GCSEs in England: which subjects / how many are compulsory? What can each school force kids to take?

[ItalianParent]

Can you please help me understand a few points about GCSEs in English (and I specifically mean in England, not in any other part of the UK) state secondary schools?

1. Are Maths, English language (not literature), and Science (whether combined or separate) the only subjects which are, by law, compulsory for all?

2. Is there a minimum or maximum number of subjects mandated by law? Does the law say something like: everyone must do those 3 above, but also at least 5 more of their choosing?

3. Can each school decide which other subjects are compulsory for its students? Eg if a school wants everyone to do religion, or history, or geography, or whatever, I presume families cannot object and say no, right?

4. Can each school decide a minimum number of subjects for each student? Must this number be the same for all? Or can a school say: John should do 9 GCSEs and Jane should do 11? Can families object? Can a family say that 11 GCSEs are too many and they'd rather the kid did 8-9?

For context, I am not complaining about a school forcing a particular subject.
But I have found these are some of the points on which many schools, at least in my area, are the least transparent and provide the least information.

I have even found some schools lying about it (whether through bad faith or just ignorance I don't know), and saying that some subjects are compulsory at GCSEs by law (one school said it about history, another about religion) and it wasn't the school's choice. I have no qualms about GCSEs in either, but why give the wrong information?

Thanks!

@roaringdragon I asked the question in response to you saying the L1/2 technical qualification isn’t necessary for FE or employment. Neither is GCSE History.

You are starting to bore me. Leaving aside that many sixth forms don't let you take A level history without GCSE history, you seem to forget that history teaches something very valuable about the world: not just facts themselves but also a critical approach to analysing facts and motivations.
It is laughable to say the same about the retail business qualification.

Your question about maths is irrelevant because that wasn’t the logic of my point. You have just read it and twisted it how you want to read it.

You specifically said: " If the qualification was as simple as you think, more than 1% of the 1,824 candidates in June 26 series would have received a D2*. That is the lowest % for any of WJEC’s technical courses."

You specifically linked the low number of people achieving the highest grade to the (alleged) difficulty of the examination. I am not twisting anything.

The numbers you are comparing are flawed. The 2000 is just looking at one qualification with one board. The 600,000 is looking across boards. If you compare to just WJEC Eduqas for mathematics, the number is 57,238.

Wrong. They are not flawed. The whole point of Ofqual is to ensure that the qualifications of the various boards are comparable/ Have you ever heard of a sixth form or a university accepting the GCSE or A level of one board but not another? Also, 57,000 remains a very large number vs just 2,000

Actually, when you look at the percentages for WJEC Eduqas for mathematics, the percentage is lower for maths. 0.2%.
Nationally it ranges from 3 to 4% every year. Well done cherry-picking. For AQA it was 4.6%
Well done cherry-picking that ONE unrepresentative example to try to prove your point! Pathetic.

@Phineyj The expression "he who pays the paper calls the tune" means in this case that as English state schools are fully funded by the UK government (if indirectly via local authorities).then the senior management will pay keen attention to government guidance

Except I see no evidence of that. Until and unless the government outlaws streaming or setting, academies remain independent and their funding cannot be conditional on the schools applying or not applying setting/streaming.
Ofsted can apply pressure, to the extent academies care about the Ofsted rating.
But the government?

Do you have evidence of academy trusts bending over backwards to please the government of the time? If anything, I see the opposite - academies having a defiant "my way or the highway" attitude

Of course I don't think Maths should be taught in mixed ability classes. I've never come across a school of normal size that does that.

So we agree that setting makes sense, at least for maths? Then I guess we're saying the same thing

My A level classes are all mixed ability and depending on the amount of selection in a particular sixth form, that can mean A star to B and it can mean A star to U!

