Should more emphasis in education be placed on classic rather than modern subjects?

Should more emphasis in education be placed on classic rather than modern subjects?

http://www.pandorabooks.co.uk/media/...g/blog/126.jpg

In recent years especially under the Labour Ministry from 1997 to 2010 in the United Kingdom, an explosion in modern subjects in education took place in our schools as well as universities which resulted in many schools introducing or placing more emphasis on subjects such as hair and beauty, drama and performing arts, music, citizenship and media studies. The popularity of these subjects in many state comprehensive state schools was very apparent, and which the present government under the then-Education Secretary Michael Gove MP expressed concern over as pupils were dropping more traditional subjects such as History and Geography in favour of such subjects.

The argument many would put forth would be that these subjects were popular and that many students were able to do these subjects compared with more academic subjects such as History and Geography, where as opponents would say that shifting students away from more academic subjects merely masked a decline in standards of eduction in Great Britain. But what do you think? Are subjects such as media studies useful to the majority of pupils leaving school or should more effort be placed on improving History and Geography results?

Quote:

---

There are plenty of nifty prizes to be won within this forum and within the coming weeks we'll hopefully have some new awards and prizes to be won in this forum and beyond. Focus on putting a good argument forward, try to be controversial and you'll be rewarded!

---

The debate is open to you.

No, people stopped picking those subjects because they're boring and useless

In your example the likes of history, it was always boring very few people liked it and approximately 1 person in every country wants to pursue a career with that subject.

A mixture of subjects should be given to students but as I see it all of them are failing. Traditional subjects should all be compulsory for a GCSE, each student should be able to watch a quiz show and at least get half the questions that they would know from succeeding at traditional subjects. Then creative subjects should also be shown. The future of our country is very much in subjects such as ICT, drama, music. These subjects are very bad at the moment though (at least the subjects I do).

In ICT we learn to make a slideshow and do small bits of research on copyright. In drama you're taught very little but get an A* through being good at the start, there's not enough inspiration for these subjects through the teaching and exam boards. It's extremely easy to get good grades in these 'soft' subjects.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aiden

A mixture of subjects should be given to students but as I see it all of them are failing. Traditional subjects should all be compulsory for a GCSE, each student should be able to watch a quiz show and at least get half the questions that they would know from succeeding at traditional subjects. Then creative subjects should also be shown. The future of our country is very much in subjects such as ICT, drama, music. These subjects are very bad at the moment though (at least the subjects I do).

In ICT we learn to make a slideshow and do small bits of research on copyright. In drama you're taught very little but get an A* through being good at the start, there's not enough inspiration for these subjects through the teaching and exam boards. It's extremely easy to get good grades in these 'soft' subjects.

---

One of the reasons they are known as soft subjects.

My answer is no, even though I can see the argument for yes. I know schools that actually make you pick between History or Geography GCSEs - you have to pick one. You also have to pick a foreign language, pick a design/technology subject meaning you only have one free choice at GCSE - so if you really want to pick media studies, go for it.

With all the people I went to sixth form, there's been an obvious pattern. People that did Maths, Sciences, English, Geography, History, French A-Levels all went to Uni and are employed. The people that did Citizenship, General Studies, Critical Thinking, Communication Studies etc not only did most of them spend an extra year at sixth form but as of yet I'm not sure any of them are employed after graduating.

Of course, this is just the scenario and the people I'm around. Could quite easily be different elsewhere.

I would like to say that's not true but it looks like that's the way it's going to go for people around me too. Schools very much rush pupils into picking any subjects as long as they go along with a certain pathway. You can choose to do all four of your options as creative subjects with no intention to go into those industries and have no guidance. I'm not sure if it's just my school but teachers don't care or don't show that they care. Very few are willing to go above their bare minimum requirements as a teacher.

Most pupils are capable of taking GCSEs in year 9/10 and they should be taught subjects like history in those years. It's really not that hard for most people to achieve well at these subjects if they try. I know thought that subjects like drama though aren't just messing around. Yes it's a creative subject but there's a lot of writing. To succeed in some subjects you need creativity as well as knowledge but others you literally need to learn a page or two.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aiden

I would like to say that's not true but it looks like that's the way it's going to go for people around me too. Schools very much rush pupils into picking any subjects as long as they go along with a certain pathway. You can choose to do all four of your options as creative subjects with no intention to go into those industries and have no guidance. I'm not sure if it's just my school but teachers don't care or don't show that they care. Very few are willing to go above their bare minimum requirements as a teacher.

