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

[Kardan]

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.

[Aiden]

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.

[Kardan]

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.

[Aiden]

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.

[Kardan]

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.

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?

[Aiden]

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.

[FlyingJesus]

a decline in standards of eduction in Great Britain

gigglesnort

[Kardan]

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.

[Aiden]

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

[Kardan]

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

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.