You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
Bit of a straw poll really as to whether your kids schools are offering 2 or 3 year GCSE's.
The local state school my step son went to used to do 3 year GCSE's, looks like this has now gone down to 2 years.
My Daughters grammar school is 3 years.
Also looks like some of the other local schools have dropped back down to 2 years.
I thought the 3 years was a good idea, as at step sons school they allowed them to take English early - if they got a grade they were happy with they could then stop English, if not then you did the exam at end of year 11 as normal.
Thought most schools were two years.
With AS being out of favour now (government choice) fewer schools do the maths and/or english GCSE a year early thing than used to. Further Maths in year 11 is still a thing in some schools taking maths a year early though.
It should be 2 years imo. 3 years is gaming the system in the pursuit of grades over breadth of education. Yr9 should be a broader church of subjects than 'just' your GCSE subjects. To me when I see a school that has adopted a 3yr GCSE model I just assume they have lost their way up the rabbit hole of being driven completely by their pass rate ranking.
Also bigger picture - provided the kids get 4s in English and Maths, the rest of the results are largely irrelevant if we are talking about mid to bottom end ability kids. If they've learnt enough and are confident/interested in the subject so they can take it on for A level is much more important that how much they have been 'coached' over an extra year to max out the grade. It's only at the very top end that the grades truly count (Oxbridge and medics basically) and then, crucially, they will want to see the grades all obtained in one academic year. So the 3 year model and resitting to improve the ones that were not an 8 or 9 the first time around is actually counter productive.
Couldn't tell you what GCSEs are...I'm discussing Nat 5s and completely bamboozled by it all...also, which one is Year 11? Is that 4th year in secondary school?
I suspect it is me being thick rather than just having too many terms for things...but there doesn't seem to be any courses on offer that are more than 1 year, unless it continues on i.e. Nat 5 and then next year you do Higher...but I suspect that isn't the same as a 3 year whatever.
I was in the first year which sat GCSEs. We took options at Third Year (I don't know what that is in New Pence, sorry) so technically sat GCSEs for two years, but some subjects we'd sat throughout high school. Core subjects aside, I started French in First Year and elected to keep it so studied it for five years.
3 years here in Derbyshire. I do feel that choosing subjects at the end of y8 is too soon.
GCSE's were done over 2 years in Derbyshire 7 years ago (when my daughter did hers). Things may have changed! 🙂
They've no idea what they want to do career wise at 14 never mind 13! As has been said, 3 years seems geared towards school league table results rather than what's best for the child.
DickB - not sure what system you grew up in - I'm guessing Scottish? In which case your "Standard Grades" were probably taught over a two year period S3 and S4? Nat5's replaced Standard Grades (Which in turn replaced O-grades that were broadly similar to O-levels which England evolved into GCSEs so are broadly similar). They are (sometimes/always?) taught as 1 year courses, but the foundations are sown the year before so for the average 15 yr old they are really still 2 year courses but with a bit more flexibility to change subjects your don't like, or for those less able to do as a Nat4 instead. You can then progress to do some (or in a tiny number of schools all!) of your Nat5s at Higher, and then further refine to Advanced Higher if you want. Some people might "crash" a higher (going direct with no Nat5 - some subjects are more realistic to that but also depends on pupil); equally some pupils will pick up a Nat5 or two in one year in either S5 or S6 to broaden their range. Before they start Nat5s schools in Scotland follow a "Broad General Education (BGE)" based on the Curriculum for Excellence which the media, teachers etc enjoy to hate. Its actually covering much of what convert refers to - and the idea is at the end of that phase pupils have learned how to learn so can study what they enjoy.
Sorry dirkpitt - that's a diversion from your original question. Would be interesting to know - does "3 years" mean they sit exam a year later or they start a year earlier? Does 3 years = wider range of subjects (e.g. 8 or 9 GCSES over 3 years v 6 in 2 years?)... When someone does a GCSE "early" do they really "stop" that subject? In Scotland some very able pupils might do one or two Nat5's a year early (at 14 rather than 15) but they wouldn't usually then drop that subject - because its one they are obviously good at.
Most schools do gcse's over 3 years now so that kids can do more gcse's which offsteds like. You can do less lessons a week but still fit the course in so do more subjects.
