Am I getting worried over nothing?
Posted 03 January 2012 - 05:40 PM
I was hoping someone would be able to calm me down after the bombshell I have been given today about how History GCSE will now be delivered at my school.
I was told today that as of next year ALL pupils will study GCSE History or Geography in Year 9. They will have 8 lessons a fortnight and will then sit the full GCSE exam at the end of the year. They will then have the option of studying iGCSE History if they wanted to continue with the subject in Year 10 and 11.
I am concerned for a number of reasons:
1. I wasn't consulted on the decision
2. Pupils will not be able to make the expected 3 levels of progress or achieve FFT-D targets because of the early entry and the lack of maturity in their writing.
3. It will be a race to complete the course in one year with less mature pupils
4. The quality of teaching will suffer because we are teaching to exam rather than teaching engaging, outstanding lessons
5. Will Year 9 pupils be able to understand the source material that will be used in exams?
6. Will numbers decrease at A-level because some pupils will stop studying the subject at the end of year 9?
Am I getting worked up for no reason? Does anyone have any experience of delivering a KS4 course like this?
Any comments/advice would be gratefully received and appreciated.
Posted 03 January 2012 - 06:13 PM
Edited by Mark H., 03 January 2012 - 06:23 PM.
Posted 03 January 2012 - 06:23 PM
Out of interest, what academic rationale was given for this 'interesting' new policy?
Posted 03 January 2012 - 06:59 PM
Posted 03 January 2012 - 11:02 PM
Thanks both for reassuring me that it's not just me who thinks the idea is barmy. There is no academic rationale. As far as I can tell the school are desperate to improve their position on the Ebacc league tables and this is what they see as the answer. Students who fail either History or Geography at the end of Year 9 would be able to either retake the whole qualification in Year 10 and 11 or take the other subject giving them more chances to achieve the C-grade.
"Early taking of GCSE would need to be discouraged e.g. options for doing this would need careful consideration and could include only allowing counting of school performance scores for results taken in Year 11."
(P34, Framework for Nat. Curric. Review Document, Dec 2011)
This suggests it is short sighted to implement such a strategy until the curriculum has been resolved - due 2014 - when year 9s will be in year 11!
Posted 03 January 2012 - 11:16 PM
Posted 04 January 2012 - 05:39 PM
Posted 05 January 2012 - 10:49 AM
Edited by Mark H., 05 January 2012 - 11:03 AM.
Posted 05 January 2012 - 08:50 PM
Posted 06 January 2012 - 11:42 AM
Posted 10 January 2012 - 08:03 PM
Edited by ANNAHC, 10 January 2012 - 08:08 PM.
Posted 11 January 2012 - 06:29 PM
So in September our Year 9s will be completing the GCSE in one year, probably failing and then spending the next two years retaking the whole qualification, all because the school thinks that will help its position on the performance tables!
I'm off to rewrite schemes, don't be suprised if I put a post up soon asking for an IGCSE scheme if anyone has one.
Posted 11 January 2012 - 07:36 PM
My advice would be to put your objections to your line manager in writing, explaining that it would be unreasonable for the school to hold you to account if they didn't achieve their FFT D scores at the end of Year 9. Inaddition, I would ask the school to set realistic target grades based around their FFT D and their KS3 scores, based on the fact that they are in Year 9. I suspect that your school only wants grade 'C's in order to boost its Ebac score.
Ask for confirmation in writing and raise the issues I've just detailed.
Posted 13 January 2012 - 01:52 PM
0 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users