Bad example. A-level classes tend to be selective. Most schools will not let you do A level maths or A level French if you barely scraped a 4 at GCSE

@bittertwisted i have an a level in history, it teaches you critical thinking, causation, reasoned proposals, and how to present evidential facts. It’s not just ‘the past’
I hope it was clear I never said nor implied the opposite

I have two things to add on the Business.

1. WJEC is a relatively small exam board and (not sure if this is still the case as I think Eduqas is now their English arm) used to be chosen by English schools for particular situations and students precisely because the qualifications were a bit easier to get.

1. I teach teachers and recently did a bit of research reading about Business qualifications. Apparently a lot of schools use them in KS4 to keep students engaged (possibly students from widening participation backgrounds/SEND) who otherwise might become disenchanted with education and/or where it would be difficult to fill their timetables with more "academic" subjects. And filled, those timetables have got to be, as year 10s and 11s don't have "free periods".

For context with the 2,000, GCSE Economics, another niche qualification, is sat by around 8,000 students in England every year (all boards) which is teeny compared to A-level Economics (40,000 plus, all boards).

Bad example? I do teach sixth form 😄. What I say is accurate.

To the extent they care about Ofsted? Now you are just having a laugh.

@Phineyj Bad example? I do teach sixth form 😄. What I say is accurate.

Do you deny that many A level courses are selective?

Do you deny that everyone must take English and Maths GCSEs while not everyone must take an A level in the same subjects?

Do you deny that many sixth forms require a minimum grade in certain GCSE subjects to let you do an A Level?

I would think carefully about wanting a school that identifies and caters to different strengths. My preference is for a school that offers a solid core of compulsory subjects plus a diverse range of options. This is because pathways can pigeon hole students with high or low attainment. My DD’s school offers a very broad range of options. Students do a common core of the usual suspects & get 4 options (so 9 GCSEs/qualifications as standard - further maths or separate science or a home language could lift it to a max of 11). Apart from having to study a humanity or a mfl the choice of option subjects is broadly for students & parents to agree.
This means-
*High attaining students can still have a good choice. In some schools they have to take a language & RE & an mfl & separate science. They can end up with a single true option. This means that if they have a strong humanities/arts/STEM focus they cannot choose subjects to fit that. I have a relative who wanted to do art and computer science - they couldn’t as they only had one slot. It also means they can take a vocational option. Some academic students like to take a BTEC/CTEC as part of a portfolio that includes more traditional academic GCSEs. GCSEs are a lot of exams and it can be nice to have a more coursework focused option. DD has academic friends taking further maths, separate science etc. but also a vocational option in business, dance or performing arts etc. They look forward to something different in their timetables and develop confidence, public speaking and team working skills. If you have a strong core of subjects a vocational option can be a great addition. Schools with pathways can lock high attaining students out of these choices.
*Nearly everyone on mumsnet has high achieving ‘top set’ children. But the reality is that in real life most of us are average. It can be galling to be denied choices because you don’t make the cut. Being child 31 when only 30 can do separate science is crap if that is your interest. At DD’s school anyone can take separate sciences as an option (not accelerated) and everyone can start further maths after school. Children aren’t locked into pathways. Options are guided, discussions are had but ultimately you can give it a go if you want (with the interesting exception of PE). If you aren’t keeping up in further maths (regular assessments) then you can drop it (& are advised to).
There are repercussions to offering flexible choices, it isn’t all good but on balance I prefer it to pathways.

Similary I think flexible setting can be helpful in maths, mfl and science but I think streaming is a nightmare. It is one of the few things that would really deter me from a school if I had the privilege of choice. I don’t - DD’s current school was the only realistic/viable choice.

State funded schools whether they are LA controlled, academies, voluntary aided etc. are conscious of performance statistics that the government decide on. It is one of the factors that influence the range of options offered, the number of subjects taken and the restrictions put on choices. For example, you might wonder why English literature is compulsory (alongside English language) in nearly all schools for nearly all students. If you look at how attainment 8 and progress 8 are calculated, you will see. It just isn’t the case that academies don’t care about government performance stats - they do.

