Starting GCSE syllabus a year early - not sure what to think

[Akiddleydiveytoo]

So I have a DD who is currently in Yr9. Last year her school decided to change the way they approached GCSE preparation by getting the DC to choose their GCSE options in Yr8 instead of Yr9 and actually starting the GCSE syllabuses in Yr9 rather than in Yr10. The DC will still take their exams in Yrs 10 & 11 (so no exams in Yr9) but, in effect, they will be doing their 2 year GCSE courses over 3 years and I'm not sure how I feel about this.

The school say it's because they often struggle to cover the whole syllabus in just 2 years and this way they can spend more time going into greater detail and teaching them the skills they need to be effective in the subject instead of just giving them the information that they need to learn. They talked about developing their analytical and reasoning capabilities and teaching exam technique etc.

Part of me can understand that reasoning but part of me is also thinking that they are just doing this to improve their exam results (which are already very high) at the expense of the DC wider education. That they are maybe just teaching them how to pass exams rather than providing them with a well rounded education. It doesn't really sit right with me that they have already narrowed their field of study and are effectively missing out on a whole year of learning new things. I also think this is also going to result in a much bigger jump from GCSEs to A levels (which IMHO is quite large enough already).

Getting good GCSE results are important, but so is receiving a well rounded education - I quite enjoyed learning a wide range of subjects when I was in Yr9, even if I didn't then go on to study them at GCSE level.

Would appreciate the thoughts of others on this policy as I really can't make my mind up if I think it's a good idea or not

Secondary school teacher with 27 years experience and mother of three DC - now grown. I really hate this trend. GCSEs have become increasingly narrow and restrictive and there seems to have been a move to preparing for them from Year 7 onwards. The upshot is less interesting and creative lessons and less engaged students. They are designed to be covered over a two year period so schools shouldn’t need to do this. It’s a result of league tables and excessive scrutiny.

My DC’s school does this, I wasn’t wild about it but I really like the school. It’s actually turning out quite well for us as I have a child who passionately hates some subjects and is going to be so much happier once they are gone. They are due an Ofsted inspection soon so I’ll be interested if they do get any criticism over it.

At our son's school, they didn't get pupils to select options until year 10, but they started teaching the GCSE syllabus for most subjects in year 9 to everyone. Seemed a good compromise really, get at least some of the content done a year early but still giving the full breadth of subjects to everyone. Forcing pupils to choose their options for year 9 seems far too early.

In short @laughinglemons , if you take triple or combined science GCSEs in Y10, what provision does the school make for studying science in Y11?

The answer at DD's school was 'none', you just stopped studying science after Y10. Which obviously isn't ideal should you want to take one or more of those 'hard' sciences for A level… You start studying A level having not done the subject for a year.

I think it’s the opposite of teaching to the exam. Instead of slugging through a syllabus with continual mocks, the teacher can spend more time on enrichment, understand and practical work to give true value to the learning

I wouldn't like it. I think we make children narrow their subject choices too early as it is in this country. If schools which do GCSEs over 3 years also insist on the EBacc subjects, which seems likely if they are very target driven, then that is very limiting for the children in my opinion and I can see it having a big negative effect on the teaching of non EBacc subjects. At this rate it just won't be worth schools teaching some creative and practical subjects at all.
I also wonder what the effect on A level pupils is. There's a huge jump from GCSE to A level as it is. It's well recognised that even a lot of pupils who do well at GCSE struggle with the transition to A levels. If you've had the pressure artificially reduced for GCSE by adding extra time doesn't make that the jump to A level even harder? You can't just stick an extra year into 6th form so the A level syllabus has to be taught and learned in 2 years.* *
At my DC's school they start the GCSE syllabi for Maths and English during the last term of year 9 but no subjects are dropped until year 10. They have the best exam results of any non selective school in the county year after year. Obviously there are lots of factors in that but they don't seem to particularly struggle to cover the syllabi in 2 years.

I agree the subjects narrow very early in UK, however I can see the school thinks this is the best way to get the best results.
Can you beef up the extra clubs instead? We left a school because it had no after school clubs - DC now does the same re dropping subjects in Y9 they're not taking at GCSE but also does 4 clubs a week that keep some of the other subjects going. Hobbies and other skills that you can do for fun and good mental health are just as valuable for a happy life as a set of 9's.

The pressures of gcse vs alevel are quite different
Gcse number of subjects
many of which are stillnot chosen by student
The class sizes may be up to 32.
There will be students who are not capable of alevels or who cannot read etc
No free periods

The behaviour at dc oversubscribed school is bad. A kid shut themself in the art cupboard.

Very usual in Wales, all the secondary schools around us have done this for many years. The plus is they get less exams to sit in year 11 and they can resit any in year 11 that have not gone well in year 10. Both mine did half of history, sciences and RS in year 10 and also the whole of English lit. It is however a really long slog over 2 years and lots of exams and mocks. We also still have AS levels so it continues into A levels.

My dd is in y7 and tbh i think she could be ready for gcse mfl maybe in y8.

Wow @Tooolde really? I assume they are a native speaker? Even then there will be topics they need to cover which they are unlikely to have the knowledge for at 12/13yo.

Which grammars do this? I am teaching at a grammar and while we begin GCSE content in year 9, pupils take GCSE options in year 9 and only drop non-GCSE subjects in year 10. We still squeeze in further maths.

No. Most grammar schools don't do this actually. They certainly don't make their options early. Only one of our local ones do that.

As ever we can only speak on MN for the schools around us - my ds school did this and my dd school didn't say they did it but in practice the science content was GCSE level.

