'near insider' in a rare school type. Her perspective is perhaps more broadly applicable to the many of us who send our DCs - of varying abilities - to this type of school.

There is a poster on here who has had lots of children who have passed through lots of different types of school, and I find their different perspectives interesting because they are in a better position than most to compare.

DD had to go to the inclusion unit when she dropped her subject.

I think it would have been considered by the school too disrupting to the rest of the class to have her sat there doing something completely different. (Not as in calling out disrupting, but as in other pupils looking and seeing DD was doing other stuff. They would then see dropping was possible and the thin end of the wedge argument starts.)

They'll consider angles as and when it's required.

For example, a selective school pushing students to sit 13 new spec GCSEs will probably want to have already considered what they will do if and when students are struggling with that workload.

A comprehensive school putting students in for 9 or 10 depending on which pathway they are on is probably not going to be looking at removing students from subjects other than extenuating circumstances. They may have contingency plans in place for those who require more vocational routes though.

Senior leaders will make their plans and throw out ideas based on their schools and their cohorts and their curriculum. They wouldn't be wrong for not thinking about any possible issue that might affect a different school.

Equally, it might be that school have decided that A B C is an option but D E F isn't. Again, that doesn't make them rigid or unimaginative.

Unless of course what you're suggesting is that whatever is done in your children's school should be rolled out as an option everywhere and failure to do that is a sign of a horrible rigid school.

Sorry, X post.

As I have said before, in the schools I know best, children

• embark on fewer GCSEs
• drop GCSEs
• do additional GCSEs

depending on what is best for them and their broader educational experience.

So a child who was doing e.g. 2 creative subjects but was ill might be allowed to drop 1 of the creative subjects, but a child doing a very narrow range of subjects who was healthy might not be able to drop that subject but would have specific after and in-school sessions to boost their progress.

Senior leaders will make their plans and throw out ideas based on their schools and their cohorts and their curriculum.

Exactly. A school might well allow a child to only start 7 or 8 GCSEs rather than the usual 9/10 - or might choose to add an 11th of further Maths for some pupils. But they might well not allow a student who, for easily rectified issues such as time management (rather than for e.g. chrionic illness), was falling somewhat behind to drop back to that 7 or 8. Instead, they might well offer a range of options to catch up. That is entirely reasonable.

teen
That is quite a common solution for extenuating circumstances.
It's not without its pros and cons though. My wariness is if and how schools ensure the time is used productively and effectively to give the student the most impact. There's no easy solution to thay though. Schools have to do what they can for their situation and the circumstances of the children.

can'tkeepawayforever you don't know whether I'm an 'insider' or not, since I haven't said. I think MN guidelines permit that choice. I would add that since schools aren't islands and can't be too inward looking without encountering serious problems for themselves, the chances are that most people operating in them know a good deal about the state of general education and school leadership etc etc whatever the school type they may be most closely associated with.

MaisyPops can I reassure you that no selective school in the country is currently pushing its students to sit thirteen new spec GCSEs.

I am a primary school 'insider', a secondary school 'long term parent' and very interested in education.

I would not presume to say that I fully understand all the issues that affect e.g. a secondary comprehensive, or a super-selective.

Also MaisyPops you're stating very obvious points as though they're somehow revolutionary/ revelatory. I hope you don't do that in your lessons, or your brighter students might get fed up.

@maisypops I agree with you 100%.

Green you clearly have experience of one very academic and selective school. Most schools aren't like this. I have worked in a range of comps and none of them have allowed students to drop subjects unless there are extenuating circumstances. The majority of the schools I have taught in, students take 9 GCSEs so dropping one can leave them with a narrow list of qualifications. There are also the practicalities; students might sit and work quietly on another subject however in reality students that need to drop subjects aren't normally quiet ones who will just sit and get on with it.

can'tkeepawayforever it would be a very ignorant person who claimed to fully understand all issues about all aspects of education. But some will know more than others, very obviously.

Also MaisyPops you're stating very obvious points as though they're somehow revolutionary/ revelatory. I hope you don't do that in your lessons, or your brighter students might get fed up.

I'm making obvious points in response to claims that schools not doing what your DC schools have done must be rigid and unimaginative.

Still it's nice to know we've got to the point of goading.

Yes Maisy I agree.
For DD it was only from mid March onwards iirc (we all agreed she should finish the syllabus as she found it interesting even though she couldn't answer the questions for toffee), and then I took responsibility for ensuring she had work to do in the 5hrs / fortnight. (The school knew I was an 'involved' parent so knew she would have something to do).
DD also had to agree not to go broadcasting that she was dropping it.

How can she just drop a subject? Where would she be when she should be in art? There's not a cupboard of spare teachers sat around to babysit...