Better to do options in Y8 or Y9?

[heytheremumhere]

Do you think it is better to do GCSE options in Y8 or Y9? I'm interested to hear opinions. What are the pros and cons of doing them earlier/later. Thanks

I had NO idea that choosing options in Yr8 was a thing. Some kids would barely have turned 13. Too early unless good reason

[quote TizerorFizz]@pointythings
Why do you just look at the subject as skills? It’s more than that. It’s understanding about food combinations and healthy eating. It’s very valuable for society to have a population that understands food and eating. It’s great your DC know everything but, as we discussed earlier, 12/13 year olds should not be calling the shots on learning. In general all DC should cook and understand healthy eating.[/quote]
Thank you! As it happens I was a Food tech teacher and before that, HE. Yes, they are different subjects - the clue is in the title. Teaching HE was pure pleasure, F/T less so. Most importantly though is knowing how to make something out of nothing - skills that are much in demand especially at the moment. Judging by many of the posts on here about food safety there is clearly a lack of teaching about food hygiene/storage, as well as insufficient understanding about good nutrition. HE should be at the heart of any school curriculum instead of being on the periphery as it is in so many schools. Not everybody shares your views Tiger

As a teacher I really avoid schools with a 3 year GCSE, and my current school having introduced it is a real issue for me. We already specialise far younger than most other countries, which I don't think is right for most children. There's also a lot of subjects which have crossover with others, so dropping some things really early has a knock on impact. For example, my partner teaches A Level geography and says anyone with A Level economics, or history, basically already has a whole grade headstart on others. Those who at least have history or econ to GCSE cope well with the course. But those who dropped it in year 9, and even more so in year 8, have to do a lot more work to cover basic assumed knowledge. Same thing happens I my subject between biology and chemistry, for example. It can also cause quite a few issues with student mobility, essentially meaning life is really difficult for anyone moving schools after year 9.

@loopylindi
I just find it sad that DC cannot embrace subjects and find something of interest in them. Even if it’s being a good citizen and trying to stay healthy.

My DD1 wasn’t a fan of sport? Did she give it up or not bother? No. It’s compulsory snd made the best of it. Most other subjects she enjoyed. Schools don’t like teaching difficult children so getting them to drop certain subjects makes sense for the school and teachers. Ofsted are not keen though. I don’t see what is wrong with expectations being placed on DC at school and one of them should be a broad education until the end of y9

It’s also partly about resilience and trying your best.

My DC chose their subjects in Y8 but they do loads of GCSEs, so while the curriculum narrows a year earlier, it's not by as much as in many schools. I like the approach, it means they don't have to go through Y10-11 studying a very narrow range of subjects, helps to keep options open for A level, keeps their education to 16 as broad as possible. They do a few exams early so that the summer of Y11 is manageable.

I really agree with all the posts about maintaining breadth, and not specialising too early.
My dc’s school, like a lot on here, offers a “mini” options process at year 8, before choosing GCSE options in year 9, and I think it is the best of both worlds.

It’s set up so they can if they wish to continue to study exactly the same subjects as in years 7&8 and still add in one new subject.
Or they can choose to focus on certain subjects in more depth, and/or to swap in further new subjects.
Everyone continues with history, geography, and MFL, as well as the core curriculum subjects.

My dd chose 3 new subjects for year 8 options, including a second MFL, and has just chosen to continue two of them to GCSE.
Dd has absolutely thrived on learning another language intensively in a smaller group who have chosen to be there. I’m so pleased for her that the curriculum at her school has the flexibility to allow this.

Year 9 all day long
Year 7. Your finding your feet and friendship group, learning how to move round the school, remember the right stuff on the right day, navigating more independence and how teachers differ at secondary. As well as finding new friends.

Year 8 is the first year your settled in the school. You need that year to get your feelers on the lessons, where your strengths are, where your interest are.

You need that year of just “being” at the school.

A few people have mentioned DT - my daughter had chosen Graphics.

She enjoyed the subject- the most important thing it has taught her is preparing course work/investigation/ alternative etc. She mentioned the other day she is now at uni she glad she took a DT subject as none of the other GCSE she took did this, they fully exams based pretty much. This has meant she has at least experience of target dates and self work to get the work done.

Our school haven’t moved to a yr 8 always been year 9. Maturity around choosing, especially fear around MfL subjects and also parents are much more pushy with a younger year 8 on subjects they see as soft - a year 9 can be a little less swayed by what parents want. And choose what they want to do and find enjoyable.

This is how Ofsted look at KS3. It’s “Making curriculum decisions in the best interests of children” by HMII Sean Hartford and was published by Ofsted in 2020. I’ve attached a small part of it.

Think this discussion shows that it's worth parents looking at when schools make choices as part of the selection process in Y6 - especially if they have strong views.

DD's school has their own EBacc system where they are expected to have the usual sciences/maths/English plus a humanity, a MFL and a performing or visual arts subject. They also continue to do RE, Citizenship, Computer Science and PE until Y11 alongside the GCSE options.

