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?

Apple I absolutely agree which is why I would never bother to threaten before actually acting. However it is also my experience that schools and teachers avoid unnecessarily provoking the parents who are naturally on side, especially in challenging comps where they have plenty of issues to start with.

These days with the exams mostly being linear, not turning up to the exam would get an X rather than a U as no coursework would have been submitted - I don’t know if that has to go on UCAS.

howabout I do think if a parent was the sort of parent who had contacted the school incessantly over the previous four and a half years and started to get confrontational about this issue, they'd be taken a lot less seriously than a parent who had been less vocal. There's a great deal to be said for picking your fights.

I have to say the idea of threatening a school at any stage is pretty alien but admittedly I've had an easy ride.

"These days with the exams mostly being linear, not turning up to the exam would get an X"

Ah - I haven't heard of an X! What does that signify - a sort of 'did not attend'? Again probably not a good option if you have to put it on UCAS! - unless there's a good reason like illness (although in those cases I think there may be provision for awarding a grade based on mocks/school input etc?)

Agreed goodbye. If I, as a parent, had a real issue with the school I would resolve it on first meeting rather than carping from the sidelines for years.

noble
If art has coursework and a student didn't attend the exam, wouldn't they still end up with a grade overall rather than an X as they've been entered for elements?
I might be wrong though.

Agree with goodbye and how on how a parent has responded over the years will probably make a difference. That's one reason why whether the school will acvept extenuating circumstances or not. IIRC, the OP flagged this issue up on MN a while ago and was given good advice by lots of posters. So the question is what has practically changed between then and now.

Students panicking because they've not managed time effectively isn't unusual in year 11. A student finding a subject difficult isn't unusual in year 11. If a parent has spoken to school following their child's reports, got an agreement on how home and school will aim to help the child sit their exam and then that's still not worked for a number of reasons etc then there's a case for extenuating circumstances. If it's a case of 'they find it difficult and getting a 5 isn't really an option' but little has been done by home to address the issue and this is the first school are aware of the issue then it's probably not.

Absolutely. Some parents do contact school at every opportunity though and they do become 'known', so their credibility does get a bit shot by the time there's a serious issue.

That was to howabout.

I was similar to your DD, although did music not art. I was very anxious. She will actually be making things worse by spending so long, and overthinking. She's spending hours per day?! No. She needs to set time limits and stick to them. It's difficult as a perfectionist, high achieving teen. Artistic subjects aren't about time spent or perfection. I wouldn't let her drop it. Setting limits will help rather than hinder her grade. She really shouldn't be doing almost nothing on her other subjects. Instead of asking to drop art, could you talk to her art teacher, and form tutor or whoever about supporting her (involving her ofc)? Is there a school counsellor etc?

@maisypops I think they would end up with a grade or a U depending on the weightings etc. I know students who did statistics but didn't do the exam got a U rather than X.

That's what I thought dery.

Not a teacher, but a parent of a DS who thought he had lost his art folder on a bus a couple of weeks ago (it turned out that he was so tired after the last mock that while he meant to bring it home from school, he didn't, and when he went in the next day, there it was, but we had a pretty awful night, as he somehow vividly remembers running for the bus with it) - and so we went through the calculation of what was achievable if all his pieces - well 13 out of 20, had just gone. Hence my looking at the grade scheme from last year (except apparently I looked at the wrong one, he is doing EDEXCEL).

I did try and talk my DS out of doing art, because everybody said that art takes over one's life, but he was insistent that he really wanted to do it (when he thought he had lost his folder, and was distraught, his comment was "this isn't what they mean when they say art takes over his life"). He has decided though that there is no way he will take it for A level. And he has completely turned DD (Year 8, getting top marks in art) off doing it.

But I tried to talk my DS out of doing art in Year 8 (yes, we have a three year KS3), not now. The thing is, as he said when he thought he had lost the folder - that is two and a half years work just gone. And even if the OPs DD has not been working at all outside of class, and they have a two year KS3, in art class is mostly working, so there is quite a lot of time that has already been sunk into this, and there must be some work available from that.

