Pros and cons of starting GCSEs in Y9

[musicmum75]

My DS is in Y6 so we are currently looking at secondary schools. One of the major differences between our top two options is that one starts GCSEs early in Y9, whereas the other starts in Y10. In both cases they sit the exams in Y11.

Can anyone who is a teacher or has older kids who have experienced either of these routes tell me what they think the pros and cons are l? I can see benefits and negatives on both sides.

DS' school did options in year 9 with two years to do GCSE content, although they did start science GCSE content in the summer term of year 9.

I can see pros and cons of both (especially being able to drop subjects you hate earlier) but prefer the two year option.

love
Core staff getting a head start in y9 is quite common.
We introduce some techniques for creative writing and some reading skills for unseen texts part way through y9, but thats easy for us to do within a ks3 scheme because the English language paper is all unseen. It gives us a bit of time to lay some foundations.

Some schools I know with 3 year KS4 sound like it would be horrendously dull to teach there. I couldn't imagine spending a whole term on some of the set texts and still having all of y11 recapping them.

Worth noting that even if a school does a 2 or 3 year GCSE when a student starts in Year 7 there’s no guarantee it will remain that way.

I agree that it's often successful selective schools not just struggling ones going for the 3 year course. If I remember, Pates Grammar (state super selective) was one of the first to go for it and many other selectives followed. Some of those schools do 10 GCSEs and argue they can do that because of the 3 year course and that if doing a 2 year course, could only manage 8 or 9. So yes, they specialise sooner and drop some subjects but by yr 10 are doing more than most who just started GCSE.

To be honest, there's no simple right and wrong. There is a big range now in terms of how many subjects schools are offering before GCSE. Some have dropped creative subjects or oractical subjects even at KS3 or only offer 1 language or only allow the creative subjects for 1 year or make students pick after 1 year so reducing choice within KS3. Other schools might do a 3 year GCSE but gave their students a full curriculum of music, drama, art, 3 humanities and 2 or even 3 languages throughout yr7 and 8 before specialising down to 10 subjects.

It's not as simple as 3 year GCSE=narrow curriculum and 2 year GCSE=broad curriculum.

You also have to consider what else the school is offering. Is there an Electives/ general studies programme of optional modular courses which broaden the curriculum with non examined courses - perhaps an intro to another language, or photography or pottery or creative writing or film making it first aid or chess.....all broadening experiences - it doesn't have to all be examined.

And it's not the case that schools doing 3 year GCSEs spend the who,e year revising and revisiting things they've done before. Quite often, schools still haven't finished the curriculum until Feb or Easter.

This could be because the courses are so huge they just need that time to complete, or more likely because they don't just teach through at high speed to the end, from the start, but they are teaching new material and interspersing revision and revisiting of old topics constantly as they go through - so the revision doesn't all happen at the end, it is an ongoing and constant process. In my understanding, it is this approach which has led to some significant boosting of results at GCSE and made students more secure for starting A Level too.

You also have to consider what else the school is offering. Is there an Electives/ general studies programme of optional modular courses which broaden the curriculum with non examined courses - perhaps an intro to another language, or photography or pottery or creative writing or film making it first aid or chess.....all broadening experiences - it doesn't have to all be examined.
Enrichment is great, but most state schools won't be timetabling enrichment. It's hard enough having enough staff to teach the core curriculum and enough money to fund small departments (hence narrowed options from y7 in some schools).

Not everything can be examined, but it shouldn't be down to optional extras to give children a broad education. Those who need the most support to access those opportunities will be less likely to do it and those who already have a leg up and/or parents who support enrichment will have it without school.

Local comp does 2 years, with genuine set of 5 option blocks - so very broad curriculum to the end of Y9, still perhaps unusually broad for GCSE (DCs both did 2 languages, at least 1 humanity and at least one practical / creative subject alongside the 'core' Maths, Englishes, Sciences).

Local selective does 3 years, slightly narrower through Y8 as well as offer fewer practical / creative subjects.

Comp also does additional languages and things like dance, Further Maths etc outside the standard school day (DD did Further Maths this way). I don't know if the selective does the same.

In my kids' school they started GCSE content in yr 9 for maths and sciences I believe.

The kids chose their options around Easter of yr 9, and started GCSE syllabi in yr 10. Some subjects were only finished at Easter of yr 11 (whether due to heavy content or poor teaching or whatever).

We doesn't have study leave per se, they were in school being taught right up until exams started. But no revision classes over Easter or May half term.

I think if mine were made to choose GCSEs in yr 8, they would have been too pressured. I'm glad they had that extra time to grow up before making those decisions.