Page 1 of 3

KS3 duration

Posted: Thu Mar 15, 2007 3:43 pm
by sj355
Ok, this is moved from the Maths thread:


Now, back to something more prosaic but Maths related: I was talking with some colleagues yesterday on the topic of maths in secondary education and there was a belief that KS3 teaching of maths shoud be done in 2 rather than 3 years, as the latter is too long. For once I do not hold any particular views on this!!! (hurry up, this may soon change!) What do people think of that? [/siz

Posted: Thu Mar 15, 2007 3:46 pm
by patricia
Dear Sj355 and any one else who may be interested...

See the following link....

http://www.standards.dfes.gov.uk/second ... 025906.pdf

Patricia

Re: KS3 duration

Posted: Thu Mar 15, 2007 4:28 pm
by Guest
sj355 wrote:Ok, this is moved from the Maths thread:


Now, back to something more prosaic but Maths related: I was talking with some colleagues yesterday on the topic of maths in secondary education and there was a belief that KS3 teaching of maths shoud be done in 2 rather than 3 years, as the latter is too long. For once I do not hold any particular views on this!!! (hurry up, this may soon change!) What do people think of that? [/siz


In my daughters grammar school, they sit the KS3 SATs in year 8, not year 9. The thinking behind it is that the girls should be capable of achieving good levels and then from year 9 can concentrate on preparing for GCSE's. Good idea in my opinion - you don't have to declare your SATs scores on any college/uni form BUT you do have to put your GCSE grades! The more time the children get to prepare the better. My initial worry was that my daughter wouldn't achieve the levels in her SATs that she might do a year later but the school don't seem to think this is a problem.

Posted: Thu Mar 15, 2007 6:17 pm
by Alex
There has been a pilot study running in some selected schools taking KS3 tests in year 8. One of the local comprehensive schools has been doing this.

Daughter's grammar school takes English in year 8 as they reckon the vast majority have reached level 7 by then, which is the highest level you can achieve; but they leave maths and science till year 9 reckoning more girls will achieve level 8s then.

I believe that the comp was finding that whilst the children were achieving good results in maths, the "topic picking" approach which was necessary to prepare in a shorter time was providing a less thorough grounding for KS4.

Posted: Thu Mar 15, 2007 6:35 pm
by Bewildered
Dear Sj355 and any one else who may be interested...

See the following link....
Krikey! Patricia I'm VERY impressed, how come your finger is so on the pulse? :D
Now, back to something more prosaic but Maths related: I was talking with some colleagues yesterday on the topic of maths in secondary education and there was a belief that KS3 teaching of maths shoud be done in 2 rather than 3 years, as the latter is too long.
Our local school offers fast track Maths and English GCSE's if they believe the child is capable of achieving at Least an 'A' :) , will have to ask what they do with their SATs in that case. They also offer the 'IB' , And I can see that allowing an extra years work towards either GCSE or 'IB', is of far more worth than keeping it, as at present, for the KS3.

Highly sensible idea, but may disadvantage the children who need that extra time to thoroughly understand the basics, that presumably the KS3 is there to provide.

Posted: Thu Mar 15, 2007 9:37 pm
by chad
My son is in Y7 doing KS3 in 2 years (therefore will be 12 years old when taking the exams)..... we were told that the children were more than capable in doing so and the third year was usually used for revision purposes. The GCSE course start in the summer term of Year 8.
This also means that some GCSE's can be taken earlier (ICT is usually one of them)

I believe some problems may occur if lessons are missed due to ill health. There isn't a second chance to go over the topic.

It may also shunt the school down the league tables at KS3 level..... there may not be as many children attaining the higher levels. (as there would with the extra year)

Still not sure whether it is a good or bad thing..... let you know after May 2008. :?

Posted: Fri Mar 16, 2007 3:11 pm
by sj355
Is your son at a grammar or a comprehensive school? I would guess that mostly grammar schools would go for the two years approach and fewer comprehensives, but I may be completley wrong?
I believe some problems may occur if lessons are missed due to ill health. There isn't a second chance to go over the topic.
You have a point there. I wonder whether there are any provisions for such a case?
Still not sure whether it is a good or bad thing..... let you know after May 2008. :
Please do!

Posted: Fri Mar 16, 2007 3:53 pm
by Catherine
My son will also take the SATs in year 8 (same school as Chad's son). He does not seem negatively affected in anyway, and I am personally quite in favor of it.
chad wrote:I believe some problems may occur if lessons are missed due to ill health. There isn't a second chance to go over the topic.
I am not so sure, unless the child misses a lot.

As far as I understand it, year 7 Sciences goes over all the sujects in not too much depth, with knowledge and understanding extended in year 8.
- I will have to double check this -

As for Maths, my son just missed last week (authorised holidays :D), but came back without any problem whatsoever.

As Chad says, we'll have to see how it goes next year.
I don't beleive that SATs results are too important for the child academic record though, unless performance or understanding at GCSE level is affected. We will have to wait even longer to judge this.

Posted: Fri Mar 16, 2007 4:01 pm
by Bewildered
You have a point there. I wonder whether there are any provisions for such a case?
I don't believe they do have any provision, and as they don't go over but go further, next time they touch on that area (Spiral learning), I think this is where the gaps start forming. Would make quite a difference, for some, if they did though.
I don't believe that SATs results are too important for the child academic record though, unless performance or understanding at GCSE level is affected. We will have to wait even longer to judge this.
Quite agree

Early GCSEs

Posted: Fri Mar 16, 2007 5:30 pm
by solimum
My daughter's school (leafy high-achieving comprehensive) has recently started to introduce more fast-tracking to early GCSE's for top sets in a few subjects - I was discussing this with a friend who has a daughter in Yr 9 and is not convinced that this is the best idea for her child in Maths, as they are still doing the SATS in May but also a GCSE module, which can cause confusion. It might have suited my son (now doing Maths & Further Maths A Level) who certainly could have taken GCSE Maths early - although perhaps he wouldn't then have achieved 100% and one of the "top 5 marks in the country" letters from the exam board!

My daughter is in Yr 8 so I will be following the development with interest.