Looking at the curriculum sections on the website, they don't start teaching the actual GCSE content until the end of Y9 - most of the year is spent on teaching other topics with a focus on the skills you need to acquire for the subject as well as the content.

Regarding other countries, I'm not so sure it's that different. I lived in Italy for a long time and there children are divided into different schools at 14. If you end up in the Liceo Classico or Liceo Scientifico you get a pretty broad curriculum (although nothing like as many options as here) but the Tecnico basically churned out workers specialised in the local areas particular industry and not much more.

I believe Germany has a similar system of different schools.

My DC’s school chooses in Year 8. I know Ofsted don’t like this system but the school has recently been graded as Outstanding. They have 4 options as well as Maths, English, Science and RE. The options were very open.

It’s an interesting one. It worked for my son. He was very sure and I felt like he’d had almost 9 years of education to figure out which subjects he enjoyed. I can see it might not work for those children who enjoy a wider range of subjects.

Is GCSE language study truly that important and unique a way to expose many kids to other cultures? Maybe my kids just live in a distinctive social strata (and no, I don't mean going to France for skiing every year).

Between kPop, Slavic gamers, Reddit, BBC documentaries, 24/7 news, HipHop, YouTube, Bollywood, TikTok, Discord .. I mean to say that today's British teens are potentially globalised to an extent that is unimaginable in my youth. Well beyond how to order croissants or talk about coursework or weather in foreign languages.

Today's front page of Discord has a Vietnamese-devoted group, a Hindi group, Anime... 2nd page has more Anime, Japan & Norway-based groups

And if foreign culture/language understanding were a chief objective of teaching foreign languages -- is teaching modern European FL the best way to achieve foreign culture/language understanding?

DS school chose in year 9. I'm not sure how beneficial it was for him to still be doing drama and music for example in which he had no interest, and then struggling to finish the triple science syllabus in time for exams in year 11. Friends DC who chose in year 8 spent the last half of year 11 revising which seemed better.
But appreciate not every year 8 is so clear in their likes and dislikes.

@Purple444

My DC’s school chooses in Year 8. I know Ofsted don’t like this system but the school has recently been graded as Outstanding. They have 4 options as well as Maths, English, Science and RE. The options were very open.

It’s an interesting one. It worked for my son. He was very sure and I felt like he’d had almost 9 years of education to figure out which subjects he enjoyed. I can see it might not work for those children who enjoy a wider range of subjects.

Ofsted does like 2yr KS3/yr KS4 if the school does it well. Their report specifically mentioned how well it worked in my DS's school's visit in 2020. The school ensures breadth and depth by going beyond the curriculum and running an enrichment programme (incl. history, art, politics, cookery, public speaking, etc) alongside the GCSEs, so they are definitely not just repeating stuff. And in the article an OP mentioned above, Ofsted say some schools do it better than some schools do the traditional 3yr KS3/2yr KS4, so your school is obviously doing it well. educationinspection.blog.gov.uk/2020/01/09/making-curriculum-decisions-in-the-best-interests-of-children/

However, our school is a SS grammar, so I think it's fair to acknowledge it is likely to be easier for them to do it so well with an able cohort moving at the same pace than a comprehensive cohort.

@BumbledBee thanks for that- interesting to know.

The reason comprehensives moved to a reduced subject 3 year ks4 was to improve exam results. However that won’t help with A levels snd can give a much rosier view of capabilities. I cannot see why grammars need to move away from 2 year ks4. Other than greater depth earlier is helping with prep for A levels.

I think it’s very confusing for parents. Also confusing for employers.

I totally reject the notion that Dc are educated about other counties by looking at putout on a computer. It’s extraordinarily narrow. It doesn’t look at literature, art, Theatre, music through the ages, politics or even food. Enrichment might but without engaging with people we end up misunderstanding them and that gets us nowhere.

Think this discussion shows that it's worth parents looking at when schools make choices as part of the selection process in Y6 - especially if they have strong views.

I agree but the trouble is there often isn't a choice - one school makes the decision to move to three year GCSE course and in our area all the others followed like dominoes, presumably because they were worried about their league table standing. Also lots of the local schools are in the same MAT so they all do the same thing.

With languages, I think it's as much about the actual learning process as it is about the cultural awareness. Learning a foreign language is a specific type of learning that's quite different from other curriculum subjects, and it teaches a different skill set.

@pralinee
I do agree. However some schools shut off these learning opportunities too early.

Most DC cannot possibly know what they like over 9 years before they choose GCSEs. In primary school there is very little teaching of art, music, MFL and even history and geography, let alone technology or sport. It’s a poor basis on which to think you know everything about all possible subjects. Two years at ks3 isn’t great either.