Most pupils are capable of taking GCSEs in year 9/10 and they should be taught subjects like history in those years. It's really not that hard for most people to achieve well at these subjects if they try. I know thought that subjects like drama though aren't just messing around. Yes it's a creative subject but there's a lot of writing. To succeed in some subjects you need creativity as well as knowledge but others you literally need to learn a page or two.

---

Definitely not true. I'd say a small minority of students have the ability to take GCSEs early, and even then only a small proportion of them actually take the GCSE early without sacrificing grades. And what happens when you take your GCSEs early? There's no real benefit for early entry.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kardan

Definitely not true. I'd say a small minority of students have the ability to take GCSEs early, and even then only a small proportion of them actually take the GCSE early without sacrificing grades. And what happens when you take your GCSEs early? There's no real benefit for early entry.

---

I wouldn't say that my school is in any way elite but I'm sure most people in my classes and above would succeed at taking them a year early. For sciences we spend three years doing the basics of GCSE science. I taught my sister who's in year 6 the core biology stuff and she is capable of getting a C. It's just learning facts for a lot of subjects. Taking them early means harder subjects like languages can be focused on and you have the chance to gain additional GCSEs.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aiden

I wouldn't say that my school is in any way elite but I'm sure most people in my classes and above would succeed at taking them a year early. For sciences we spend three years doing the basics of GCSE science. I taught my sister who's in year 6 the core biology stuff and she is capable of getting a C. It's just learning facts for a lot of subjects. Taking them early means harder subjects like languages can be focused on and you have the chance to gain additional GCSEs.

---

But what do additional GCSEs give you? What will learning GCSE Biology in Year 6 instead of Year 11 enable you to do that you couldn't do before?

I took GCSEs early myself and it was of no benefit to me at all. Also worth noting your sister wouldn't be able to get a C grade on core biology alone. If we're talking about GCSE Biology then she only knows 1/3 of the content - not enough for a C. Likewise, if we're talking about GCSE Science, that again, is only 1/3 of the content.

I agree that the top end of pupils would succeed in getting a decent grade in Year 10, but at Year 9 only the very top end of pupils will get a decent grade. I reckon out of all the Year 9's I've taught Maths barely any of them would get a C in GCSE Maths if they took the exam there and then.

Of course, it all comes down to the kids. We see kids as young as 6 taking GCSEs and A-Levels, but it brings me back to my main point - what is the point in taking GCSEs early?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kardan

But what do additional GCSEs give you? What will learning GCSE Biology in Year 6 instead of Year 11 enable you to do that you couldn't do before?

I took GCSEs early myself and it was of no benefit to me at all. Also worth noting your sister wouldn't be able to get a C grade on core biology alone. If we're talking about GCSE Biology then she only knows 1/3 of the content - not enough for a C. Likewise, if we're talking about GCSE Science, that again, is only 1/3 of the content.

I agree that the top end of pupils would succeed in getting a decent grade in Year 10, but at Year 9 only the very top end of pupils will get a decent grade. I reckon out of all the Year 9's I've taught Maths barely any of them would get a C in GCSE Maths if they took the exam there and then.

Of course, it all comes down to the kids. We see kids as young as 6 taking GCSEs and A-Levels, but it brings me back to my main point - what is the point in taking GCSEs early?

---

If you take GCSEs early you have a number of benefits:

- If you do bad in year 9/10 you can always retake them in year 11 and stay in time with the rest of the country
- Take additional subjects to expand knowledge, do creative subjects as well as academic, get a more rounded education
- Can take harder subjects if you start in year 9, you have more time to learn, closer to fluency in languages
- Less stress, you know if you fail in year 10 you've still got a year to benefit

Perhaps I'm missing something important (like usual) and I don't see why it's not practical. I just see this as giving people the best opportunities to advance themselves. If it was the norm to take GCSEs in year 10 then you would likely see the same results come out. If someone grows up knowing they don't need to take GCSEs they have no reason to learn, so if you grow up knowing exams at a certain point you will try if you're sensible.

I don't think it's necessarily the course subject itself which leads people to I guess ''look down upon'' the more modern subjects, but the fact the course structure and essay marking is 'more generous' upon students than English Literature for example.

I don't see anything massively wrong with studying more modern subjects at college level (don't really have much of an opinion secondary school-wise), but I wish they were made more difficult so their respectability increased.

Just look what they're doing to A Level philosophy (a more traditional subject history and uni-wise, but not really at college/school level): http://www.theguardian.com/education...iculum-debased :(

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aiden

If you take GCSEs early you have a number of benefits:

- If you do bad in year 9/10 you can always retake them in year 11 and stay in time with the rest of the country
- Take additional subjects to expand knowledge, do creative subjects as well as academic, get a more rounded education
- Can take harder subjects if you start in year 9, you have more time to learn, closer to fluency in languages
- Less stress, you know if you fail in year 10 you've still got a year to benefit

Perhaps I'm missing something important (like usual) and I don't see why it's not practical. I just see this as giving people the best opportunities to advance themselves. If it was the norm to take GCSEs in year 10 then you would likely see the same results come out. If someone grows up knowing they don't need to take GCSEs they have no reason to learn, so if you grow up knowing exams at a certain point you will try if you're sensible.