I think that's a bit different to making formal GCSE choices in year 8. My DC's school certainly starts the GCSE Maths and English syllabi towards the end of year 9 for the higher sets because that's the stage they have naturally reached by then. Same probably happens in science. Obviously they're not going to sit twiddling their thumbs through the Summer term if they have got to the point in the compulsory subjects that the work is GCSE standard. That just means that they finish the syllabi sooner and have more revision time I suppose.
But I think the OP is talking about starting the whole pricess a year earlier - making subject selections in year 8 and only studying those in year 9 instead of those things happening in years 9 and 10 respectively.
I'd see the former as a positive indicator that the pupils are making good progress and the latter approach as negative. A fair percentage of year 8s will still only be 12 when they are making decisions that potentially influence their whole future education. I think that's too young to narrow the curriculum especially now that the EBacc means that genuine choice is limited for a lot of pupils. Actually I think that year 9 is too young, but a year is a long time at that age and many will mature significantly in that time.

DC's school start halfway through y9. It means they can finish the GCSE curriculum by around Christmas of y11 and then focus on revision. It's also meant that when teachers miss sessions (especially in practical subjects in the summer when they are in with the GCSE all day exams, for example), the time will be made up.

Clary - not native speaker no. But she did do some afterschool club in primary. Generally though language is her skill (120 on spag sat) she never had to practise at home for spelling tests.
I did just looked at gcse mfl paper and it has changed a bit since i took in maybe 2008. But doesnt seem too bad.

Certainly math i imagine many kids in y7 could take the foundation paper and pass that?? As charts ive seen have i think the 120 kids already being on a 4?

Yep it was reformed a few years ago; first new version sat in 2018.

It’s a lot more challenging than it was, as the controlled assessment is gone and the writing tasks cannot be prepped and learned beforehand. The speaking tasks can to some extent but not all.

I’d be amazed if a non-native speaker of French (for example) could get a good GCSE grade after primary after school club and 18months or so of secondary lessons tbh. But anyway it’s a moot point I guess.

@clary I agree re MFL - unless they've lived in the country they'd be unlikely to get above a 5. I suppose it depends whether you care how highly they score or if you just want a pass. DD took foundation GCSE maths and got a D, but wants an A so is happy to take her time and achieve that (thankfully!).
Odd posts!

I meant to say she took in in Y7, as the previous poster mentioned it. It's about getting the best possible grade you can, surely?

We did this in the late 70s.

It turned out our Maths teacher was "trying for a baby" and so we had covered the whole syllabus early with a year for revision or, for those fab at Maths, they sat it early! I don't think any of us got below a B grade O level because we had so much time spent on the content.

In the end she was actually on maternity leave for most of the last year of our studies (I didn't sit early) and we just had a support type teacher sit in and we did past papers over and over, going up to her desk for help if we struggled!

I was actually disappointed with my B grade! But I'd recommend more time than less.

I think it’s a great idea

As i say i managed in the 1 year. (Pre syllabus change). With A*
I guess a bit like some asd kids are great at maths, languages is her skill. (Reading chapter books at 5y0 for eg.
Also her school do the spelling bee in y7 which says it covers 1/3 of gcse words.
I guess i think kids arent generally stretched with languages. 5 years is a lot

My dc's school (state comp) has always done this.

They pick a one year option (not all GCSEs, things like Lamda are options) and they do that at the end of year 9.
They then pick I think it's 3x 3 year options and 1x 2year option (which they do in years 10/11).
They all do GCSE RE in year 10, all do maths/English/science. So they end up with 10-14 qualifications depending on whether they do double or triple science, both Englishes, additional maths etc. If they are struggling in maths/English they may do extra rather than the 2 year option.

Now when dd1 first started this I thought it was a stupid idea. Put too much pressure on them in year 9, far too many qualifications to concentrate on and why specialise that early?

Well, for a start off they don't actually specialise that much. They actually have less options that I did. So they have to do history or geography, for example. The options are played off each other.
Contrast that with my choices for GCSE which were much freer, but out of 10 qualifications, half were maths or science.
The year 9 exam means that the school picks out dc who are panicked by the doing the external exam and works with them over the next 2 years. They look at if there's any SEN that can have reasonable adjustments etc. RE in year 10, which they don't tend to take very seriously, gives another opportunity to look at adjustments that may be needed.

And lastly, to my surprise the dc liked it. They can drop (some of - ds' choice would have been English!) their most hated subjects. But also it improved behaviour because they know that they are going to be doing an exam in that subject.

So I still remain open to being persuaded there are better suggestions, but actually for my dc and their friends, it worked and they liked it.
DD1 did end up with 16 GCSEs or equivalents, and the other two 12-13, and I do think they'd be better dropping down to 10 as standard, but I don't think it's as dreadful idea as when I first had it explained.

Well I took Spanish O level after 15 months of lessons, but I was a sixth former with German and French already taken, and studying A level languages too.

Being good at Eng lang is great, well done her, but good Eng lang skills doesn’t mean she can write sentences in past tense French!

So with spelling bee she will know a third of the GCSE vocab at the end of year 7? Sorry I’m not buying it. Learning MFL is linear, and as it goes I am all for starting topic work in year 9, and ofc skills such as vocab learning, verbs and translation skills should be and are taught from year 7. But I haven’t taught many students who would have a hope in hell if even a grade 5 GCSE in year 8. If any tbh.

Hello, they do this at one secondary we toured. We didn’t pick it but the teachers seemed to really support the idea, as did the pupils who showed us round. They can really study the subjects in depth