Why would a secondary school NOT offer triple science GCSEs?

[OutOfSite]

A friend's DD is in year 7 and they've discovered that the school doesn't offer triple science GCSEs only combined science GCSE. The school does have a have a sixth form and offers biology, chemistry and physics A Levels. This is a big, well funded school that offers a range of different GCSEs and A Levels plus a lot of vocational qualifications.

Why would the school only offer combined science GCSE, and does it matter if the DC wants to go on to take science A Levels at the sixth form?

Because combined science is an excellent option for many kids. Because schools may not have the resources to offer 3. Because it doesn't affect the ability to go on to 3 at A level.

There is a really clear answer to your question. Studying dual science makes no difference to A-Level science. The additional material in triple is not picked up at A-Level with the exception of a tiny bit of content about one small element. Less than a lesson’s worth of cross over content.
Pupils gain higher grades on dual rather than triple and high grades help accessing A-levels and top universities. It is a pragmatic choice made by an increasing number of schools.

I've just looked on the sixth form college my dd went to. For chemistry you need a six if you did triple or a seven for what it calls 'core' which I assume is combined. And a six for maths.

Thanks for the helpful comments.

@titchy not sure why you think I'm sneering about the school. I'd have been thrilled for my DC to go there.

Our (very popular and oversubscribed) school only offers double. It does make resourcing easier and allows all children to take 4 options. As only 1 or 2 of our cohort go to a different A level provider there are no issues with progressing to A Level and teachers know exactly what students have learned. We did look at possibly offering triple to the top sets, but post-GCSE reform it was felt to be unnecessary. Countless students progress to Science degrees, PhD's, Oxbridge etc.

The funding of the drama studio will have come from the capex budget of the academy chain and it will be related to the location of the school. The DfE is crazy about vocational skills, it has spent £1billion on setting up T levels which before this summer only 6,000 students had sat. If the academy is offering a vocational based education then there is no wrong they can do in the eyes of the DfE.

This. Dc did combined science, achieved 9,9 and went onto do A level physics which requires a 6 at GCSE to continue but if you come in on a 6 then you are going to struggle to bring that grade up. As Dc came in on a 9 they achieved an A star. If they do A level physics without A level maths then they have to do core maths which is a half way between a GCSE and A level qualification to help them understand the maths component of physics.

A lot of state schools only offer combined science as the triple is part of the options choices but then this narrows down the variety of subjects they can do for GCSE especially if the school has compulsory RE. As above there is no real benefit in terms of knowledge from the GCSE to A level.

Delivering separate sciences needs a large, well- staffed department, a decent chunk of the timetable and experienced lab technicians that can deliver the required practicals. There's a lot of talk about teacher recruitment but experienced lab techs are as rare as hens teeth.

One of the schools (state, academy) near me makes everyone do triple unless they are on a specific pathway for those who need extra help. Language is also compulsory.

This is made clear from the outset, and it hadn't occurred to me before now that maybe they are doing that in part to try to make sure they get fairly academic children applying, rather than those that would be put off by it. It's a small, oversubscribed school in a generally well-off area, though there are other areas within catchment that are less so. That's probably way too cynical a thought, as I don't know if parents really have that much choice, or really understand all the implications of it in Year 6 - I often hear the pupils (who I see in other contexts) starting to complain in Year 9 when they realise how few options they get compared to their friends at other schools.

That will be the ebacc

Totally different budget to staffing

It’s not driven by what is best for able students and ensuring whey offer the best opportunities for them and their futures.

It is driven by a mixture of things…..maximising results from the majority to boost their data, offering a cheaper and easier to timetable range of lessons.

Yes, double science is okay to love onto A Level sciences with…but separate sciences are better and in more depth. For the serious scientist who might want to do it at uni, it gives a stronger basis for A Level.

Notice that Grammars and independents offer separate sciences. Schools which don’t are not offering their able students the same opportunities that they’ve other schools are offering.

But lots of schools are narrowing timetables and options and it’s usually to do with the dire funding and recruitment and retention crisis. Schools are struggling and kids will suffer.

In my DD's school whether the children do the triple or combined makes no difference to the amount of science lessons they have, they just group the 30 students out of the year doing triple science all in the same class.

At DS1's school if you wanted to do history or geography you had to do combined not triple, to free up the teaching slot for the humanities.

9 is a normal amount and is plenty. There really is no need to do 10+ GCSEs other than for the school (and the odd parent) to boast that xxx has done 14 GCSEs this year.