---

Maybe a large part of the reason they are having to retake a GCSE is because they are taking it early and cramming a 2 year course into 1 year? So I don't see the reason of retakes as a positive.

Take harder subjects in Year 9? Why would you want to take the harder GCSEs not only earlier, but try and do them in 1 year as opposed to 2? You wouldn't get closer to fluency in languages - you would get taught to a GCSE standard. You will be taught how to do the best in your exam. I took GCSE French in Year 9 and instead of getting closer to fluency, it actually had the total opposite impact on me. By the end of Year 11 I for sure knew a lot less French than I did in Year 9.

How is it less stress if current Year 9s have no GCSEs? No real exams to stress upon?

If it was the norm to take GCSEs would you see the same results? More than likely. I imagine results might just be a bit lower to account for age, but generally they would be roughly the same. Why? Because not only would the Year 10 curriculum change, but so would the Year 9, 8, 7, 6 etc curriculum change. Because GCSEs are taken at the end of Year 11, the curriculum is built in that way so everything is delivered in as much detail as possible by Year 11.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kardan

Maybe a large part of the reason they are having to retake a GCSE is because they are taking it early and cramming a 2 year course into 1 year? So I don't see the reason of retakes as a positive.

Take harder subjects in Year 9? Why would you want to take the harder GCSEs not only earlier, but try and do them in 1 year as opposed to 2? You wouldn't get closer to fluency in languages - you would get taught to a GCSE standard. You will be taught how to do the best in your exam. I took GCSE French in Year 9 and instead of getting closer to fluency, it actually had the total opposite impact on me. By the end of Year 11 I for sure knew a lot less French than I did in Year 9.

How is it less stress if current Year 9s have no GCSEs? No real exams to stress upon?

If it was the norm to take GCSEs would you see the same results? More than likely. I imagine results might just be a bit lower to account for age, but generally they would be roughly the same. Why? Because not only would the Year 10 curriculum change, but so would the Year 9, 8, 7, 6 etc curriculum change. Because GCSEs are taken at the end of Year 11, the curriculum is built in that way so everything is delivered in as much detail as possible by Year 11.

---

What I'm saying is you study from year 9 and if you're ready in year 10 you take the subjects. This gives the gifted students or those who would like to take a wider variety the opportunity to. If you're not ready in year 10 then you don't have to but for some students it would benefit them. I see that a lot of potential is wasted through year 9's dull lessons.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aiden

What I'm saying is you study from year 9 and if you're ready in year 10 you take the subjects. This gives the gifted students or those who would like to take a wider variety the opportunity to. If you're not ready in year 10 then you don't have to but for some students it would benefit them. I see that a lot of potential is wasted through year 9's dull lessons.

---

But then the students that get the good grade in Year 10 and no longer need to do that GCSE - what do they do in the time for that lesson now? Take another GCSE from scratch in a year? That can cause problems when at the start of Year 11 you're taking a new GCSE, say Geography, and not only do you have to do it all in one year - but you haven't had any Geography lessons for a year because you stopped doing it in Year 9.

The only time that early entry is of any benefit is of those students that can get an A* in Year 10. And the fact is, not only is that a small number anyway but in most subjects the whole course isn't taught by Year 10 so many people would struggle to get the A* but when the new GCSE grading system comes in next year, the A* grade band is being stretched into 2 grades, so early entry would then only benefit the minority of A* students that get the top grade, a grade 9 under the new system.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kardan

But then the students that get the good grade in Year 10 and no longer need to do that GCSE - what do they do in the time for that lesson now? Take another GCSE from scratch in a year? That can cause problems when at the start of Year 11 you're taking a new GCSE, say Geography, and not only do you have to do it all in one year - but you haven't had any Geography lessons for a year because you stopped doing it in Year 9.

The only time that early entry is of any benefit is of those students that can get an A* in Year 10. And the fact is, not only is that a small number anyway but in most subjects the whole course isn't taught by Year 10 so many people would struggle to get the A* but when the new GCSE grading system comes in next year, the A* grade band is being stretched into 2 grades, so early entry would then only benefit the minority of A* students that get the top grade, a grade 9 under the new system.