I am not sure about a three year KS3, but what my DC's comp tries to do to compensate is to offer a whole range of electives in Year 9, to broaden their horizons, in subjects that they are (usually) not tested on. In Year 9 DS took first aid (got a couple of certificates), a martial art, a public speaking elective, a psychology elective, and something on how the stock market works (the last was not his real choice, he wanted drama, but not enough elected drama, and this was the default). Other options that he did not take were mandarin, a discussion on the current news of the day, art/photography (for those who didn't want to take it at GCSE) badminton - and I can't remember the rest.

goodbye

I understand that your own DCs - who have also all attended the same selective school, IIRC - may have followed the same trajectory regardless of the balance between different Key Stages.

That's probably as expected, given that family background is such a key component in education and subsequent trajectory.

What i am asking is a much more general one: in terms of all pupils, in all schools, from all backgrounds, why is a 3 year KS4 desirable? In particular, why is it seen as specifically desirable for highly able pupils in selective schools? Or is it that it ISN'T desirable, but it is 'good enough', given the level of extra-curricular enrichment and cultural capital of most of these pupils, and DOES lead to more predictable, higher results?

can'tkeepawayforever I think if you look at the education threads generally, incl the grammar school entrance threads and the GCSE threads, you'll find that there's often wide variation between siblings so I wouldn't dismiss my eight too fast as a tester group. Other people in the field of secondary and tertiary education frequently express surprise at just how close all the grades are and how similar outcomes are with very different personalities, work ethic etc. To the extent that across the six who have taken their finals there's only a difference of 2 marks between the highest and lowest. It's quite odd actually. No idea how it works.

I wouldn't say a three year KS4 is better but provided there's a really good KS3 programme I don't think it matters either way. By which I mean it doesn't matter to me as a parent. I think the current trend towards a three year KS4 is simply the obvious response to the new harder qualifications. When they bed down perhaps the trend will reverse.

By which I mean it doesn't matter to me as a parent.

So it could matter in the 'wider educational landscape', in terms of the quality of education for all, but you're OK with it as a parent?

On a personal point, my siblings and I have vastly different educational experiences - from tiny rural just ex secondary modern to highly selective boarding for secondary - but we are, like your children, oddly similar in terms of final outcome: almost identical degree marks in very very similar subjects from closely-matched universities!

From my experience I would say a three year KS4 helps some students achieve higher grades. The downsides IMO are: some students not choosing options as carefully with less time to do so (less significant for a child with good guidance from family/school); much narrower curriculum so subjects like arts, performing arts etc are squeezed out.

Yes that is what I mean can'tkeepawayforever. I didn't want to say it doesn't matter educationally because obviously there are arguments for and against. But I don't happen to feel strongly provided the school is well led and probably with the caveat that the two year KS3 is high quality. A lot of people say that Y9 is a wasted year with DC tending to mess around and disengage if given half a chance so this new trend has the advantage of focussing them. Although there is an argument that most DC will slack off in some year or another and Y9 is probably a good year in which to do it.

That's interesting about your siblings given the different schools. In our area the pattern is for those with DC at the grammar as well as one of the comps is for the siblings to achieve very differently. That's obviously anecdotal and there have been some exceptions, to be fair.

Goodbye,

My siblings and I were separated more by chance than by academic ability, which probably makes a difference - siblings where 1 attends a grammar school and 1 a secondary modern (where both have been entered into the 11+ and 1 has 'passed' and one 'not passed') would be a different situation.

Do you have a view on the narrowing of education through a very short KS3, especially for children from backgrounds that anyway give a narrow experience, and on the validity of choices made after only 18-20 months of secondary schooling?

The short answer is no :) I could argue equally for a two year KS3 and a two year KS4 but I have to say that my experience is in the selective sector. Within that sector backgrounds matter far less. Only one out of my seven DC has had a three year KS3 and I all know is that the rest appear not to have suffered any disadvantage.

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. Lots of parents don't have a clue, across the social divide, and should be able to rely on the school.

Within that sector backgrounds matter far less.

Matter far less?

Or are far more similar to one another (socio-economically and in terms of broad experience and culural enrichment) than in non-selective schools?