Choosing options in yr8. Does your school do this?

[roisin]

Apparently some schools are teaching a 2-year KS3, so students choose their options at the end of yr8 and drop some subjects then.

Is your school doing this?
Is this right? Is it legal?

I think it's wrong that such young students should be making choices that will affect their future education/employment prospects.

I also think it's wrong that their education is becoming narrower, and less broad and diverse.

No, ours don't choose until year 9. I would hate DD to be choosing this year, she doesn't even turn 13 until the summer holidays. Far too young to be narrowing down her options IMO. She has no clue yet what she wants to do in life, and for some of her subjects she hasn't even been doing them long enough to know if she would like to carry on with them long term.

Yes, my DD is in Y8 and has to choose her options by the end of May this year.

I'm not particularly happy about it, but DD seems to know what she wants to do, and, what she doesn't want to do... however, that certainly isn't the case with many of her friends and peers.

If this had happened to my DS when he was in Y8, it would've been a nightmare... it was hard enough for him to make choices in Y9.

I think this is quite shocking.
I just think it is wrong that pupils are having to make decisions about what subjects they want to study at age 12 or 13.

And I think it is wrong that their general/rounded education is stopping at this age. What about art, music, dance, drama, French, German, Spanish, history, geography? Why are all those subjects all being dropped so early?

Does anyone know if this is legal? It seems very wrong to me.

Docbunches can I ask will your Dd be taking one option a year or taking the final exams in yr11? My Dd will taking an option a year and her core subjects in yr11.

Hi Magentadreamer - as I understand it, they will still take all their GCSEs in Y11, with the possibility of taking some early. I guess IF they take some early, then there might be the possibility of studying a new subject in Y11.

Along with choosing four options, they are also allowed an 'elective' (non-exam) subject. In my DD's case, she will probably go for Drama or Dance, if possible.

So it's not all bad, but I completely understand Roisin's concerns.

I think you're right it is too young to choose. All mine found making gcse choices hard. Four of them wanted to keep more subjects than they were allowed, one didn't fancy any of the options (apart from maths, science & PE)....bless him. And one in year 8 is yet to choose.

He will however get to choose his arts options soon ready for year 9. I think this is fair enough. By 13 most people know whether they can draw, play an instrument, act etc. My DS will drop art & drama which he doesn't enjoy and spend more time learning about music.

hmmm, ds had to choose his gcse languages before he even started at secondary. april of year six we had to give the choices in by. so now in year 8, i am not quite so shocked by them asking for options.

But the reasons for this are not educational, they are not for the benefit of the children, they are purely and simply about league tables.

The idea is you drop 'surplus' subjects early, so that you have more time and you can concentrate on the GCSE courses for 3 years instead of 2. In addition it means they can consider early entry in yr10 for core subjects - esp Maths/English for school results. This gives the option of re-sits a year later for those who don't make the grade.

I've done some homework though, and apparently it is legal.

I know some schools start GCSE work in maths early - because their top sets are able enough and ready to. Also it's getting common to start GCSE science in year 9 too - mainly since they've got easy enough to be accessible to year 9s and it means they can fit triple science into a double science 'slot' more easily (works quite well - they do science in year 9, additional science in year 10 and the extra stuff for separate science in year 11, less able students can take longer over the science/additional science syllabus).

But non of the above actually needs choices to be made earlier and so the year 9 curriculum is not diminished - I don't like the sound of that trend.

The thing about starting the GCSE modules in yr9 for science (and maths) to an extent is it's so narrow. The test is so boring, so if you have bright kids, why teach to the test? Why not do something completely different?

In ds1's top set science this year (yr8) they are doing loads and loads about ethics and morals, history of science - individual scientists and discoveries; plus loads of experiments that are real "hands on, work it out for yourself", rather than just memorising the right answers.

I don't know how much of this stuff is on the NC in some way, but I doubt it. But it makes far more sense to me than just romping through the curriculum asap in order to do the GCSEs early.

When I first found out that DD?s school was going down this route my first thoughts was it?s all about League tables and nothing else. Having spoken to her Head of House I?m still slightly cynical but can see some positives. Under the old traditional system DD would have had to have used up two of her options in order to be able to Triple Science and a MFL ? these are now part of her core subjects. Only the top Band ( Stream) will do Triple Science and a MFL as a core subject. DD loves Science and would have more than likely gone down the route of using an option to do Triple Science and most likely have not chosen a MFL she now has three options to play with. This could be seen as actually broadening her education and being able to do subjects that previously she wouldn't have been able to do.