---

They could do easy subjects or creative subjects (btecs/ocr nationals perhaps) then, explore A-levels, do life skills. Education should be more than exams! :)

If I was in charge of running schools that's just the way I would look to do it. I can't speak for the new system as I have little need to look into it. :P

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aiden

They could do easy subjects or creative subjects (btecs/ocr nationals perhaps) then, explore A-levels, do life skills. Education should be more than exams! :)

If I was in charge of running schools that's just the way I would look to do it. I can't speak for the new system as I have little need to look into it. :P

---

But schools don't work like that way really. Let's use my Maths class at GCSE as an example. We were the top set, fast track class. Class of 30 odd, did GCSE Maths in one year. Only 8 of us got a grade that was considered good enough for us to carry on and do A-Level in Year 11. The other 22 had got a pass but didn't want to do A-Level Maths, so had a free year of lessons. If they were, as in your example, to do easy/creative subjects - how would that work logistically?

22 students. Say 5 want to do Drama, 8 want to do Art, 3 want to do Business Studies and 6 want to do Travel and Tourism. What classes do they go into? A Year 10 class teaching these subjects won't be teaching them in just the one year, so these students won't take an exam. If they go into a Year 11 class, they've missed the whole of Year 10 and once again, only learning half the curriculum.

So you'd have to put on 4 new classes, a Fast Track class for each of the subjects. But now we're teaching classes of very few students. What if only 1 person picks a certain subject? You could argue that people from other fast track subjects would add up the numbers, but it's worth mentioning that generally the kids doing say fast track maths would mostly be the same sort of kids doing fast track science.

Then you go back to my original point, why rush those 22 kids into getting B/C grades when they could have spent the extra year doing the Maths getting B/A grades and not causing havoc with classes?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kardan

But schools don't work like that way really. Let's use my Maths class at GCSE as an example. We were the top set, fast track class. Class of 30 odd, did GCSE Maths in one year. Only 8 of us got a grade that was considered good enough for us to carry on and do A-Level in Year 11. The other 22 had got a pass but didn't want to do A-Level Maths, so had a free year of lessons. If they were, as in your example, to do easy/creative subjects - how would that work logistically?

22 students. Say 5 want to do Drama, 8 want to do Art, 3 want to do Business Studies and 6 want to do Travel and Tourism. What classes do they go into? A Year 10 class teaching these subjects won't be teaching them in just the one year, so these students won't take an exam. If they go into a Year 11 class, they've missed the whole of Year 10 and once again, only learning half the curriculum.

So you'd have to put on 4 new classes, a Fast Track class for each of the subjects. But now we're teaching classes of very few students. What if only 1 person picks a certain subject? You could argue that people from other fast track subjects would add up the numbers, but it's worth mentioning that generally the kids doing say fast track maths would mostly be the same sort of kids doing fast track science.

Then you go back to my original point, why rush those 22 kids into getting B/C grades when they could have spent the extra year doing the Maths getting B/A grades and not causing havoc with classes?

---

If they got bad grades they have the extra year to go over it all again and try again, they won't miss a year of college if they couldn't get a C. And you're right, it would be more expensive and need many more staff to do the classes and that's a problem that my finance officers at my fictional school will defiantly be bugging me about.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by -:Undertaker:-

a decline in standards of eduction in Great Britain

---

gigglesnort

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aiden

If they got bad grades they have the extra year to go over it all again and try again, they won't miss a year of college if they couldn't get a C. And you're right, it would be more expensive and need many more staff to do the classes and that's a problem that my finance officers at my fictional school will defiantly be bugging me about.

---

But why get bad grades in the first place? You're proposing to spend a year rushing a 2-year course, then if they do bad, spend another year re-doing the course, so it ends up being the same length of time doing the original 2 year course and spending a lot more time on each topic, as intended. Realistically, there's no issue with 'missing a year of college', we do have free education up to 19 - that allows for an extra year along the way already.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kardan

But why get bad grades in the first place? You're proposing to spend a year rushing a 2-year course, then if they do bad, spend another year re-doing the course, so it ends up being the same length of time doing the original 2 year course and spending a lot more time on each topic, as intended. Realistically, there's no issue with 'missing a year of college', we do have free education up to 19 - that allows for an extra year along the way already.

---

If they 'waste' a year resitting at college whiles everyone else is doing their AS lvls that's not likely going to help their confidence.
If teachers had no year 9 classes (e.g. drama teach all year nine students, they'd only teach options) so there's extra space where all the additional classes would be to do a short course

http://tashload.com/Uploader/uploads//6Or3ze7.png

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aiden

If they 'waste' a year resitting at college whiles everyone else is doing their AS lvls that's not likely going to help their confidence.
If teachers had no year 9 classes (e.g. drama teach all year nine students, they'd only teach options) so there's extra space where all the additional classes would be to do a short course

http://tashload.com/Uploader/uploads//6Or3ze7.png

---

And failing in Year 10 whilst everyone that didn't fail goes to do other subjects isn't going to hurt their confidence?

