Science, double science and bio/chem/physics?

[lisalisa]

Can someone please explain to me what the differences between these GCSEs are and why the options have been changed ( in my day we were given choices only of the trad 3 - boi/chem or physics). Is it some kind of dumbing down?

yes, it's either dumbing down (if you're a traditionalist) or "widening science participation" if you're progressive and forward thinking . Guess which camp I fall into
In DD1s school, double science is actually six modules of all three sciences, which are "added together" to make two GCSEs in Science. Those who have opted for triple science to the same six modules, plus an additional one for each subject, and then the marks are added up for each science seperately (so you have GCSEs in Physis, Chemistry and Biology).
Don't know about single science, but would assume it's aimed at the less academic children so that they get a basic grounding in "sciencey" stuff.
Check with the school how many pupils take each option, and look at what results they're getting. Also think about whether your DC wants to do a science subject at A level, as double science might not be enough.
OTOH double science for an arts/humanities focused child might be fine.

They used to do combined science O levels back in the old days. My father did them at public school, in the science stream for those going on to science A levels and degrees, and that was in the 50s.

I don't think they saw it as dumbing down at that point. It was so the scientists could also take 3 languages.

It's not a new idea, combining all the sciences so as to make more room for languages and humanities in the curriculum.

Depends

The only local state school that does the 3 sciences actually does them in a form called "21st Century Science" (or summat) which I've heard is to be avoided at all costs and is "dumbing down". Very few go on to Russell Group unis

Other local state schools - and actually some well respected independents - just do the double and have plenty of students go on to Russell Group later on ... so I wouldn't say double science is necessarily dumbing down. (But I'm not a teacher btw)

Single science at any school is for the less academic.

I think that children can do double award science (as SV has said) and then do an extra course, either 21st century science (the one that was in the papers for including creationism) or additional science. This means that you have 3 GCSEs in science but not biology, chemistry and physics. Hopefully a science teacher will come on and explain.

I have chosen my son's secondary school on the basis that he can do 3 single sciences at GCSE. I think the other science qualifications are good for children who want to be able to 'debate science', but I want my son to have the opportunity to be a scientist if he chooses, so he is going to a school where they can do 3 single sciences, as I think it is a better grounding.

I thought the government were meant to be changing the guidlines so that all schools gave children the opportunity to 3 single sciences GCSEs, but it hasn't happened in my LEA.

I think you do:

Double award science = 2 GCSEs

Double award science plus additional science =3 GCSEs

Double award science plus 21st century science = 3 GCSEs

Chemistry, Biology, Physics = 3GCSEs

Single awars sciences are not for the less able! I am not a teacher but work in a university science department, and 3 single sciences are viewed as being better preperation than the other qualifications.

It's because in the old system some children just chose one sciences (Biology say) and then didn't study the others at all. It was deemed a good thing that all children should study some of each of the sciences (not a bad aim in itself), so the system was changed...

The most basic option is simply called science. It leads to a single GCSE, is really very basic and is not an adequate prerequisite for A level study in any science subject. Most schools steer higher ability children away from this.

The next step up is additional science. This, together with the science option above is two GCSEs (and unlike the old double science option you don't necessarily get the same grade in each). This is adequate preparation for A level study in any or all of the sciences.

Alternatively you can do the separate science GCSEs - Biology, Chemistry and Physics and thus have 3 science GCSEs. These seperate exams comprise all the same modules/exams as the science and additional science GCSEs and have an additional exam in each of the three subjects and another practical assesment is required. If a student is studying several sciences at A level there is a small advantage in having done this option. The two disadvantages are:

1. the extra module for each subject is generally speaking rather dull (the exciting & more important stuff has been included in additional science, so that all A level students have covered it).
2. In many schools the timetabling of this uses an extra GCSE option which can lead to a rather science-oriented set of GCSEs - many schools prefer students to do an extra language/humanity instead.

All well and good. However, in my opinion they have all been rather dumbed down as well. To make the subject more accessible to a wider ability range a lot of the maths and content has been taken out and replaced with ethics type stuff which isn't true science imo.

Thanks for that explanation Snorkle; that has really clarified the situation. I don't suppose you know which exam board syllabus is the least dumbed down for science A levels? I would really like to know!

The least dumbed down option is the one my son's school does and that is IGCSE in 3 separate sciences. As far as I know this syllabus makes the gap between gcse sciences and AS level not quite so acute. But that is probably not very helpful is it.

DS' school has also moved over to iGCSE - 3 separate sciences has always been compulsory but school felt that standard GCSEs were being dumbed down more and more and weren't a good foundation to AS/A2 and university entrance for science/engineering/medicine.

Are state schools allowed to move to the iGCSE or is it just the independents ?

DD thought 3 separate sciences was better if you struggled with one particular science.

EG, if you were terrible at say Chemistry, you could still get A*'s for the other 2 and fail or low grade in 1. However, if taking a combined paper then you may end up with 2 lower grade marks if your Chemistry brought the rest down.

probably some truth in that Milliways - although I'd contend that if a child is really that much worse in just one of the three it's quite likely down to poor teaching in that subject than lack of ability in that one area.

