Reducing KS3 to 2 years - what do you think?

[ptangyangkipperbang]

DS's school has announced that they are moving to a 2 year KS3 and a 3 year KS4 to "maximise the learning opportunities for our students and fully embrace the personalising learning agenda to meet our students' needs".

This means that at least one GCSE will be taken in Year 9. It means that students going into 6th form will have external exams for 5 years in a row.

It also means that options will be chosen in Year 8. DS had a careers session today and he was only 12 last week!

I don't really see what the thinking behind it is and suspect it could be to boost league table results but am prepared to be corrected on that!

What do you think?

Sounds like utter madness. Have they exaplained why?

I mean, other than the bullshit about maximising stuff and fully embracing other stuff?

Just more waffle:

"Students will have a much wider choice of subjects that suit their ability and interests, and we hope to provide a curriculum that is even more engaging and motivating, leading to improved enjoyment and achievement at all levels".

Some friends have children doing this, and they seem to be thriving - will come out with a packet of GCSEs and can drop subjects they really don't like a bit sooner. May lead to some choices that they will later regret however....

I would be wary of it. Taking GCSEs in Yr 9 is a lot of pressure, and also the amount of academic development, let alone emotional development, between Yr 9 and Yr 11 is immense. Would students be allowed to retake exams taken in Yr 9, for example, if they got C or B grades in Yr 9 but would be capable of getting As or A*s in Yr 11? And why does anyone need three year's worth of GCSEs? Getting 15 GCSEs really isn't necessary.

Sounds like a lot of pressure on the DCs, IMO.

It just seems to devalue GCSE's even more. Soon it will be the norm to have at least 12. The goalposts always seem to be moving.

One good thing I can see is that "...students will be entered (for exams) when they are ready, rather than when they reach a particular age".

There have been massive changes to core subjects to open up education to offer all kinds of 'pathways' to qualifications - 1, 2, and 3 year courses, early entry, modular courses...

Starting KS4 early means more opportunities to do the best you can, as students can redo controlled assessment and modular units. Major exams taken this way would be staggered, hopefully reducing the massively stressful all or nothing exam period.

TBH can't really see how parents who choose schools on the basis of league tables can then complain about schools seeking to maximise their league table status...

The subject skills are the same; in many ways this simply means that good work achieved in Year 9 can 'count' towards final results.

But obviously bow to Eviltwins superior and in-depth analysis of eduactional polcy as 'bullshit'

Sigh educational.

At my school, they put all the Yr 11s in for Maths and English Language in November, with the intention (we're not terribly high achieving) that those who didn't get a C grade could have another crack at it. Those who did get a C, and those who want to, are doing English Lit this summer, and those who didn't get their Cs for Eng and Maths are retaking. However, those who DID get good grades and are unlikely to better them, now have gaps in their timetable, where they are supposed to be doing extra work on option subjects. Inevitably, though, there are a gang of students who really don't have anything to do, and are now wondering around aimlessly or making life difficult for teachers trying to keep them in a room with little or no work to do.

I'm all for students being entered for exams when they're ready, but what happens to those who were ready early, who end up spending Yr 11 with a clutch of GCSEs under their belts, and only a handful of subjects left to take.

If I were you, I'd question the school closely about how they intend to deal with that - it's only been two subjects in my school, and has proved a nightmare. Needless to say, we won't be repeating the experiment next year.

Thanks for putting a more positive spin on it! I think my biggest problem with it is that it seems to be very young to be making choices about the best options for a career. I know a child's future isn't based solely on their GCSE choices but it would be easy to start going down the wrong path and closing doors rather than opening them.

Currently DS is considering a career in catering/forensic science/lifeguard/air ambulance pilot/teacher so his choice of options could be an interesting one

I would also question how the school intends to continue to motivate bright students who did well in modules and/or assessments taken early. Whilst I agree with Tanga that good work in Yr 9 can count towards final results, it is difficult to keep even the brightest of students motivated if they can see that they have already fulfilled the demands of the course, and have achieved well.

The 'positive spin' comment was to Tanga but EvilTwins I can see that DS could end up taking subjects early and then having to pad his timetable out with things he's not interested in. It could mean he benefits from a wider curriculum but could also mean he gets bored.

We live in a grammar school area and decided to go to the local school because the grammars were too concerned about academic progress and were exam factories -

Just realised I'm discussing this on MN and have forgotten to tell DH about it! Will go and discuss it with him now and will sound really on the ball as I casually drop your pros and cons into the conversation! Thanks for your comments - it's good to get different perspectives.