KS4 accountability measures - if you read through the information you can see how they are likely to influence secondary schools curriculum offer. They are published for all state schools.

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/progress-8-school-performance-measure/secondary-accountability-measures-2025-guidance-for-maintained-secondary-schools-academies-and-free-schools

@Owlbookend I would think carefully about wanting a school that identifies and caters to different strengths. My preference is for a school that offers a solid core of compulsory subjects plus a diverse range of options. This is because pathways can pigeon hole students with high or low attainment.

Good point. I am not a huge fan of schools which apply streaming from day one precisely because kids can be pigeonholed and it can be devastating for self-confidence.

But I have also seen schools where the best students are not pushed enough and the least academic students are forced to study too much. The worst of both worlds, with a bad outcome for both groups.

We'd need a balance

Nearly everyone on mumsnet has high achieving ‘top set’ children
This made me laugh! Yes, OMG yes! Just like everyone on Reddit or on personal finance forums is on £150k, has hundreds of thousands of pounds of investments and tracks financial markets on 6 screens at home :)

(In my opinion) Setting benefits the very top students (who need the push) and the very bottom students (who need the support with the basics). Not so much the middle 80%.

My observation with BTEC (and similar) compared to GCSE (based on outdated traching knowledge from 10 years ago, and now my own children)... BTEC coursework rewards the diligent hardworking students. You cant throw it together at the last minute. There are oeople who succeed in GCSE by dossing for 2 years, then cramming abd acing exams. Because they are intelligent. In reality you need intelligence and diligence.

I think the middle is much much less than 80%.
Remember that every year between 40 and 50% of students nationwide fail to achieve grade 4 in maths.
The overwhelming majority of these kids will have been placed in the foundation tier.
Imagine how much worse they'd do if there were no setting and everyone did the same GCSE maths paper!

72% get a Grade 4 or higher on the first attempt at 16, but yes, maybe my original 80% in the middle was inaccurate. Plus thete are does who wont sit GCSE maths due to their level being even lower that a Level 1 qualification.

Fair enough - the 40% probably included resits

I wasn’t cherry picking anything. You were the one who originally focused on WJEC. I was comparing subjects within the same exam board. If you wanted to include other exam boards in an argument, you would have to do the same for Business since there are other boards who offer that as well.

My point about the numbers being flawed wasn’t about them not being comparable qualifications. It was about you saying so many more do maths. Well firstly, yes, obviously, since maths is a core subject, more sixth form, adult learners and those below Y11 do maths than business, but also, you aren’t comparing it to the whole level 2 Business qualification sector, just one specific qualification from one board. So, comparing the numbers entered for maths from across boards to the number entered for one specific business qualification is flawed.

I said if it was as simple as you think, the grade boundaries and percentages would be higher. That isn’t quite the same as saying because it has the lowest % of D2* it cannot be that easy. There is a subtle difference. I’m sorry you can’t comprehend that.

you seem to forget that history teaches something very valuable about the world: not just facts themselves but also a critical approach to analysing facts and motivations.

I haven’t forgotten anything. If you actually read my post you will see I agreed that it does. That wasn’t my point you said the L1/2 business qualifications wasn’t valuable because it isn’t necessary for FE or Employment. My whole point was things can be valuable without being a necessity for that.

their funding cannot be conditional on the schools applying or not applying setting/streaming.

The government could include it in academy Funding Agreements if they wanted to. Highly unlikely they will, but they could.

Yes it's about 30% that get below a grade 4 in maths at the first attempt. That figure is easily found.

I don't think anyone on this thread is advocating not setting for maths and not offering the F paper to the students whom it will benefit. FWIW I think there should be F tier for English lang and lit as well.

@clary I don't think anyone on this thread is advocating not setting for maths and not offering the F paper to the students whom it will benefit. FWIW I think there should be F tier for English lang and lit as well.

