3 year GCSE courses

[mintyneb]

We've just been told today that DD (yr8) will have to chose her GCSEs next summer to start them in yr9.

Up until now the school has done GCSEs over 2 years so traditionally DD would have had over a year before having to make a choice. This has therefore come as something of a surprise.

Apparently research shows that 3 year courses are better all round but as there won't be an info evening until Feb it will be a while before I can officially find out more from school.

Any thoughts from folks whose DC have gone through this and come out the other side?!

All of the schools round here do 3 year courses for GCSE. They finish the course in y11 like 2 year schools but the first year is a more gentle transition than in 2 year schools. There's more content in new GCSEs so the extra time is probably for the best.

My DD1 school has done this for last few years and the results are really improving.

She basically finishes her 'course' work at Christmas and the next term is covering area's where there is need and revision.

Sorry posted to soon.

Her school also sit their English Lit GCSE in year 10 so they can concentrate on English language in Year 11.

I don’t know of any substantiated research that shows this is generally better for the kids. Teach something well the first time, interleave new topics with revisiting previous ones and really no need to start in y9. It reduces choice for the students, makes them drop too many subjects way too early, ime it tend to be done only by poorer schools and ofsted hate it.

How did the schools keep up the broad education that they would have usually offered in yr9?

Did your DCs get a chance to do anything that wasn't one of their GCSE choices? School have said that they'll keep offering 'opportunities and experiences in all subjects next year, just not sure what that really means

Rosie, xposted. I'm inclined to feel the same but need some positive experiences to keep my mind open.

Unfortunately I'm of the era that did o levels so the new style gcses don't appear - on the surface at least - to be significant harder than what I had to do

Minty, i think the thing that would worry me most about this is the introduction at this point when ofsted have made it very clear under the new framework that they do not consider it to be acceptable. You could have some sympathy for schools that have been doing it for a few years and need to reorganise but for a school to be considering introducing this now tells me they really have their eye off the ball in terms of what is considered to be good practice.

Interesting..... they were only just rated outstanding school at that!

Rosie you've explained it well. 3 year courses have gone out of favour with OFSTED and there's no evidence they are better.

Schools doing early entry for any courses will be hauled over the coals when inspected. That is considered bad practise now.

Well that has given me food for thought and something to raise with the head when we do finally have the parents eve

Teachers on here often say that new GCSEs have 30% more content than the old style so an extra year probably ensures finishing on time without rushing.

re O level comparison. I did O levels too and my DD2 is in y10 (DD1 did the old style GCSEs with more coursework).
I don't think the new GCSEs seem particularly harder than the old O levels (though obviously question styles and content are very different for some subjects), however the GCSEs have to be done by everyone, and for the less academic they really seem quite a challenge. Some have a lot of content.

re 3 year. DD is doing a mix.

• Maths doesn't count as it's a 12 year course really.
• Eng lang they've been doing questions in the style since y8
• Eng Lit they did a bit of the poems in y9 but I think they'll be re-covering them
• Science they officially started at the start of y9
• RE they do short course end y10 as standard, but DD is doing full course as an option so she's effectively doing a 3 year course
• other options are 2 year

DD1 & DD2 would probably both have made different choices if they had picked mid y8 rather than waiting until mid y9.

But you don't have a choice, so you just have to go for it and be positive with your DC.

Apparently research shows that 3 year courses are better all round

Hmm, given that this is a very recent development, I seriously doubt that.

Agree Ofsted have slated it and schools are quietly abandoning it. Kids should have the broad KS3 entitlement over 3 years and it’s unlikely schools are squeezing this into 2.

Yeah I'm not sure what research either, very few schools will have gone through a three-year KS4 yet unless they decided to do it at once - last year's cohort were the first possible ones.

Most schools I know that have done this made the move a year or so ago so have maybe this year's yr 11 having done three yrs.