And I'm not sure what you mean by saying if a teacher has no year 9 classes. The way schools are run teachers don't have any free time for more classes unless you remove existing classes. If you simply add more classes to a school, you will need more teachers.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kardan

And failing in Year 10 whilst everyone that didn't fail goes to do other subjects isn't going to hurt their confidence?

And I'm not sure what you mean by saying if a teacher has no year 9 classes. The way schools are run teachers don't have any free time for more classes unless you remove existing classes. If you simply add more classes to a school, you will need more teachers.

---

I would much rather do bad and be able to resolve it and continue at the same pace as my peers afterwards than miss a year completely.

If students started the GCSEs in year 9 then non-compulsory subjects would have less classes for that year so extra room to do short courses, I will try and make a table haha:

http://tashload.com/Uploader/uploads//SBEA2fY.png

This would mean a lot of teachers would have more free periods to help students even if they aren't part of the teachers key area. A drama teacher can help with English revision, give the students a place to study, etc. They wouldn't be the main teacher but they could be utilised.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aiden

I would much rather do bad and be able to resolve it and continue at the same pace as my peers afterwards than miss a year completely.

If students started the GCSEs in year 9 then non-compulsory subjects would have less classes for that year so extra room to do short courses, I will try and make a table haha:

http://tashload.com/Uploader/uploads//SBEA2fY.png

This would mean a lot of teachers would have more free periods to help students even if they aren't part of the teachers key area. A drama teacher can help with English revision, give the students a place to study, etc. They wouldn't be the main teacher but they could be utilised.

---

But you wouldn't be continuing it at the same pace as your peers. If you fail in Year 10 but your peers have passed, you're still taking the course and they're not. The only people that are now taking the course in Year 11 under your scheme are the people that didn't get a high enough grade. So you've just moved the problem from being in Year 12 to being in Year 11.

There wouldn't be extra free periods I'm afraid. If something was introduced where say a quarter of lessons were now frees instead of lessons they would simply get rid of staff until it was no longer an issue. The school will not employ staff to sit around and have 'frees', they'll get rid of someone and rearrange their lessons into the timetables for other staff.

Also worth noting, most schools have study space, so opening up classrooms wouldn't do much, and a Drama teacher almost certainly wouldn't be able to help with English revision (unless of course they did a degree in Drama/English, which doesn't sound that absurd actually...), teachers might be able to help you based on their own knowledge, but they're not qualified to teach other subjects so it'd be pot luck. For example, I reckon I could help someone with IT work, but if they ask me for say Design or History work they've got no chance.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kardan

But you wouldn't be continuing it at the same pace as your peers. If you fail in Year 10 but your peers have passed, you're still taking the course and they're not. The only people that are now taking the course in Year 11 under your scheme are the people that didn't get a high enough grade. So you've just moved the problem from being in Year 12 to being in Year 11.

There wouldn't be extra free periods I'm afraid. If something was introduced where say a quarter of lessons were now frees instead of lessons they would simply get rid of staff until it was no longer an issue. The school will not employ staff to sit around and have 'frees', they'll get rid of someone and rearrange their lessons into the timetables for other staff.

Also worth noting, most schools have study space, so opening up classrooms wouldn't do much, and a Drama teacher almost certainly wouldn't be able to help with English revision (unless of course they did a degree in Drama/English, which doesn't sound that absurd actually...), teachers might be able to help you based on their own knowledge, but they're not qualified to teach other subjects so it'd be pot luck. For example, I reckon I could help someone with IT work, but if they ask me for say Design or History work they've got no chance.

---

All the year 9 to 11 students would be doing GCSEs and they would all start their level three courses at the same time with the chance to have resit and get the best possible grades. So yes the problem is taken down a year so they can start their lives out of education at the same time as everybody else if they go to university for the same length of time. What I see is a way for students to get the highest grades possible and if they are very good they can go on to do additional subjects and set themselves a part from competitors from other schools.

If someone was to be resitting the key area would be revision. That teacher is their to supervise mainly, they wouldn't be getting paid for nothing. Of course they would be allocated students that they can actually help. A lot of teachers are also able in other subjects familiar to their own.

