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

[Aiden]

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:



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.

[Kardan]

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:



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.

[Aiden]

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.

[Kardan]

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.

[Aiden]

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.

[Kardan]

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.

[Aiden]

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.

[Kardan]

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.

[Aiden]

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.

[Kardan]

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.