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?!

Walkaround, in Y9, my DCs studied:

• English
• Maths
• All 3 sciences
• 3 different DT subjects
• Art
• Music
• Drama
• PE
• 3 different humanities
• 2 different MFL

So 17 different subjects (plus obviously PSHCE)

Are you genuinely telling me that in the first year of a 3 year GCSE course, pupils study 17 subjects??

In Y10 and 11, the above shrank to

• Maths
• English
• 3 sciences
• 2 humanities (DS) or 1 humanity (DD)
• 2 MFL
• Art + 1 DT subject (DD) Music (DS)

so 10 subjects - I would say typical of what someone studying a 3 year course might do, and very typical for a 2 year course.

That's a whole 7 subjects fewer?

Mine did 13 subjects in Y9 but kept all of them through to Y11, which worked well for them. So instead of 17 + 2x10 they did 3x13. Similar but they liked being able to do the subjects they enjoyed in more depth. Going from 17 to 10 feels more drastic - mine have had to make decisions a year earlier but I think it was probably easier as they didn't have to give up so many.

Are you telling me your children were allowed to give up PE in years 10 and 11, cantkeepawayforever?! Surely that's not allowed?

My dses carried on with music and drama through school clubs/productions/orchestras/bands/choirs open to all. All students in year 9 do humanities/philosophy lessons (not part of any GCSE course, but ensuring KS3 syllabus is not cut short for those giving up 1 or 2 humanities). One of my children also chose to continue with 3 humanities, another with 2. One child continued with 1 MFL, the other took up a 2nd MFL in year 9. Obviously both continued with maths, English and the 3 sciences. One also took computer science and business studies. Both loathed art and were ecstatic to give it up after 9 years of art and crafts through primary and secondary - I think they knew by then they were not interested in pursuing it. Opting to give up tech subjects was a shame, I think, but with 3 different tech subjects to cover in a year, in reality the extra year of this would not have given them a huge amount of extra exposure, and I have taught them basic textiles, knitting skills and cooking skills at home, so really only mssing out on resistant materials. IT skills continue to be taught in the school in year 9 through cross curricular planning. And the kids get taught things like First Aid skills, financial planning, etc. So I do not in all honesty think they are missing anything significant and they have effectively taken up 2 new subjects as options and only really given up art (with great pleasure) and DT (although one ds was tempted by a DT option not even offered in KS3, but in the end favoured another new subject, so either way was not missing out on a subject that interested him as a result of a shortened KS3). Given the humanities/philosophy course that all students do, they could in any event have chosen fewer humanities for GCSE and opted for more creative/practical GCSEs instead, had they wanted to.

Dc ( now year 12) did a mixture of 3, 2 and 1 year gcses
Finished with 11 gcses . 1 from year 9, 2 from year 10 and 8 from year 11.
Sort of mad.. sort of worked

Walkaround,

They did PE - as in weekly games etc lessons - but they didn't study PE, if that makes sense?

Y9 was still very much about studying PE, as a foundation for the GCSE if taken - multiple different sports, lots of focus on teaching and developing skills, some of the underlying biology, psychology etc - whereas Y10 and Y11, for those not doing the GCSE, were very much focused on providing opportunities to keep fit and healthy through being able to choose the sports and activities they would enjoy for life.

I think it is very easy to be sidetracked into personal examples of how our own children made choices - for example of extracurricular activities or skills we ourselves have taught them - that kept their particular education reasonably broad.

Ofsted's brief - and that of educators - is to ensure a breadth of in-school education for all, for as long as possible.

As I say, in DC's school, the vast majority of pupils from every background study 17 subjects plus PHSCE (which yes, includes financial planning, first aid etc etc) in Y7, and 18 [I forgot computing] in Y8 and Y9 after taking up a second MFL. A small number don't do the second MFL and so remain at 17.

It is that breadth - 17 / 18 subjects for every child, no matter what their parents can supplement or not at home or in extra-curricular clubs - of full 3 year courses that seems to me to be valuable.

They then do 10, plus the obvious non-examined work in PE, PSHCE etc, and again of course anything they do extracurricularly (2 further MFLs, a further PE option and Further Maths are offered as after school courses) for the final 2 years. Mine didn't take up new subjects such as business, but those are of course available.

I am amazed your school fitted in academic lessons into its PE timetable for years 7-9, cantkeepawayforever. I have not heard of any schools fitting in 18 subjects plus enough time in the timetable for classroom PE lessons during the normal state school length of day. I also wonder at your peculiar dismissal of the huge range of entirely free musical opportunities offered in a school - which also runs both GCSE and BTEC music., I am not actually inspired at the thought of quite such an overcrowded timetable of compulsory subjects. Two compulsory mfl for almost all, for example - why? And why no alternative for those who don't want it, if you are so keen on breadth and not depth? Fwiw, creative/practical subjects are hugely popular at my children's school, and there is no lack of opportunity or provision for those interested. It's a large school, so plenty of new subjects on offer in KS4, both BTEC and GCSE. Also, plenty of time in the school curriculum for developing other skills, outside of the timetabled academic lessons.