Well, people posted studies suggesting that setting and streaming (which are very different and shouldn't be conflated) make very little difference. I disagree with those studies because, if they were true, everyone should take the same maths classes and examination and there should be no distinction between foundation and higher.

@Phineyj posted the study about setting and later specifically said that they did not think maths should be taught in unsetted classes. So as far as I can see my point stands, no one is disagreeing with you on this point. And AFAIK the vast majority of secondary schools set for maths. All the ones I know anything about do.

As I said, there is a subtle difference. I didn’t infer that a qualification is more difficult simply because fewer candidates take the top grades.

You are the one comparing different groups which are too different and not comparable! That was my whole point about you comparing GCSE maths to the Business qualification.

All mine are older than GCSE age now. The ones who attended school didn’t attend schools who offered that specific business qualification. The two who don’t/didn’t attend school but have EOTAS/EOTIS/C didn’t have such qualifications available to them either.

Setting and/or streaming does not always occur when students sit higher & foundation papers. It often does, but they arent always yoked together.

For example, MFLs have become increasingly unpopular at my DD's school. Despite a vibrant MFL department, trips, extra curricular, school wide competitions etc. and two languages being offered in KS3 GCSE classes are small. They simply cant justify sets with this level of uptake and this is in a very large comprehensive with multiple classes starting each language from Y7 . They have ended up with a class of single figures doing one of the offered languages at GCSE and two small (20ish) classes doing the other. Students in these classes will be a mix of foundation & higher students. The full syllabus for higher is taught and adaptions and guidance is given to students who are ultimately destined for the foundation paper. It may not be ideal, but the alternatives would be:
*Forcing students to take an MFL when it isnt a preferred option
*Excluding lower average students taking an MFL. Casses would be even smaller & frankly might be even more unviable. They are teetering on the edge now. Also it seems bluntly wrong to say you cant do the course.
Similarly students destined for foundation separate science papers can join the course. The vast majority of students doing this option are higher attaining higher paper students, but a small minority of students who will end up taking foundation are included.

Decisions about entry tiers arent finalised until Y11. The main exception is students in the lowest maths sets. They are taught a different foundation syllabus and it would be difficult access the higher content if you started Y10 in one of these sets.

Aaaaah @Owlbookend I am sorry that so few are taking that MFL (is it German?). There is a similar situation at the last school I taught in where MFL was not compulsory.

At my DCs’ school it was optional in DD's year and only 19 took French out of a possible 80 I think (a third of the year did it at KS3) tho more chose German o Spanish. This was several years ago, then the school introduced compulsory MFL for a while but that wasn't great either (too many disaffected YP not working and getting a 2 alongside a list of 5-6-7 grades).

Yes - you guessed right. It is German. It is a French or German offering in KS3 (kids are assigned to what they start in Y7). I do find it sad. My mfl gcse is German & it suited me much more than French. It used to more common in the local area, but increasingly they offer Spanish & French (or just one). I dont think anywhere else offers German a level in traveling distance & realistically it isnt going to be offered at DD's school given the gcse numbers. You'd need at least at 30% conversion rate - which is highly unlikely.

Yes - we also used to have compulsory MFL, but the progress stats weren't great. A lot of kids just seemed to not like/value it so it got dropped.

Of course not, but there's selective and there's selective.

My previous school, students could take Economics A level with a 5 in one English and a 5 in Maths (they needed 5 x 4s for sixth form entry generally iirc). That's very inclusive. A few got Us.

For a superselective grammar you might need to average 99% in entry tests at age 10 based on non national curriculum material!

In DS2's A level year (2019-21) his school was the only one in the city (out of at least seven or eight sixth forms) to offer German A level.

In DD's year French was the only one that ran, with two candidates (one was DD). MFL has to suck up very small classes I think (tho I did read a post recently about an MFL A level class in the teens which is heartening). DD said at least with just two of them, she got lots of speaking practice. I love German too and am very sad to see its fall from favour.