Sometimes I feel like I like in a fantasy world of education haha. I would just like to see young people have the best chance possible, I personally feel like the system isn't doing as well as it could be. With what I want it would also give people who aren't great at academic subjects additional time and be able to leave school with the right qualifications to achieve what they want. If someone is amazing at English but needs math to get to go to college, that additional year of GCSE work and less lessons would hopefully give them the chance to do that. Then after they have left the school with their good grade (hopefully a B!!) they know that they don't have to study math again.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aiden

All the year 9 to 11 students would be doing GCSEs and they would all start their level three courses at the same time with the chance to have resit and get the best possible grades. So yes the problem is taken down a year so they can start their lives out of education at the same time as everybody else if they go to university for the same length of time. What I see is a way for students to get the highest grades possible and if they are very good they can go on to do additional subjects and set themselves a part from competitors from other schools.

If someone was to be resitting the key area would be revision. That teacher is their to supervise mainly, they wouldn't be getting paid for nothing. Of course they would be allocated students that they can actually help. A lot of teachers are also able in other subjects familiar to their own.

Sometimes I feel like I like in a fantasy world of education haha. I would just like to see young people have the best chance possible, I personally feel like the system isn't doing as well as it could be. With what I want it would also give people who aren't great at academic subjects additional time and be able to leave school with the right qualifications to achieve what they want. If someone is amazing at English but needs math to get to go to college, that additional year of GCSE work and less lessons would hopefully give them the chance to do that. Then after they have left the school with their good grade (hopefully a B!!) they know that they don't have to study math again.

---

Could you not argue then that what if we start GCSEs at Year 8, do them in Year 9, and have resits in Year 10 and Year 11 - then even more people would be ready for college/A-Level in Year 12, 'at the right time'. Getting the highest grades possible is about spending the correct length of time studying and learning something - it's not about how early you take it, it's not about rushing it to show you're better, it's also worth noting that more GCSEs doesn't make you better. Colleges go for quality of grades, not quantity.

If a teacher is supervising and not getting paid - why would they do it? Genuine question. Teachers already have a heavy week workload, why would they spend their free time doing something that they're not getting paid for? Teachers don't have the time to supervise during school hours, there are no 'frees'.

I agree that we should try and give young people the best chance possible and that the current system isn't perfect, but early entry to GCSEs isn't the answer.

And you talk as if Year 9 currently has nothing to do with GCSE, you say that the addtional year, Year 9, will help people get the grades. But the thing is, even though students aren't entered into a GCSE in Year 9 - they are learning GCSE content. I've taught Year 9's all sorts of things - areas of circles, scale drawings, probability - it all comes up in GCSEs.

Worth noting that when GCSEs end up becoming an exam at the end of the 2nd year, then your proposed Year 9 will just end up being very similar to the current Year 9. Teaching GCSE content with no exam.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kardan

Could you not argue then that what if we start GCSEs at Year 8, do them in Year 9, and have resits in Year 10 and Year 11 - then even more people would be ready for college/A-Level in Year 12, 'at the right time'. Getting the highest grades possible is about spending the correct length of time studying and learning something - it's not about how early you take it, it's not about rushing it to show you're better, it's also worth noting that more GCSEs doesn't make you better. Colleges go for quality of grades, not quantity.

If a teacher is supervising and not getting paid - why would they do it? Genuine question. Teachers already have a heavy week workload, why would they spend their free time doing something that they're not getting paid for? Teachers don't have the time to supervise during school hours, there are no 'frees'.

I agree that we should try and give young people the best chance possible and that the current system isn't perfect, but early entry to GCSEs isn't the answer.

And you talk as if Year 9 currently has nothing to do with GCSE, you say that the addtional year, Year 9, will help people get the grades. But the thing is, even though students aren't entered into a GCSE in Year 9 - they are learning GCSE content. I've taught Year 9's all sorts of things - areas of circles, scale drawings, probability - it all comes up in GCSEs.

Worth noting that when GCSEs end up becoming an exam at the end of the 2nd year, then your proposed Year 9 will just end up being very similar to the current Year 9. Teaching GCSE content with no exam.

---

Year 7 and 8 would be used to explore the subjects properly to choose your opinions. Also most people in year 8 still don't take things very serious (or year 9 really but they can be strict rules in place).

I think I made a mistake, they would just be paid there normal salary and they would have to do the revision periods where they would traditionally be teaching.

At my school we only learn gcse content in math (you do from year 7 really) and basics in science.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aiden

Year 7 and 8 would be used to explore the subjects properly to choose your opinions. Also most people in year 8 still don't take things very serious (or year 9 really but they can be strict rules in place).

I think I made a mistake, they would just be paid there normal salary and they would have to do the revision periods where they would traditionally be teaching.

At my school we only learn gcse content in math (you do from year 7 really) and basics in science.