If it was me, I'd be very interested in how the school intends to manage it. I can see the positives, but also, having experienced a small part of this kind of thing this year, would want to be sure that the school has really thought it all through.

My DD's school has gone down this path with very little consultation with parents. We had the guff of a child sitting exams on ability and not age, this I can see will happen regarding the core subjects but DD will do her first option next year and sit the exams in that subject and another option in yr10 and 11. I personally see it as being all about league tables and nothing else as the subjects that matter in the tables will be studied over the 3 years of Ks4 the ones that don't "matter" for the tables will be done over a year. The range of optional subjects has grown due to the fact any of the year groups will be in an optional subject class. DD is now panicing over the fact that next year she will have to do her option gcse plus Statistics and Media Studies GCSE - those are done within Maths and English classes.

Magentadremaer is right.

I disagree with this policy completely. It's all about league tables and results, not about the students.

Compared to other countries, we already allow students to drop subjects far earlier (yr9). Most just have a standard/core provision until age 16.

My son is very academic and quite bright. He will choose traditional, academic options at the end of yr9. But I'm absolutely thrilled that he still has another year where he does a couple of lessons of Tech, 5 lessons a week of art/music/dance/drama, etc. That is broadening his education and his outlook. I think we force them to specialise far too early.

My naive version of KS3 is that its a time for students to learn a wide variety of educational skills and still have time for PE, Art, Drama and Music. I can't stand the move towards everything that is learned has to be examined. KS3 is a time to just go to school and have some interesting lessons and have some boring ones. "Personalised learning" obviously I am very old fashioned.

Well, taking exams early is nothing new; my dh did some O levels early in 1976. There is an argument for truncating KS3 as sometimes they are bored and need to move on to the harder stuff (I have one like this).

You could potentially have a pre GCSE year in year 9 where specific learning is reinforced and some exam prep is done. It is difficult with year 9 though to motivate them at times - I have a year 9 and have taught them as well.

They do this at my dd's school and it seems to work well. Her school got the highest GCSE pass rates in the county last year.

my dd had to chose her options for staring yr 9 the other month didnt seem to be that much choice imo. it was hard to chose. dont know if it would have been easier a year later ie. the more usual time.

the way i rember it being explained was that the usual year 9 dont achieve much in particular subjects as they think they will give them up soon anyway. it is in effect a wasted year.
i dont remember any of the other explanations

"They do this at my dd's school and it seems to work well. Her school got the highest GCSE pass rates in the county last year."

But there's more to education that GCSE results IMO.

If you bring options earlier into yr8, then the students are just going to turn off even quicker from certain subjects.

I am passionately against this as a policy.

If students are ready, why not start the GCSE courses in yr9: especially for the compulsory/core subjects. Lots of schools do Maths modules in yr9 now, and the new English 2010 syllabus seems to be geared up for this sort of thing too.

But I don't think this is a justification for dropping all the extras after just 2 years. What about a wealth and rounded education?

Some students will give up all MFL at the age of 12/13, also Geography and History, Music, Dance, Art, Drama. It's tragic.

I think it should be illegal. I think I will write to my MP actually.

Completely agree roisin. Dd3 is in year 7 at the moment and the thought that she has may only have one more year of latin, woodwork, art, music, pe, cooking etc makes me sad.

The pressure on schools with this one is not the boost league table results, but to increase "personalisation of learning" (government buzz phrase, not mine!). To all those people making concerned remarks about narrowing the curriculum, you could look at the thousands of disaffected teenagers being forced to follow an irrelevant and boring curriculum, instead of focussing on their own interests and strengths. Ideally, pupils should be able to progressat their own rate, instead of being limited and held back by artificial barriers such as the end of KS3.

Obviously, schools end up with a half-way house that pleases no one, because full personalisation of the curriculum is impossible. But they are trying.

Not sure how much of the above I actually agree with, BTW. Just wanted to give another view point. Schools are not in the business of ruining children's educational experiences on purpose - they will have good reasons for doing what they are doing. And league tables only count the top 5 GCSEs including maths and English, so getting extra GCSEs doesn't make a difference in that regard either.

At my ds sch they have started ks4 in the summer term of year nine. This is when the year 11`s have left for study break.
So its only one term early.

They also used to do early GCSE`s and AS Maths in year 11 for the more advanced but they have stopped that.

All GCSEs are now to be taken in year 11 even for the most able. I think this allows more time for quality course work and Unis prefer this apparently (have read somewhere).