"Science" GCSE

[Tolstoy]

Like LFH I am just lay man so having read these posts am truly confused but more so as have no direct experience to draw on.

I assume the triple award is the three sciences taught separately and where as in the past you could opt just for one or two of them now you have to take all three?

My perception was that if you were not strong enough in all to do this then you had to go for the double. Where I get confused is if you are still having to do three sciences with only a couple of topics missed out then why on earth wouldn't you want three GCSE's at the end not 2?


Also as an aside on the topic of past O'levels I made the mistake of taking A'level biol having only done CSE in Chem. Biggest mistake ever in my life so I sense where LFH is coming from with her posts. Easy to be lulled into false sense of security of your ability in subject.

[Tree]

My perception was that if you were not strong enough in all to do this then you had to go for the double. Where I get confused is if you are still having to do three sciences with only a couple of topics missed out then why on earth wouldn't you want three GCSE's at the end not 2?

good point, it's because some schools don't offer triple science so you have no choice and even if you do you may just want to try and max out on your gcse results you may feel you have a better chance with double science

[Tolstoy]

Then my concern would be why are the school only offering two. It penalises those DC who are good at science for the sake of mediocrity. Rather than allowing a choice for all their pupils to achieve their best. Is it that the school aren't confident with the standard of teaching in their science department?

[Looking for help]

I agree Tolstoy, and that is exactly what I was trying to say.My older two were only mediocre at science, but because of their apaprently high achievement at GCSE, they felt compelled to carry on with in my son's case, Biology and in my daughter's, who I have to say got 100% in one of her science modules at GCSE, Chemistry and Biology. They both dropped Biology at the end of year 12, but my daughter had to carry on with the Chemistry, and struggled all the way to the end, not acheiving her predictions, and I also do not think it was entirely her own fault.

However all is well for her now, which is the main thing, but I wish we'd had the opportunity to discover properly earlier on that science was not her forte, as there were other subjects she could have chosen for A level, and didn't .

[Tree]

Tolstoy I suppose it depends on your definition of mediocrity some people may argue that 2a*'s is less mediocre than 3 b's or even 3 a's certainly the universities seem to want quality rather than quantity of gcse's

[sherry_d]

Tree you are right that it may be other reasons why this school gets poor grades in sciences and I am still even not convincied that the triple award alone will lead to good grades. It is however important for a school to offer both so that those able can take the triple and then others and those with no interest in sciences opt for the dual award. There are few grammars that dont do triple science now, this was one of the few and it seems most are now moving to the triple award. My guess is it harder to recruit decent science teachers and that may be the reason some stick with core science.

[Tree]

LFH that's really interesting so your problem with the double science was that:

.My older two were only mediocre at science, but because of their apaprently high achievement at GCSE, they felt compelled to carry on

i can certianly understand this i wonder though that as the triple sciences would have only been different in that each subject would have just had a couple more modules thay may have got 3a*'s in these anyway (as thy were obviously smart and hard working ) and would still have had the same problem and the issue is that the gcse's whether double or triple don't provide a good indication of what a level will be like?

[Tree]

Sherry_d i suppose it would always be ideal to offer it however it may be that for some schools, and there is some evidence my dd's comp may be an example of this, if you are struggling to recruit science teachers then you could only offer double science at gcse but then concentrate your resources on sixth form to maintain your a level results, with the idea that if you are leaving at the end of ks4 then a double science is probably gonna be enough but if you are staying then getting a good a level in the sciences is a higher priority that commiting resources to offer triple science at gcse (i hope that makes sense)

[sherry_d]

Totally agree that lack of science teachers affect what subjects the schools offer and makes perfect sense to use those resources at A level. A while ago on TES an HOD for a top achieving school which gets hundreds of application per post only managed just 6 for physics. Its such a big problem for schools getting speacialist science teachers and the problem will continue for the forseable future. The unions will probably be mad at my suggestion but should we not be paying these science teachers more to attract them to teaching?

[Looking for help]

i wonder though that as the triple sciences would have only been different in that each subject would have just had a couple more modules thay may have got 3a*'s in these anyway (as thy were obviously smart and hard working ) and would still have had the same problem and the issue is that the gcse's whether double or triple don't provide a good indication of what a level will be like?

You may indeed be correct here, tree. However I would have hoped that the triple award was there to sort out the sheep from the goats if you see what I mean, (my two being goats ). Luckily my youngest at comprehensive will have the opportunity to study 3 sciences at GCSEs. Come back in a few years time, and I'll tell you the results of my experiment about the comparative worth of triple vs dual awards.

Sherry, I do think you are right as well, the quality of science teaching my older ones have had has been poor, I wish things would improve, but with cuts all over the place, I don't think the current government will be too happy to increase the pay of any teachers at all, sadly