---

And not English? You think the things you learn in Year 9 in English do not help towards GCSEs? With all subjects your constantly building upon your existing knowledge and adding new pieces that eventually you will expand upon in the future.

And like I said earlier, there wouldn't be any revision periods where there would traditionally be teaching (unless of course you mean the class teacher does a revision class in the regularly scheduled timetabled slot) because if there is any decrease in the number of working hours a teacher has, they'll just lose staff.

Also worth noting, how can a teacher hold a 'revision period' without it just becoming a revision lesson? That is, same time, same subject, just doing revision rather than teaching new content.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kardan

And not English? You think the things you learn in Year 9 in English do not help towards GCSEs? With all subjects your constantly building upon your existing knowledge and adding new pieces that eventually you will expand upon in the future.

And like I said earlier, there wouldn't be any revision periods where there would traditionally be teaching (unless of course you mean the class teacher does a revision class in the regularly scheduled timetabled slot) because if there is any decrease in the number of working hours a teacher has, they'll just lose staff.

Also worth noting, how can a teacher hold a 'revision period' without it just becoming a revision lesson? That is, same time, same subject, just doing revision rather than teaching new content.

---

Yes you do in all subjects I guess but very closely.

I'm not quite sure what you mean. If the option subject teachers taught only all of year 7 and 8 then they would have a few extra lessons a week out of the timetable where the additional year 9 classes would go. This is where year 11 students join the teachers.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aiden

Yes you do in all subjects I guess but very closely.

I'm not quite sure what you mean. If the option subject teachers taught only all of year 7 and 8 then they would have a few extra lessons a week out of the timetable where the additional year 9 classes would go. This is where year 11 students join the teachers.

---

And I'm not quite sure what you mean. If a teacher teaches just Year 7 and Year 8, then there timetable will consist of just that. I'm not sure where these 'few extra lessons a week' would appear from.

I can't see how your idea works without employing more teachers to cover these extra classes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kardan

And I'm not quite sure what you mean. If a teacher teaches just Year 7 and Year 8, then there timetable will consist of just that. I'm not sure where these 'few extra lessons a week' would appear from.

I can't see how your idea works without employing more teachers to cover these extra classes.

---

So all the subjects are taught to year 7 to 9 and then only the option groups from 10 to 11 normally.
Here we have only all of 7 to 8 being taught meaning that where the majority of the year 9 periods would be there's slots available.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aiden

So all the subjects are taught to year 7 to 9 and then only the option groups from 10 to 11 normally.
Here we have only all of 7 to 8 being taught meaning that where the majority of the year 9 periods would be there's slots available.

---

Ah, ok, I think I understand what you're saying. So let's take History as an example of an optional subject. Say there are 300 kids/year group, say only 90 kids take history as an option/year. 30 kids/class. So there would be 10 history classes per year group for compulsory history, 3 classes for GCSE history. Say each kid gets 3 hours of history each week.

Then we would have 10*3=30 history classes per week for Y7, 8, 9 and 3*3=9 history classes per week for Y10, Y11.

You're suggesting you go down to 9 history classes per week for Y9, freeing up 21 hours per week.

Except that a regular teacher does 22 teaching hours a week usually, so rearrange all the classes so that one teacher has these newly free 21 lessons a week and the other teachers take on that teacher's old classes. Fire the teacher that has the 21 frees/week, and boom, the school has just saved themselves say £30,000. That £30,000 can be spent elsewhere rather than spending it on a teacher to take up these 'revision periods'.

The way education sadly works is that if a school can survive without having a teacher, that's exactly what they will do.

Yeah you're right (of course I wouldn't question your math skills!). So this plan is more financially beneficial? Good! That would be a 30k save across like 10 - 20 subjects (£300k - £600k saved). Haha.

G

In my opinion, schools should guide the student more. They should have career chats with them before chosing thier options (my school didnt do this until we were planning college). In the careers appointment they ahould discuss what careers they are thinking about and then base their options on tjose subjects, so for example if someone wanted to work in a musuem, it might be a good idea to pick history, re, media/art(something to help them to do good displays and interaction etc, and then leave the final option up to them as their choice sort of thing. I think you need to know what the students wants/ thinks they want to do as a career and work it from there. When I did my gcse's I chose media, art, spanish and product design. I left college without getting a-levels and I dont have a job. What I chose wasn't what I wanted to do. Luckily the open university exists andbi can start a degree without my a levels as I am doing in october.