And at the end of year 11,my dses will have 12 GCSEs each and will have continued, courtesy of the school, for free, with drama, music, PE, philosophy, SMSC education, and opportunities to show leadership, collaborative working, project work, etc. As I have already pointed out, Ofsted specifically praised the school for its broad and balanced curriculum, responsive to the needs of its students, so I'm not going to accept your attempts to imply that children are missing out on something massive.

My experience of school musical opportunities - and I have a DS at conservatoire so am a veteran of much school music - is that very little of it actively attracts those children who have had no previous musical experience or lessons.

So the orchestra, wind band, jazz band, string group and brass band all attract those who already play musical instruments (paid for) outside school or in school with paid-for peris, with very limited if any ab initio free of charge instrumental playing / learning for those who have had no lessons (DC's school, in fairness, has an ab initio samba band which offers exactly this opportunity, though for limited instruments, and does teach keyboard throughout KS3 music).

The boys' choirs, chamber choir, general choir and huge school production do attract some untrained singers, but tbh do tend to attract those who have some musical background as many require at least some music reading ability.

It is for that reason that I didn't include them in the 'curriculum offering', in the same way as I don't include other clubs and other sports - they are not universally available to every child of every ability from every background and income group, whereas the KS3 taught curriculum is.

That’s my experience too can’t keep away (I have music degree, dh is a conservatoiretrained music teacher and Ds is heading to music tech at college/degree.

Walkaround

I am not specifically focusing on your school.

I am making a general point - IN GENERAL, schools which offer 3 year GCSE courses will offer fewer subjects (and thus a less broad curriculum) to students in Y9 in particular than a school which offers 2 year GCSE courses.

This is also the GENERAL point made by Ofsted, hence their new policy.

Of course, in some schools this disadvantage will be offset by extracurricular activities etc etc. However, the GENERAL point - that a 3 year GCSE course focusing on 9-11 subjects means a child in Y9 will be studying a reduced compulsory curriculum compared to a Y9 child in a school with a 3 year KS3 - remains true.

Ofsted specifically praised the school for its broad and balanced curriculum, responsive to the needs of its students

When was the Ofsted done?

The new handbook only came into force in September, so that quotation would ONLY be relevant in the context of this thread if the inspection was from this term.

For my DC the wider curriculum they get in Y10 and Y11 (compared to a 2yr gcse course) more than makes up for the narrowing of the curriculum a year early in Y9. For them at that age, depth > breadth.

Hangonamo,

So your children did 13x new 9-1 GCSEs?

I haven't come across that - our local 3 year GCSE course offering school offered 9-10 subjects, with very restrictive options (History or geography, art or drama or music, for example).

13 x 9-1 GCSEs sounds tough! Is that universal for all students - bearing in mind that i am thinking about breadth of education for all?

Did they take all 13 at the end of Year 11? Is it an academically selective school as the workload and sheer number of exams for 9/10 is immense with the new GCSE’s.

cantkeepawayforever - the musicals, choirs and samba band very much attract children who do not do music outside of school, as does the BTEC music course, for which there is no requirement to learn an instrument outside of school (and I know quite a few kids in my children's years at school who took this as an option with no musical background at home). Those kids are, however, expected to take part in the musical life of the school, thus also boosting numbers. There are also some very talented untrained singers who join up with kids who can play electric guitar, drums or keyboards to form their own bands and use the school's facilities to practice. There is a big range of ability and musical standards involved in music at the school.

As for Ofsted, it was not long before September. I was also involved as a governor in an inspection (albeit in a primary school) shortly before the demise of the old framework, and can tell you that the focus of the inspections had already shifted somewhat with an eye to what was coming. No Ofsted inspector, knowing what the new framework was to be, would specifically comment on the breadth and balance of a curriculum and its responsiveness to children's needs if a few weeks later under the new framework they would have changed their mind.

The narrowing of options , of course, is also popular because of funding cuts and staffing crises : let's not pretend otherwise!

In my school (years 9-13), students do the whole suite of subjects in year 9 and begin GCSE in May of year 9. I am pretty sure music, art, MFL would like this to change but drama, in particular, wants to keep all students going on til year 10.

In DS's school, students make some choices in year 8 to start their new school with fewer subjects. these choices are reasonably broad (eg they have to do an arts or technology subject) but they aren't taught much GCSE material, and do not have to choose those subjects at GCSE. My DS liked this as he was so poor at graphics and art but I do think this impacts some subject's GCSE uptake. The school will not openly say this is all in response to staffing numbers but it obviously is!

