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?

Sorry I've only just got back to the thread. Thanks for all the comments, it's good to hear different views.

I think the thing that annoys me the most is that it was imposed without ANY consultation. We would have definitely considered a different High School if we knew this was in the pipeline. I'm sure DS will be able to cope with exams in Year 9 but it just seems so unnecessary.

Totally agree with Roisin, as ever!

We too suffer from the Yr 11s who have 'passed' English and Maths at Grade C by November and then can't be bothered to work towards the higher tier because they get it hammered into them that 5 Cs are the magic key. I think it works badly against bright pupils who don't have the 'middle class parents with understanding of redbricks' pushing them for higher grades.

It also provides a stupid system where they might come out with 15 GCSEs but no colege/uni is really impressed by that, as far as I know.

I have twins in Year 10 who are had 2 year KS3 (no problem) and 3 year KS4. As they chose triple science they took one paper end of year 9 and are in the middle of finishing their sciences now. What the school didn't tell us was the full implications on Year 11. My daughter has been told she needs to achieve 3 A* to be allowed to start a science A level in Year 11 whereas her twin brother has been targeted 3 A's. I have argued with the school over this and they have accepted that DD could do science with three A's. At the end of Yr 11 school policy is that you need a B to progress the subject to A level so it seems you have to achieve a higher grade younger under this system.

It is likely my daughter will hit her targets and my son, who works as little as possible, is likely to "fail" ie: B's or C's.

I'm told he will have to repeat science for a year to carry on to A'level.

Does this make any sense? It seems to me he would have been better off not sitting this year at all rather than being made to feel a failure, face repeating a year etc.

OK for those that achieve and it may be ggod for my daughter and allow her to tackle 4 heavy A'levels - not so good for some others.

Mine also sit English and Maths November 2010. Alongside the rest of their GCSE's they may be sitting an AS too.

Glas it was O'levels in my day and one 3 week period of exams and it was sorted.

My DCs' school started this last year and, generally speaking, I'm not really in favour.

An example of why it's a bad idea; my DS in Y10 is taking a Business Studies GCSE module tomorrow (worth 25% of the overall mark) along with all the Y9 students who started doing GCSE Business Studies at the same time as the Y10s. Some of the Y9 students are still only 13 years old! I know of one Y9 girl who is already in a major panic about it and instead of getting a predicted A or B in the mock, only managed an E because she fell to pieces under strict exam conditions.

On the other hand, my DD in Y8, can't wait to start KS4 History next year because she'll "be with children who want to learn about History", as she put it herself.

So I can see both sides.

As a parent of a 12 year old in year 8 (summer born) it seems mad. No way is he ready to start thinking about GCSE's

Where is the money for all these wonderfully personalised subjects that students can then take up once they've passed the ordinary GCSEs?

DDs school has been doing this too for a few years.

Part of the reason, they said, is that many bright children will make no progress in either Y7 or Y8 unless pushed so there is is effect a "lost" year. Compressing KS3 in to two years rather than three is meant to avoid that.

The spin-off is that they get to spend three years over their GCSE course rather than two, i.e. they don't finish their GCSEs earlier they just start them earlier.

DD is in Y9 so she started her options this year. I was a bit surprised when I realised that now GCSEs are more modularised this would mean she actually sits some of her papers this year. So far though she seems able to handle this.

In our case I think it is working well and I honestly don't think she would have chosen anything different if she had taken her options a year later. She is still very happy with her choices.