I have grave reservations as it is so limiting so early. Ds2 would have done tech and food instead of CS and history and his later choices were better for him.

But yes op, you don't have any choice, so maybe look at what yr dd may like and talk to her about the importance of subjects rather than what your friends are doing or what teachers you like!

Thanks everyone for your responses. I'm very concerned about the restriction of the broader curriculum so early on (despite what the school is saying) and am somewhat cynical that having achieved an outstanding Ofsted in Sept 2018 they feel they can get away with bucking the trend as they're not so likely to be inspected any time soon.

A reason given for the change is improved mentalhealth.... That's quite clearly not worked for DD as she's now worrying about making the wrong choices and failing her exams! She's usually quite happy go lucky.

But you're right, I have to suck it up and make the best of it!

Our school has been doing 3 year GCSEs since at least 2014 as I have an older child who was y9 then and so did the other 2 nearest secondaries.
Don't forget that while some subjects are dropped, new ones might be taken up- for example Business Studies or Psychology. Our school did some taster lessons of these sorts of lessons because it's not easy to pick Sociology if you don't know what that means.

Ah ok oreomum, I took it that schools were doing it as a reaction to the increased content of the new GCSEs and the inability of students to cope with it/teachers to get through it (the reason usually given) so there would be no way of knowing that was an issue until the first cohort (exams 2018) had gone through the whole process - or at least were in yr 11 and struggling.

So that would mean the then yr 8s switched to 3 yrs - and they are only now in yr 10 actually.

But a school that started 3yr KS4 in 2014 with yr9 wouldn't be doing the new exams apart from maths and English.

Fair enough then, clearly they had other reasons. So they do have three lots of data to draw on, how does it compare out of interest?

It's not what you do, it's the way that you do it. Ofsted had no problem whatsoever with my ds' school doing 3-year GCSEs. In any event, it has enabled a broader curriculum for longer - 2 extra years of more subjects, because there's more time to teach them all. So on that basis (and, admittedly, given that my children already knew which subjects they would never in a month of Sundays want to continue with), I'm not seeing one measly year doing more subjects over which you have no choice whatsoever followed by having to give more subjects up for the next two years as being a superior option.

DD2's school does 3 year GCSE, but held a meeting with year 8 parents to say that they are switching to a 2 year GCSE from this year onwards, so current year 9s are on 3 years, but current year 8s won't be choosing options until the end of year 9.

If your DD is considering medicine Sheffield medical school specifically states that "the relevant GCSEs should have been studied for no longer than two years;" and I suspect that others will follow.

Lots of secondary schools in Wales do this and it seems to work well. They study more subjects to gcse than schools opting for the 2 year course, so the curriculum doesn't narrow too much in Y9.

Dd is doing 11 GCSE courses, 7 of which are compulsory and then they chose 4 from a list. Over three years. She is taking her first age 14 ( summer born) in Y10 the rest she will take in Y11 age 15. Pupils don't have a choice about the length of course.

When we first introduced it as a teacher I was torn between the students being too young to make such a huge decision and the thrill of having 3 years (my main subject is not studied in KS3).

The first cohort of 3 year KS4 has just left and for my subject we covered some general learning in yr9 that was not exam specific which allowed us to look further and deeper into the different areas in the later years.

Overall their results were the highest we have had, their mental health was also better (imo) and the current yr11s look to be also following this pattern. However as a PP pointed out under the new regime OFSTED are not judging schools well if they have a 3 yr KS4 and I know my school is looking to go back to 2 years.

So despite my concerns over being young having had the experience of the massive positives I am not happy at going back to 2 years.

That's interesting cricketballs, I can see how an extra year would be great for business or sociology, not thought of it that way.

Schools around here have been doing it for a long while too. My son is only just y7 and I'm really hoping that his school change back to 2 year GCSEs before he get to y9. He's currently quite immature in his attitude to some things and I think having an additional year to 'grow up a bit' before making choices and actually starting his course work will benefit him.