My subject is quite an obscure, niche GCSE and if students had to choose back in year 8 whether to take it or not , I am sure unwise choices would be made.

Goodness, my DS chose to do music at the 'normal' end of year 9 time and wishes he hadn't. I can only imagine that issue is more common the earlier decisions are made.

Tbf, I wasn't initially keen when the school moved to 3-year GCSEs a few years ago, but the reality has actually been very positive for my children and they did not have to compromise on any of their choices. Other parents were also initially dubious, but I never hear anyone question the wisdom of it any more. No GCSE subjects have been dropped, either. The school's curriculum is massively better and broader than what I was offered at school in the 1980s. The school is also more popular with parents and students (and the teachers who work there!) than nearby 2-year GCSE schools, so whilst I am happy for it to continue refining its curriculum enhancement and non-examinable subjects for ensuring children's education is not narrowed excessively, I do not see moving back to 2-year GCSEs as a desirable or necessary move. I would rather the school had the strength of its own convictions.

Everyone does 14 GCSEs as standard

State secondary school, so non selective

Bottom 3 science sets do double instead of triple science so they would do 13

Those struggling with English language don't do eng lit but nearly everyone does both.

Top 2 maths sets can do add maths if they want so would do 15 in total

We are in Wales so mostly WJEC A*-G with some English boards 1-9. DS for example is doing AQA Economics. Some of the WJEC courses are linear, some are modular.

Depending on subjects they can do a couple of exams in Y10 and they do some or all of maths in Nov of Y11 (last paper today for DS )

They do 10 compulsory GCSEs and 4 options. They can choose any options from a list which includes GCSEs and BTECs. There aren't any restrictions on how they choose the options but they do say they can't guarantee that the courses will run or that everyone's combo will be possible. I haven't heard of anyone not being able to do what they want but I guess it must happen. Some people will choose music, drama and performing arts plus one other (one of DD's friends is doing this). Some will do three languages etc.

They love their performing arts and DT there so strong on that, drama / music / performing arts / engineering double award all available and various design courses. Everyone does Welsh GCSE and there are two MFL options. Everyone does RE GCSE and there are the usual humanities as options. Everyone does PE but not as a GCSE unless chosen as an option. There are also options for those who want more practical qualifications eg vehicle inspection or construction. Everyone does the usual sex education, first aid, personal finance etc. Everyone does Welsh Bacc.

It is quite an aspirational school and they push them to do well. Also very keen on sport (especially rugby ) so lots of sport available after school and music ensembles and drama productions, DofE, eco group, pride etc etc. My DC like it anyway and are enjoying most of their courses DS has always wanted to do something science based so he might have been all right with a narrower range. DD changes her mind all the time about what she wants to do so is happy to have most doors still open to her until the end of Y11.

Btw, I do agree that 3-year GCSEs can be initiated for negative reasons, but it is so context-specific that I think making general blanket statements about them, as though they are always a bad thing, is actually very silly and blinkered. Ofsted specifically wants schools to think about their actual community and to responsive to that, not to lurch from one strategy to another because of what schools imagine is Ofsted's latest national fad.

How on earth do they fit 14 subjects into the curriculum?
No university asks for that many GCSEs- not even Oxbridge/vet med/medicine.

This begs the question - are GCSEs set by English exam boards harder? Because I don't believe that all Welsh students are brighter than English students.

The exam timetable for 14 GCSE's must be horrific. Even if some Btec's are chosen the coursework workload must add to the stress.

I would have a look at their timetables and tell you number of lessons etc but they have their planners at school with them
They do start in Y9 so perhaps not that surprising with 50% more time available. This is my point really that 3 yr GCSEs do not always mean a dramatic and early narrowing of the curriculum or an easy option, it can be used as a way of keeping the curriculum more diverse to the end of Y11.
With some subjects being modular they can take a couple of papers early which helps with the stress and congestion of Y11 summer exams.
Yes the university admissions thing is definitely not the motivation as a large number of GCSEs doesn't help as you say. I think it's about what the school feels is the best offer for the children. Most people have a couple of subjects they really don't get on with, they give them up at the end of Y8. They are not forced to make the really tricky decisions about what to study until A level.

Thought I would add everything up - DS is doing a total of 27 written papers plus other assessments as usual for languages, practicals for sciences, geography fieldwork etc.
He is in Y11 and has done a total of 11 written papers in Y10 or this term, so will have 16 to do in the summer of Y11 plus add maths if he wants as he is in set 2 maths. These numbers will be different though depending on options. Doing a few in Y10 has definitely helped him to get his head around revision and what needs to be done in Y11.

If your DS is sitting some in year 10, and some are modular then I can see how they can fit that many in.

A typical two year course doing the 1 - 9 GCSEs set by AQA for example would have far less wriggle room. I believe that we don't have modular GCSEs any more in England, but I'm happy to be corrected.