The Lower bands will not be doing Triple Science or a MFL as core subjects ? I believe they can choose a MFL as an option subject. The time table for the lower bands core subjects will reflect the fact they might need more help with Maths & English and this surely can only help them to achieve a C grade or better in Maths and English. Ok the cynic in me is still screaming League Tables but if a DC in one of the lower bands actually manages to walk out with credible Maths and English qualifications then the benefit is two way ? the school benefits from that years league table figures but the DC benefits in the long term. Given that DD will have 3 years to do her GCSE?s in Science etc I can see it not just being about teaching to the test in her higher ability band but also being able to explore the subject in more depth. In Science she has done a variety of homework projects which have explored various famous scientists and the impact they have had.

DD will only be taking her optional subjects early and will take core subjects as normal with modules in yr10 and 11, yes she will have the option to re sit modules in her core subjects but then again DC?s doing a traditional 2 year KS4 will have as well. The actual choices DD has to make are only valid for the coming year i.e. DD will be choosing this year what option she wants to take in Yr9 and next year will choose yr10?s option. What worries me the most is the fact that DD will have to sit a GCSE exam aged 13 in Yr9 and pick up the results when she is still only 13 ? she?s an August Baby. I can see some positives and some negatives having discussed it with her Head of House and yes as I said earlier I am still cynical about it all being League tables and nothing else but isn't education in this country all about League tables?

Roisin, I agree about the league table motives. My DCs' school gets very good GCSE results, but if you bring Maths and English into the equation, then the A-C percentage drops by about 10%; with some schools that difference is far greater.

I overheard my dc (yr 11 and 9) talking to each other about science just yesterday roisin...

They were saying that in year 9 they covered all sorts of stuff that was never needed in science again (their school doesn't start GCSE course until year 10). All the examples they gave were stuff that used to be covered in O level eons ago (I think brownian motion was one example). So yes I'd agree with you, except I think it's a failing of the science syllabus rather than a problem with starting the GCSE course early. I also agree with magenta that if it gives children a broader choice of subjects at GCSE it's quite a good thing, but it can be taken too far.

The "bands" worry me immensely too Magenta. Presumably you are talking about traditional "streams"? So there is one pathway for the top stream (triple science and MFL) and different pathway for the bottom stream.

What happens to the bright but dyslexic child, who has good ability in Maths and Science but under-performs in English? What about the child who really struggles with numbers and figures, but has exceptional ability with words and language? What stream are they in?

This concerns are amplified because of the fact that these choices are being made so young. What about the "late-developer", who only starts to blossom end of yr8/yr9. Are they consigned to a lower band and a more limited pathway?

The Banding commenced in Yr8. Within the bands English Maths and Science is set into 3 sets so the scenario?s you quote Roisin could well mean that either of them could be accommodated in the top band. DD for instance is flying in Science, running in Maths and shuffling long in English. Her Best Friend struggles with Maths and Science but excels in English and is in the lower band ?her English set is doing work of a higher level then DD?s is. BF will benefit from the extra time given to Maths and Science and hopefully leave High School with credible qualifications in these subjects. When I spoke to DD?s Head of House I did bring up whether DD would benefit from being in the middle band and the additional lesson time that would be given to English by such a move and was told that DD was on course to gain credible passes in GCSE English DD won?t be flying to the finishing line more of a slowly but surely plod to it when it comes to English. DD is never going to be the child that leaves school with a complete set of A*?s but with hard work and lashings from me she might just get a sprinkling! The bands do not have their own lists of options and either band can chose from the same list. Vertical Tutoring means that there will be DC?s from yr9-11 doing the same option course.

Even in schools that do not have streaming it can be pretty hard for the late developer to blossom from being bottom set to top set, not unheard of but hard all the same. Banding at DD?s school does mean that DCs who are late bloomers and in the lower band will still be able to achieve credible GCSE passes. They might not be able to do triple Science but they will not be stuck with a foundation level GCSE in Double Science or a BTEC. MFL is offered as an option subject but I think that this might be an NVQ. DD is not guaranteed to do a GCSE in German and could if it was thought more appropriate follow an NVQ course this decision is not made till the latter part of KS4. For those DC?s who are in the lower band but want to do a MFL at GCSE level the school runs what has been a very successful afterschool/lunchtime GCSE French, successful due to the motivation of the DC?s in turning up after school and of course the MFL dept for giving up their time to do this. The French club is open to all.

