Science Question
Moderators: Section Moderators, Forum Moderators
Think the problem is that the GCSE science courses have been 'dumbed down' in very recent years so now the 3 science option is not a great basis for top grade A levels and the double science option is even less 'scientific'. My son's highly selective GS is 'giving up' on GCSE science because it has been watered down so much.
Whereas a few years ago double science wasn't seen as a major barrier to further science study there are several schools who are now stating that students need to have the full GCSE in a science to take it to A level.
Whereas a few years ago double science wasn't seen as a major barrier to further science study there are several schools who are now stating that students need to have the full GCSE in a science to take it to A level.
-
T.i.p.s.y
At my DS's school they all start doing triple science as compulsory GCSEs and then if necessary drop back to double. This seems like a good option as , given a choice at the beginning, a lot of boys would choose the easier way, whereas they will automatically do triple and hopefully most will manage to complete it.
No it wasn't a mistake 
My daughter took the new modular triple science and as a strong science student found it lacked real science content. She is now doing A level sciences and does not feel her GCSE courses were a firm foundation.
My son's highly selective GS has just announced they are changing their approach to science teaching for KS3/4 because the new GCSE Science curriculum has been 'dumbed down' so much.
So my point was that even taking 3 individual sciences at GCSE is not that good a preparation for A level (although obviously it will be the best available option for most students) and that the double science option nolonger provides much in the way of 'real' science.
(Seem to remember there was a report a little while ago criticising the emphasis on multiple choice papers in the GCSE science exams.)
Hope that's a bit clearer this time
My daughter took the new modular triple science and as a strong science student found it lacked real science content. She is now doing A level sciences and does not feel her GCSE courses were a firm foundation.
My son's highly selective GS has just announced they are changing their approach to science teaching for KS3/4 because the new GCSE Science curriculum has been 'dumbed down' so much.
So my point was that even taking 3 individual sciences at GCSE is not that good a preparation for A level (although obviously it will be the best available option for most students) and that the double science option nolonger provides much in the way of 'real' science.
(Seem to remember there was a report a little while ago criticising the emphasis on multiple choice papers in the GCSE science exams.)
Hope that's a bit clearer this time
-
fm
I think the modular triple science might be a slightly different ball game to the separate sciences my daughter did about 5 years ago.
Also, some boards are more rigorous than others.
At one stage I'd be helping comprehensive-educated children with Edexcel maths while the GS ones would be doing AQA which were considerably harder in my opinion. Now, even the top performing boys' grammar school in Birmingham has switched from AQA to edexcel despite their text books still being dedicated to AQA.
I don't actually think it is the clever ones who are really suffering from dumbed down GCSE's. They will all go on to do A levels and, if clever enough, will make the jump. It is the middle of the roaders who, on the back of a high grade of GCSE, may decide to opt for a subject which they will not manage at A level. I have had students I have supported through GCSE who have achieved an A in maths on the back of tuition; to them all, I say don't do it at A level because anyone who needs such support for GCSE is going to struggle at A level.
Also, some boards are more rigorous than others.
At one stage I'd be helping comprehensive-educated children with Edexcel maths while the GS ones would be doing AQA which were considerably harder in my opinion. Now, even the top performing boys' grammar school in Birmingham has switched from AQA to edexcel despite their text books still being dedicated to AQA.
I don't actually think it is the clever ones who are really suffering from dumbed down GCSE's. They will all go on to do A levels and, if clever enough, will make the jump. It is the middle of the roaders who, on the back of a high grade of GCSE, may decide to opt for a subject which they will not manage at A level. I have had students I have supported through GCSE who have achieved an A in maths on the back of tuition; to them all, I say don't do it at A level because anyone who needs such support for GCSE is going to struggle at A level.
-
T.i.p.s.y
I assume most send DC to GS so they can receive and intellectually rigorous education. I'm sure some still do but does this not go against what GS should stand for? 
-
fm
Yes, of course it does.
But I wouldn't necessarily blame the schools or the government for the effect the league tables have had. I think much of the blame rests with parents who obsessively watch the progress of schools as they go up and down them and make spurious deductions from them.
For every parent I know who bases their choice of schools on the school itself (going round it, soaking up the atmosphere, imagining if their child will fit in and be happy) you probably have another parent who makes their choice based almost solely on league tables or in the upper echelons of society, how many children get into Oxbridge. I have frequently tutored children for grammar schools where neither parent or child has actually visited the school or schools they are targeting.
You reap what you sow (or is it the other way round).
Another example. This year GCSE maths has no coursework. In theory, there should be a drop in results as children have to depend entirely on their exam results rather than partly on coursework for which they may have had heavy assistance from school, parent or even tutor. In practice, I think some re-jigging will take place. In fact, I think it has because the practice exam on Edexcel website seems significantly easier than the previous final exam.
Assuming I am right, I can well see why this might be done. Forget schools being embarrassed by such results--I think it is more a case of avoiding parents being up in arms as their children get more realistic results.
While you might genuinely long for more rigorous exams, fully confident your exceptional children will still get exceptional and more meaningful results, I would bet all parents would welcome the advent of this.
But I wouldn't necessarily blame the schools or the government for the effect the league tables have had. I think much of the blame rests with parents who obsessively watch the progress of schools as they go up and down them and make spurious deductions from them.
For every parent I know who bases their choice of schools on the school itself (going round it, soaking up the atmosphere, imagining if their child will fit in and be happy) you probably have another parent who makes their choice based almost solely on league tables or in the upper echelons of society, how many children get into Oxbridge. I have frequently tutored children for grammar schools where neither parent or child has actually visited the school or schools they are targeting.
You reap what you sow (or is it the other way round).
Another example. This year GCSE maths has no coursework. In theory, there should be a drop in results as children have to depend entirely on their exam results rather than partly on coursework for which they may have had heavy assistance from school, parent or even tutor. In practice, I think some re-jigging will take place. In fact, I think it has because the practice exam on Edexcel website seems significantly easier than the previous final exam.
Assuming I am right, I can well see why this might be done. Forget schools being embarrassed by such results--I think it is more a case of avoiding parents being up in arms as their children get more realistic results.
While you might genuinely long for more rigorous exams, fully confident your exceptional children will still get exceptional and more meaningful results, I would bet all parents would welcome the advent of this.