The sole purpose of taking GCSEs early appears to be in order to better tick boxes to free up time for more worthwhile pursuits: A sign that the education system is - as it has always been -a means to an end, rather than something of any real use. Core subjects that teach basic skills applicable in wider areas of work life should naturally be held in high regard, but to suggest that the influx of less classical subjects is somehow devaluing education is a little bit absurd. A distinction between education and academia needs to be drawn here.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Krazybethw

In my opinion, schools should guide the student more. They should have career chats with them before chosing thier options (my school didnt do this until we were planning college). In the careers appointment they ahould discuss what careers they are thinking about and then base their options on tjose subjects, so for example if someone wanted to work in a musuem, it might be a good idea to pick history, re, media/art(something to help them to do good displays and interaction etc, and then leave the final option up to them as their choice sort of thing. I think you need to know what the students wants/ thinks they want to do as a career and work it from there. When I did my gcse's I chose media, art, spanish and product design. I left college without getting a-levels and I dont have a job. What I chose wasn't what I wanted to do. Luckily the open university exists andbi can start a degree without my a levels as I am doing in october.

---

But that expects every child to know what they want to do by the age of 15. I'm in Year 13 and still don't know what I really want to do. I chose my A-Levels by deciding what would leave the most doors open for me in the future, so a lot of degrees/careers value History whilst choosing Catering would limit your options a lot.

I had career advice and found it absolutely useless. I received mixed messages from the same guy from "you need to know exactly what you want to do RIGHT NOW" to "whatever you think you want to do now, you'll change your mind in the future".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Empired

But that expects every child to know what they want to do by the age of 15. I'm in Year 13 and still don't know what I really want to do. I chose my A-Levels by deciding what would leave the most doors open for me in the future, so a lot of degrees/careers value History whilst choosing Catering would limit your options a lot.

I had career advice and found it absolutely useless. I received mixed messages from the same guy from "you need to know exactly what you want to do RIGHT NOW" to "whatever you think you want to do now, you'll change your mind in the future".

---

I admit that not everyone knows and to be honest, I knew what what I wanted to do but because I never had the chance to see someone to make the best decision, I didnt and tbh im paying for that now. I think by seeing a career advisor at that age it will give people more thought of what they want to do.

when i did gcses we were encouraged to follow the english bacc (english, maths, science, hist/geog, mfl) which i think should be compulsory gcse subjects, and then allow students to pick whatever they want which they may consider doing at a-level or even if they're just 'doss subjects'

i had 4 other subjects which i got to choose one of which i studied from year 9 to year 10 and one we only studied for 2 months before the exam in year 11 and i got good grades for both

i think doing gcses early is fine if it allows time for you to get more gcses or to spend more time on other subjects

retaking gcse exams is also fine but let's face it the only reason they let you is to boost school league tables and school reputation, this is also the reason why so many schools offer igcse english language as well as normal english now which is ridiculous seeing as only the highest grade counts

i also have a big issue with schools (mine anyway) forcing students to do btec science instead of gcse, you don't learn ANYTHING and they're a huge waste of time

The school system needs an overhaul. Some subjects should or already cater for sub-subjects e.g. Drama often appears in English Literature (if schools still do that GCSE). Alternatively, extra curriculum activities should really focus on these sorts of things. At my school there was no GCSE subject for Drama or Music as it was/is pointless - we just did productions as an extra at the end of school to work on and it is something you can put on a reference list/CV to go on to college with - it's what I and a few friends did at least.

There should be set subjects, with the option to do other activities at the end of the school day. Emphasis on option - these should not be forced on schools where teachers with no interest or expertise in these activities conduct them. At my school we had a really enthusiastic music teacher who worked well with a part-time teacher who helped with dyslexic children who did drama at the end of school once a week for students who were really interested in it - and it worked. We had about 2 major productions a year. One was an actual play held at the end of the summer term and another production was a Variety and Talent Show.

Extra sporting activities were held after school such as table tennis, golf, rugby and football.

Subjects like music and media studies are an interesting area to consider. It makes me think that there should be a "module" held at GCSE where you do a project on these areas e.g. something on Music or Media, maybe even Politics and Law but obviously watered down and not too heavy (much like GCSEs - useless outside of school as they do not go deep enough).

I wouldn't be offended if school was held between 9 and 4 or 5. Other countries are doing it and the world is a much more complex and difficult place to live. Reserving the reality of life to college or University just means you have ignorant college or university students and it really isn't their fault.

Classics are always good, however modernities bring student a taste of reality, keeps them in tune. I'd suggest the young studying classic subjects and research on what has been to understand better what's going on now! Modern subjects are more intended for adults who want to develop in the day-to-day changing world. Young students have much trouble with humanities and science, as they should understand the basics first, and only after then can they make a conclusions on the modern world. My opinion. And for those students, who really have no time, but aren't ready to fall behind with academic results - buy essays online and feel comfortable with any paper on any subject! Good luck!