Is KS3 a waste of time?

[sherry_d]

I had a chance to look at the syllabus and what is taught at KS3 and I really don't get why its for 3 years.

Most of the maths is pretty much what was is covered in the 11+ and just a little more of it. Guest55 maybe you can help on this one. Do they really need 3 years to do it?

I have looked at other subjects and science just looks like it's filled and dumped down to"how stuff works"

I suppose for essay subjects like history and english there is some maturity required but I really don't get what fills the whole 3 years. The fact a lot of schools now do accelerated curriculum probably suggest there is a lot of time wasted at this level.

Is it because our children start school early at 4 and the govt has to find a way of keeping them in school until they are 16?

[Guest55]

Remember KS2 level 5 is not all of 'real' level 5 - in a GS we would teach the rest of level 5 and level 6 in Y7 and level 7 in Year 8 and level 8 in Year 9.

It depends what you define as KS3 - in a GS it would go up to level 7/8 in all subjects and it does need at least two years. Personally I am not in favour of shortening it if it means choices are made in Year 8 when I think they are better made in Year 9. Currently too many children close doors too early.

The new Govian thoughts (it that an oxymoron ) about key stages suggest a 2 year KS3 but with much more compulsion at KS4.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-16248847" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[999 mum]

Surely this is the time that children study (and develop their love of) the subjects and start to think about which direction they want to go in education and then in life. (Hopefully selecting their GCSE subjects wisely and not limiting the choice too much.)

[Looking for help]

It depends what you define as KS3 - in a GS it would go up to level 7/8 in all subjects and it does need at least two years.

presumably in all schools not just grammars...

The new Govian thoughts

Yes , methinks it is an oxymoron

I think KS3 is a very long time doing not a great deal either - now that there are no exams at the end of it, it seems to be a waste of a year, in my view.

I think options should be taken at the end of year 8, and the students should have their GCSEs at the end of y10 or possibly partway through y11, with A levels part way through y13, allowing students to apply to university with grades in hand.

I also think as it stands university degrees should be no longer than 2 years, given the contact time and the fees.

The whole thing needs an overhaul, frankly.

[yoyo123]

However , in old money, we used to spend 1st, 2nd and 3rd years studying all subjects and then do 'o' levels in year 4 & 5

[Belinda]

.

[Guest55]

LFH - no many comprehensives/Uppers only go to level 7 or stop at the end of Year 8 at level 6.

Year 8 is much too early to cut down on subjects imho.

[yoyo123]

Year 8 is much too early to cut down on subjects imho.

couldn't agree more

[sherry_d]

I seem to recall studying far greater a time period in History when in Y7, 8, 9 (KS3) than mine ever did. I'm pretty sure we started with the stone age in Y7 and worked our way up through the ages. Mine started with 1066 in Y7 and also skipped a few centuries! (at one stage or another).

You can cover the history syllabus by just an hour a week. They study 1066 to 1500 but they just need the very basic facts.

I don't think kids should be forced to do GCSEs early but I am just amazed at how little is covered in KS3. It's just too long, perhaps they could widen the curriculum or go a little deeper. I am not suggesting covering KS3 early then straight to GCSE, but just make the KS3 a bit more interesting. Some kids will end up being bored and struggle to knuckle down by the time they get to their GCSEs.

[Guest55]

Sorry sherry_d I just don't know what you mean - 3 levels are covered in three years!

In KS2 two levels are covered in 4 years .....