The iGCSE is a GCSE substitute and more akin to the old O levels. Some schools haven't shifted to it because children will achieve lower results in them which isn't always what they/their parents want. Although they're ment to be a better preparation for A levels, the A level syllabus has been modified too & starts where GCSE Aditional Science leaves off, so although iGCSE might make A levels seem a lot easier I'm not really sure it's a valid argument.

In terms of A levels to avoid, I think they're mostly broadly similar although there's a Physics one (OCR Physics B - Advancing Physics) that's had all lots of the maths taken out which seems quite daft to me (though it is endorsed by the Institute of Physics), so I'd avoid that one if possible.

and it is only independent schools that are allowed to choose the iGCSEs too, so not an option for the majority.

The tradition in this country is to do two Science examinations.

When I was at school in the 80s, we picked two of the three disciplines. In our school, it was possible to select 3 from the various option blocks, but it was not recommended because you would have to miss out on something else and therefore your curriculum wouldn't have been broad and balanced.

When the National Curriculum came in, they specified that you had to study all three sciences, but kept the tradition of two awards (again, you could study all three if you felt strongly enough).

Two years ago, the Science curriculum changed, and now you do Science (B1, C1, P1) in Y10 and Additional Science (B2, C2, P2) in Y11 (or all three - which is basically Science, Additional, and add-on modules for the separate subjects (B3, C3, P3)).

I flit between liking and not liking the current specification, but on most days like it. It is fine for future Scientists - the new A-levels are designed to take over from Additional Science. There are real benefits for weaker students and those who are not going to continue science. For example, it examines practical skills - following instructions and carrying them out. This is a great lifeskill, applicable to anyone. It teaches pupils to evaluate evidence and data - invaluable when you have to make choices such as MMR or not, stuff to do with climate change, etc.

When I was doing my PGCE, I remember having to think about why science should be a compulsory subject - the wisdom was:

1. for the sake of it (like any other academic subject - general knowledge, enrichment etc)

2. to produce future scientists

3. to learn practical skills, such as measuring, weighing (important in the home)

4. to evaluate data and make informed choices.

Every benefits from studying science. I think the courses we have now are doing a good job of widening participation.

at ds1s grammar triple science is expected but if struggling in yr11 they can take dbl science.

at our dcs school you can only do single sciences

I also like the system. Unlike others on this thread I also like 21st Century Science, of which I was very scornful before I actually started teaching it. It does take a very different approach to more traditional science courses, in the first year at least, where the emphasis is really on what science is - the methodology behind it - rather than your actual facts. They come in the second year for students doing triple award or additional science (potential A level scientists). There is also an applied course for those who suit a more vocational approach.

While I approve of iGCSE Mathematics, I don't think the same logic holds true for Science.

iGCSEs are basically all book work - no course work, and for Science, no need for practicals. That is because there is no guarantee that international centres are equipped with laboratories (eg schools in the rural Africa).

'Science' is taken in Year 10, and the vast majority of students will go on to do 'Additional Science' in Year 11, and so will gain two individual certifications. For students doing separate sciences, they will study a further module in each section. All the students in a school will do the same basic course, regardeless of their final certification.

As for the modules themselves, the separate science modules (B3, C3, P3) cover new concepts. They do not cover the module 1 and 2 concepts in any greater detail. They are not that much of a bonus for A-levels. I am obviously pro-Science, but I really do feel that it is not a good idea to do triple science at the expense of another academic subject.

Triple science is aimed at future science students. Once at university, a student may never have the opportunity to learn languages or humanities. It is a shame to narrow down subjects so much at age 14.

I rather think the current syllabus lets the really sciencey kids down quite badly - there's just not enough real science in it and if they've been curious about science through primary & KS3 they'll know it all already and really want to know more. The A levels have been simplified to the point where science degrees now take an extra year and the children have to take out loans to fund that year too. In the worst case scenario potential scientists will become bored and choose another subject instead.

I don't think I am letting down my able, sciencey students, but then I don't shy away from extending them beyond the examination specification.

herbietea - I think that's a wise decision. My ds chose science/additional science rather than separate so he could do both music and latin instead of choosing between them. He is however planing to sit the extra B3,C3 P3 papers to get the 3 separate qualifications (doing the extra work himself) & is even looking at doing AS Chemistry alongside his GCSEs too as it's 'more interesting'.

herbie, I wasn't meaning to suggest your ds should do the same. I think the 2 science GCSE option is a good choice - I'd be quite happy for my ds to do just that (which is what he will do if he decides not to do the other stuff). I mentioned the extra stuff he's doing to emphasise that GCSE science doesn't seem to be enough to whet the appetite of science mad children. Ds will do science A levels (at least 2) and quite possibly a science degree but looked at the GCSE syllabus & decided not to 'waste' an extra option on it as it didn't look to cover much he felt he didn't know and it wasn't a necessary prerequisite.