I liked the fact that my kids got to choose in Year 8, but that was because the school's approach to having freed up time in Year 9 was to increase breadth, by offering a who bunch of wonderful options in school time during Year 9. My DS did a first aid course (with certificate), a public speaking course, in theory a martial arts course (but that fell apart due to staffing no longer being available after a couple of months, so he ended up taking badminton and a course about share investing). Others did arts and crafts for fun, astronomy, there were loads of options - DS had more, but I can't remember what they were now. By the time my DD was in Year 9, the school were directing a bit more (my DS has free choice from rather a large range, and I can't even remember all of his choices) - so that, if you dropped all languages, they were asking you to take a one year course in a completely different language (like Italian or Mandarin), and if you didn't do history or geography, there was a compulsory current affairs course (which even though DD did geography, she was put into). But she also got to do singing, and martial arts and a couple of other options that again I have forgotten (except they were cut short by Covid). I thought it was brilliant - as by the end of Year 8 most DC actually know which subjects they don't want to take, and they just can't be bothered with them (both my DC told me they were not going to bother to study for their exams in the subjects they were not keen on already at the end of Year 7, to concentrate on those that they were taking for GCSE). It meant that even by Year 8 each class contained a whole bunch of DC who felt they were marking time, just waiting to be able to drop the class, and we were glad to see the back of them in Year 9 as having people in the class who are really not bothering does not help with the learning. On the other hand, the courses on offer were new and different and done without exam pressure, so there was real learning and exploration going on.
Unfortunately, post Covid, the school has decided to go to a 2 year GCSE (mostly, I suspect, because of Ofsted's opposition to 3 year GCSEs - I reckon they are terrified of losing their outstanding rating, and Ofsted have made it clear they basically will not give it with a 3 year GCSE), so this programme has gone. I am very glad that my DC are too old to be impacted though, as I thought it was a terrific programme.

By the end of Y8 my DDs were working hard at all subjects. They really could be bothered.

Ofsted will be ok with 3 year gcse but want the curriculum covered to some extent in ks3 year 3. I suspect Martial arts and badminton won’t hack it.

Things like public speaking and first aid can easily be covered in without having to restrict the time table by year 9. They are both among things covered by Ds school which is very much for a wide and varied curriculum, and access to other none typical curriculum topics, but doesn’t do options until year 9 (having tried them in year 8 for a few years)

My DDs did lots of activities at lunchtime and at clubs. In y10, DD1 had 12 such activities as well as 10 GCSEs and was advised to cut down. One was culled! Admittedly not the current GCSEs but so much can be learnt by DC who are enthusiastic and motivated.

@TizerorFizz

By the end of Y8 my DDs were working hard at all subjects. They really could be bothered.

Ofsted will be ok with 3 year gcse but want the curriculum covered to some extent in ks3 year 3. I suspect Martial arts and badminton won’t hack it.

Ofsted have made it very clear that they will pretty much not give an outstanding rating to a three year GCSE.

I don't know about your schools, and where they find the money to run after school clubs - people who do this need to be paid, and most teachers don't have the time resources to devote to after school and lunch time clubs (our school can't give the hall during lunch time, in any event, as is needed for lunch, and in fact lunch is split into two sittings with some years having class while others are having lunch, and vice versa - making lunch time club running very difficult). I assume of course that these schools are in fact making these after school and lunchtime courses on offer for free, so that everyone, regardless of financial bracket, can take part.

The KS3 curriculum is exceedingly narrow. And what is covered in PE and Art and Music often puts kids off - especially if they are not "good" at those subjects by the definition of what is required for the GCSE. The idea of having the teachers teach something that interests them, without the pressures of exams, as a way of trying to give DC a sense of why it is that they ended up in this subject (astronomy by the physics teacher, singing by the music teacher), and that there are other options outside of the narrow curriculum that they can explore in their own time, seems to me a brilliant idea. I remember another of DS's choices was psychology - taught of course by the sixth form psychology teacher - meaning that DS's year had some exposure to the subject before they chose it for sixth form - or didn't in DS's case as he did the classic biology, chemistry and maths.

I too fill and filled up my kids out of school time with after school classes and summer day camps in drama and music and non classic sports and the like (my DS did fencing out of school and tried sailing and several other alternatives), but not everybody has a middle class mum who can hunt for these things and enable their participation (both financially and in terms of practical and emotional support - ie in valuing wider alternatives). I myself went to a fancy private school where these alternatives were part and parcel of what is available. A lot of DC's parents don't have that background, and have no idea what is "out there". When my DD did it, it wasn't so much martial arts, as self defence, which is something so few girls get (although it was taught through a martial arts lens).

Boarding school has it all. Yes, people are paid but terms are much shorter in return for a much longer school day. This suited my DDs though.

I do believe state schools can be imaginative. Several near me are.

Read what Ofsted actually say about a 3 year KS4. What they don’t like is a narrow curriculum. Few schools are outstanding anyway and schools might well give this up for a good curriculum but 3 year teaching of the syllabus. I don’t like it but Ofsted are not against it.,They make it clear what they want to see.