I have 11 (as it was more common years ago to do more, well before the curriculum changes) - pointless. Never needed that many and I'd imagine I don't remember at least half of the stuff I learnt.

I agree that RS shouldn't have to be compulsory, taking up an option. I know re has to be done throughout but there are ways of reducing it so it doesn't take up a full option. Not all schools do this.

I suspect they can't offer triple Science due to staffing!

No, I think it's more than that - the insistence on French, yes, that might be. But the forcing of triple science for everyone, bar a handful on a special pathway, it unusual I think even compared to other schools in the academy chain. They don't seem to be advertising as a specialist science school or anything, or offer particularly different supracurricular science activities, clubs, trips etc, which might have been expected. They just have a standard timetable that requires triple science for (pretty much) everyone. I guess some private schools do this as well, but it's more unusual for a state school.

They may have won a bursary of funding which has to be used in a specific way.
My school has gained funding form some sources but they are very specific on what they can be used for. It depends how the money was sourced. So I wouldn't take the spending in a fancy arts centre as meaning the school has lots of money to throw around elsewhere.

A friend who is a Biology A level teacher says it's okay for Biology. They have to assume some students did combined, so they teach the syllabus on that assumption.

I think too many answers centre around the fact that combined science will ‘do’. What about what is optimum?

I realise schools are extremely constrained and numerous factors determine what can be offered. For the able, what is best and optimum is a valid thing to consider, if your child is in that cohort.

As with everything, some balancing and weighing the consequences if different options and trade-offs is needed. There’s only limited time and often choosing separate sciences might mean less options in other areas available. It is good when the separate sciences fit in the same time frame as combined, so that there can still be the same number of other options available.

An able child I knew couldn’t do do separate sciences without reducing their other choices. They wanted to do 2 humanities so went for combined science. Later they were sorry because not only was the learning experience in the combined science class very different, but they found a passion for science and went onto take sciences for A Level and felt they would have been better prepared by separate sciences. Others who went elsewhere for 6th Form and joined schools where most had done single sciences found this especially to be the case.

In the end you can’t have everything and choices have to be made. But the point is there aren’t equal opportunities. Some kids in normal state schools can have separate sciences and still have 4 other options. Others don’t have a choice between separate and combined and some have a choice but then can only have 2 or 3 other options. It seems some schools don’t give much consideration to their able students and instead the focus is very much on timetabling to benefit statistics or other students.

I thought this was the reason.
At my DC school, the top 60 do triple and get great results, the results for combined science hover around 5,5.
Most sought after school in town doesn't do triple and gets approx 7 7 for their combined grades.

Not enough staff; not enough labs; takes up an option block; prioritising other subjects for the open bucket.

The provision of triple science is an illusion in many schools as in practice it is usually only available to the most able. My girls’ grammar only offered dual award in the 90s and very large numbers nevertheless went on to science A levels, degrees, and careers.

Not enough specialist teachers

The grammar here only offers triple (my child is likely to do very well in2 and scrape a pass at best in the 3rd so may work in her favour).
However it only did double 30 years ago. That's a long time...

I suppose a good question is why state grammars and selective independents tend to offer separate sciences. They clearly think there’s some merit to it.

They have the luxury of a narrower range of cohort and for the independents more funding. Their timetabling and overall key purposes and perhaos a bit different….might be getting more to 5 L4/5 grades rather than getting a smaller number L7-9 grades in combined science? When they are strapped for cash and resources, achieving both just might not be possible and something gets prioritised. Those kind of decisions happen all the time. It’s why some schools manage to offer 2 languages in KS3 to most kids, but others can only offer 1. It’s why in some places it’s not possible to do History and Geography and why in scope schools you get allocated a language but get no choice and that then determines what’s available in languages to you through out school. Schools look to maximise overall results and have a careful eye on measures that get the headlines. They also know what different options cost and where staffing issues lie….lots of things drive the way the timetables work. It often isn’t about maximising outcomes for the most able…unless your school is dominated by the more able.

2 of my best friends are science teachers. One in a very well known private school, one in a fairly rough comp so broad demographic. Both say doing A levels in science is perfectly doable off combined science. They don't reckon triple science is harder there is just alot more of it. At my child's school the do Combined double and the top kids 25% ish get offered the option of doing triple . I've asked them their opinion as there is a good chance my child will be offered it but I don't want to overload her as is taught in the same time as the others do double.