Criticism of early GCSE Maths

[tiredmumof2]

Senility setting in Mike??

I certainly did O levels - but my school then only allowed you to do the subjects you weren't carrying on at A level (although of course you needed to do well in the mocks for them to allow you to take the subjects on - so daft really). Did 2 early, maths and English lang - so that made only 5 I had to take in the Summer of what would be year 11.

My DD however is set to go to a school where all the GCSEs are done by year 10 - I'm not sure how I feel about this as my DD will only be 14 when she finishes them (August born). Given that about 30% seem to get an A or above, perhaps she'll be ok, but it's quite a lot pressure to put on a young teenager. The up side is that there's then 3 years to do AS/A levels.

[push-pull-mum]

Everyone in the top two groups at my school took 'O' level Maths (and 2 different 'O' levels in English Language!) a year early. Those of us who got As went on to do A/O at 16 - those who got B or C took GCSE instead in the hopes of bumping their grade up to an A.

I switched off once I had my 'O' level under my belt and I suspect a lot of kids will do the same.

My DD has already been told that if she wants to do RE GCSE it will only be available in Year 10 but under no circumstances can she take Music early. Apparently, this is because she is rated G and T for Music and Humanities and there are other Humanities subjects they would like her to take in Year 11 but there isn't anything they can offer her for Music if she takes GCSE early.

Secondary school confuses me even more than Primary did - and I can't even pick up illuminating gossip on the school playground any more.

[ourmaminhavana]

I completely understand the arguments against it not just from a uni entrance point of view but also the stress for the child -your poor DC Belinda- however what do schools do with the pupils who are already at a very good standard one or two years early? I'm sure this applies to other subjects, not just maths, although I appreciate that others are more content based.

[mike1880]

That's really a different question, the objection is not to particularly talented individuals taking exams when they're good and ready but to routinely putting everyone through wholesale (with detrimental effects on results for at least some) in order to improve the school's standing in the GCSE league tables. I expect many of us know of otherwise reputable schools that do that (it's why our 2nd choice GS was 2nd choice and not 1st).

Mike

[ourmaminhavana]

Thanks, but if unis want all of the exams to be taken at the same time I'm still unclear as to what schools do to stretch children who have reached the required level early, without putting them in for GCSEs.

[daughter]

Hi - hope you don't mind me butting in but in answer to Ourmamainhavana - in the case of my DD's (x3) school they have a very clear policy. All pupils sit 9 GCSE's(v. occasionally less for SEN/health probs), all do double science so sit the first science in Yr 10 the rest in Yr 11. It is a selective school and they are quite often questioned on their policy re. double science (IGCSE) and only 9 in total. They convincingly (for me at least) argue that for the talented, gifted bright etc it is all about stretching in breadth and not just about being constricted by the "next exam step" syllabus. I certainly see evidence of this as there is plenty of room to go beyond the syllabus without necesarily pre-empting the next exam phase, e.g "exciting" real-life problem solving in maths, more and more interesting literature in languages using debates, personal research in other subjects etc. They get very good results for there level of "selectiveness" and equally importantly pupils go on to great Uni destinations and great courses.
Just wanted to add that the reason for the 9 subjects is also that you have more teaching time for each subject - and you just do the ones you want to (including ones reqd). ICT and RE that are required by govt are taken as a "recreational" (minimal timetable time and no real h/w) subject if you have no great interest.

Hope it makes sense - sorry if it is a bit rambly.

Daughter

[Belinda]

.

[mystery]

And thinking back that is how my selective school worked in the dark ages. We all did the same nine o' levels. Some could have done loads more, or earlier etc etc. Instead I remember that in the top sets we did loads of stuff that was nothing to do with the exam syllabus. I remember being puzzled why the exams were so simple and thought the teachers must be bonkers, but now I realise there was a method to their madness.

[Minesatea]

At DS's grammar school rather than take Maths GCSE early, all bar the bottom set learn and take GCSE statistics as well thus giving more breadth to the subject.

[yoyo123]

all bar the bottom set learn and take GCSE statistics as well thus giving more breadth to the subject.

a whole generation who should understand standardisation