It should be 2 years imo. 3 years is gaming the system in the pursuit of grades over breadth of education
It is gaming the system but it adds breadth rather than reduces it. It works well for higher ability kids and less well for the less able.
Ours did two years for some and three for others - no idea
They’ve no idea what they want to do career wise at 14 never mind 13!
I remember the advice from my careers advisor at school.
"What do you want to do after you leave school?"
"Something to do with computers."
"Uh... OK, do that then. Bye!"
Never heard of 3 years, my youngest completed her’s in August.
3 years here (East Sussex). Entirely designed to game the system as mentioned above and not a great idea due to having to specialise too early. My daughter would probably have continued chemistry had she had another year to think about it and discover she really did like science after all - this has had profound implications on her choice of university as many of the courses she wanted to do needed chem as well as bio.
"It is gaming the system but it adds breadth rather than reduces it. It works well for higher ability kids and less well for the less able."
Not true - impacts all kids. Just because you are a straight A student, it doesn't mean you know what you want to do, in fact it may be harder if you are strong in all subjects to narrow it down and an extra year is incredibly useful for that. In fact I'd say the exact opposite - it helped my younger daughter who was not as strong academically but new what subjects she wanted to take for A level from Yr 7! It gave her extra time to do the ones she was weaker in and get better marks. It wasn't so good for my older daughter who was very strong in all subjects but couldn't decide what to do.
2 years, kids doing Further Maths do it at the same time as Maths - results round here are very high so I guess no need to game system.
Thanks for that @poly, helps explain it all and the op's post makes more sense to me now.
How many periods a week in 3 years vs 2? That'll make a difference both to whether it's any advantage or whether one is gaming the system and the other isn't.
Teaching in Scotland we recently moved from 1 to 2 year delivery of Nationals. However, we were 6 x 50 min periods over a year but went to 4 x 50 min periods for 2 years. This took it from tight for time but well doable to struggling to stretch the course out to fill the time.
It is gaming the system but it adds breadth rather than reduces it.
If schools are using it to increase the number of GCSEs per child, you could argue that it is adding breadth of qualifications, but I'd contend that's not the same as breadth of experiences. Brave schools tell ofsted/parents that they do a modest number of GCSE and add value in all these other interesting ways. Clearly I'm at the very disillusioned end of my career, but I'm of the opinion that GCSE are a pretty desperate catch-all hoop jumping exercise and I'd rather not see every moment for 3 years being put into engineering how many of the bloody things kids can be coached through.
If ostead gets wind that a school is doing a 3 year GCSE they are potentially in trouble.
3 years ago we were doing three year GCSE's.
An outstanding school was down rated from outstanding to requires improvement, simply because they were doing 3 year GCSEs.
We swiftly moved to 2 year GCSE's.
It narrows the curriculum, so kids have to chose one year earlier.
I'm not sure what the current guidance is. We are still doing 2 years.
Yr 7, 8, 9 > SATS > Choose your options/subjects > Yr 10 > Mocks > Yr 11 > GCSE's... thats the way it always has been, no?
No.
Not sure why people are having a problem understanding this?
Its simple (or it was at the secondary school my children attended), rather than deciding on your options halfway through Yr 9 to commence a narrower selection of GCSE subjects in Yr 10, the school asked students to select their options in Yr 8 to commence a narrower selection of subjects in Yr 9. The GCSE exams were still taken in Yr 11. This meant that students had more lesson space to concentrate on fewer subjects with all the advantages and disadvantages this brings to a broad range of young people developing at different rates.
Clearly Ofsted couldn't give a toss as they knew full well what was going on.
2 years in a Catholic school in mole valley, however they do "force* kids to do an early GCSE, it's an exam factory, not great for the kids mental wellbeing must be said .
If ostead gets wind that a school is doing a 3 year GCSE they are potentially in trouble.
Didn't seem to mind when they came to my school earlier this month.
So I don't think
@tall_martin has it
An outstanding school was down rated from outstanding to requires improvement, simply because they were doing 3 year GCSEs.
Really? Seems very unlikely to me, regardless of whether or not you believe that they should be either 2 or 3 years. I did 19 years in education and never heard of Ofsted commenting either one way or the other on the matter.