As I said in previous posts I am cynical about this move and worried that DD will have to complete a GCSE course when she is only 13, but with motivation and interest in the subject plus lashings from me I am sure she will succeed . Yes there will be DC?s whose parents don?t give a toss but they wouldn?t give a toss if they were sitting them in Yr11 either.

roisin - that is exactly where my DD is. She has dyspraxia, and struggles a great deal with english due to the lack of simply right and wrong answers. She is, however, doing really well in maths and science, as they are factual subjects and she will do extra pages and pages of them at home. Her absolute favourite subject though is French, and because she suits the repititive nature of learning the verbs etc, she has done really well in MFL, both at primary school and secondary. SHe is in Y8 now.

But, because of her lower english results, she is in a lower pathway, which will not do French GCSE. She is gutted, as am i, as it is truly her best subject and it is lovely to see her so enthusiastic about it.

I think all pathways should be able to be a little flexible in which subjects they can study in KS4

I agree with magenta I think - the system may not be perfect, but at least it does give some children the chance to do triple science. Many state schools round here still only offer double science regardless of ability in whatever year, though that is gradually changing.

jetcat - can you go & talk to the school about being flexible for your dd? If you organised some extra tutoring in English for example, could she cope on the higher path? Schools do need to treat children as individuals, not everyone will conform to stereotypes.

Jetscat have you spoken to the Head of MFL to see if they could sort out something for your DD?

i have spoken with the MFL teacher, and he seems to think that if DD works hard enough she could move up a pathway so that she could do French GCSE, as he knows she would do well

But, i think all the tutoring in the world would not help her understand certain 'rules' in literacy, or give her the confidence to express herself in written form (what she most struggles with) I could be wrong though - but from what her consultant says, i think she will always have difficulty with the 'grey area' of life, things that are not black and white.

I work with her quite a lot at home on her literacy, esp as i am doing an english degree at the moment, and some of the things she writes are - in that a primary school student could write better. Obviously i dont tell her that. That reminds me, when she first started at this school, i was actually discouraged from going over her homework with her ( she would do it, we would go over it together and she would make changes - but including the originial so the teacher could see what level she was working at on her own) as her teachers said they werent getting a true picture of her abilities.

That is fine, but they do not actually correct her homework at all, so when she hands in something which could be a lot better, she is not actually shown how it could be better IYSWIM. I do understand that teachers will be extremely busy, but to actually ask a parent not to do it seems a bit .....

Yes, my Y8 daughter will be choosing her options this term.

She's at a grammar school that is doing the compressed KS3 curriculum. Has she found it a strain? Not really. Will she be missing out on lots of subjects? I doubt it.

There is the option to do additional GCSE's along with AS courses in Y11, so potentially she could end up with 14/15 GCSE's.

DD2 did this. I was worried to start with but we've just had the Y9 options evening and it makes more sense now.

In some ways subjects she chose to take up in Y9 were "tasters" - in particular, Spanish and Catering. She had dropped German and Geography at the end of Y8, but there would be nothing to stop her taking them up again for GCSE as they still have two years to run.

All in all, it's turned out to be a positive thing for her.

I don't understand about completing a GCSE by 13 does that mean the course is done entirely in Y8 and Y9 ?

Another questiom -what is the point of having 13,14,15 GCSEs .I would have thought 10 good GCSEs in solid subjects obtained in one sitting would be enough for anyone ?

pantomimecow, yes, at some schools they do sit a GCSE or two a full two years early (ICT is often done that early). I guess it works OK for subjects that are easy enough, but I think it's only worth doing if a child is fairly certain of getting a top grade. It has the advantage that children that struggle to choose just 10 subjects can do more and/or do some softer ones that interest them. Not such a good idea for a child that only wants to do 10 subjects though.

10 solid GCSEs at one sitting is certainly enough for any career - but bright children can be rather 'confined' by the GCSE syllabus and need to do more. It does seem to be rather a minefield as to how schools accomodate them.

Perhaps if exams were not viewed as the be all and end all , then teachers could actually teach the children solid skills in their subject rather than spoon feeding to pass exams.
When i was at (grammar) school nobody did O levels early but when we had finished the syllabus we began on a level work.Which was really good because it gave a flavour of the A level courses which in many cases were very different to o level.