Is there any reason why children should not repeat a school year?

Peasblossom

Hmm, dare I suggest this might be the moment to question the Curriculum altogether? How much of what is missed is really that important? Could they catch up with what they really need if a lot of other stuff was dropped?

Does anyone really need 11 or 12 GCSEs?

Fast forward ten or so years, does anyone then get asked how many GCSE’s they achieved, and what grades they were awarded?

Calendargirl

Peasblossom

Hmm, dare I suggest this might be the moment to question the Curriculum altogether? How much of what is missed is really that important? Could they catch up with what they really need if a lot of other stuff was dropped?

Does anyone really need 11 or 12 GCSEs?

Fast forward ten or so years, does anyone then get asked how many GCSE’s they achieved, and what grades they were awarded?

Yes, whenever I applied for teaching jobs.

Yes, me too growstuff. Particularly that dodgy maths GCSE that I only just officially passed .

Being able to play the piano would have been the most useful qualification in getting a job in a school. I could have breezed into anywhere?

Seriously though, don’t you think there are a large number of students who would be better off concentrating on five or six key subjects than trying (and failing) to get get eleven?

I only sat 8 O levels in the 60s - when did it change to double figures?

When the League Tables were published and schools’ success was judged on how many GCSEs students got.

Peasblossom

Being able to play the piano would have been the most useful qualification in getting a job in a school. I could have breezed into anywhere?

Seriously though, don’t you think there are a large number of students who would be better off concentrating on five or six key subjects than trying (and failing) to get get eleven?

Not a large number, no.

One of the reasons pupils have to sit so many exams is that there is a common core of compulsory subjects:

Eng Lang, Eng Lit, Maths, 2 or 3 sciences, encouraged to take a language and a humanity = 8 subjects.

Many also want to do a technical subject, an arts subject and a second foreign language and/or second humanity, so there are usually three option blocks.

There's no 'fit all' solution.

I was a primary teacher and deputy and myself and my friends (mainly from the teaching profession) wouldn't want to go back to teaching. I went into teaching in my late 30's after worked in an office. My family are in a wide variety of professions. I'm the only teacher. I'm sure there are others but apart from the medical profession, I know no other that works the hours that teachers do especially those in managerial positions or who additional roles and responsibilities eg heads, deputies, teachers of special needs. I have a friend who is a teaching assistant. She works at least 25% more than her paid hours.

Some children will have lost some of their social skills and fallen behind with knowledge skills but not all have. I can only give one example. My granddaughter has had 100% virtual learning and completed her mocks and now has a place at a college to start her B.Tech this September. It would be devastating, both mentally and intellectually, for her to have stay at school for a further year because others have missed some education. The school calculate that about 60% accessed the virtual learning platform.

Children are not all at the same level (particularly primary!) . Oh! Wouldn't it be lovely to teach a class with children all starting school at the same level and achieving at the same rate! My planning always had at 3 levels of differentiation for numeracy and literacy.

I suppose I believe that it would be better to have real understanding and knowledge in fewer subjects. As wel, as empathising with the agony of having to a subject with no inclination or ability to achieve well. Very demoralising.

If I’d had to do some of those you’ve listed growstuff I would have been a very difficult student. ?

Core for Y10 and Y11 (KS4) is Eng Lang, (some do Eng Lit too), Maths, double Science (a few do 3 separate sciences). All have to do PE every week too. RE/PSHE are also supposed to be in there.
In the Options, a foreign language, a humanity, a technology, a 4th option (a 2nd foreign lang, GCSE PE, art, drama etc). Some bilingual pupils may enter themselves for their other language, but that's a private entry.
As GCSEs require 3 hours per week minimum, I can't see how 12 GCSEs could be fitted in, although I do know of 1 academy that had a 9am-4.30pm school day. Usually a school week is between 25 and 27.5hrs of actual teaching time.

I feel very embarrassed with my meagre 7 O levels. That's all our London comprehensive offered. Yet several of us went on to Oxbridge and red brick unis.
Quality, not quantity?!

Chardy In all the schools I know, GCSEs are taught on five hours a fortnight (sometimes six hours for maths and English). English Language and English Literature are taught in the same time slot and triple science is usually taught in the same time as double science. It does work. Both my children have 12 GCSEs. Some of the pupils in their school studied fewer subjects and did some less academic subjects.

Peasblossom

I suppose I believe that it would be better to have real understanding and knowledge in fewer subjects. As wel, as empathising with the agony of having to a subject with no inclination or ability to achieve well. Very demoralising.

If I’d had to do some of those you’ve listed growstuff I would have been a very difficult student. ?

I can't say I actually enjoyed all the subjects I had to study, but resilience is a lesson worth learning. Nobody has a crystal ball about what will actually be useful and it would be impossible for every child to have an individual timetable with a perfect fit to their wishes.

Ellianne

I feel very embarrassed with my meagre 7 O levels. That's all our London comprehensive offered. Yet several of us went on to Oxbridge and red brick unis.
Quality, not quantity?!

Ditto. I didn’t do any science subject except maths which I failed and had to re sit. I just chose what I was good at !

Sticking my head above the parapet.......o levels were harder ....well they were in languages

Elianne, I only have 6 O-levels, my school was much more concerned with A-levels. They didn't think a load of O-levels were worth it for someone aiming at taking As. This was a grammar school , not a comprehensive, but it did do Os for those not planning on continuing education.
I have my As and a BSc.

I can’t see the point in a repeat year mainly because the whole 2020 year is disadvantaged and so they are all in it together. It is not as if the virus discriminates. The ones affected the worst are the school leavers because they will have missed out on all the bonding things you get as you finish school together. That is the case here because we actually had 4- 6 months of isolation and home schooling because we took it seriously right from the start.

Lucca

Sticking my head above the parapet.......o levels were harder ....well they were in languages

what does harder mean? They were more nit picking on useless points of grammar and vocab, and literature - but totally useless communicatively and culturally. Much prefer modern Mod Langs A'Levels that concentrate on communicative skills and understanding of the country's society, culture, politics, geography and history, etc.

So harder- no I don't think so (been a Mod Langs specialist and 6th Form teacher for a very long time btw).

and 0 levels too. Again nit picking useless grammar and vocab.
One year, the text to be translated said something like 'il y avait des sapins partout sur la place' - and kids translate either 'there were Christmas trees everywhere on the square' or 'there were pine trees ...' and they were marked wrong as they should have translated as 'spruce trees'.

“ So harder- no I don't think so (been a Mod Langs specialist and 6th Form teacher for a very long time btw).”

Ditto.
And I still think they were harder.

biba70

and 0 levels too. Again nit picking useless grammar and vocab.
One year, the text to be translated said something like 'il y avait des sapins partout sur la place' - and kids translate either 'there were Christmas trees everywhere on the square' or 'there were pine trees ...' and they were marked wrong as they should have translated as 'spruce trees'.

And writing essays in French about groups of children who had to pitch a tent in a storm or whose dog fell in the river! Very "Enid Blyton"!

All very useful stuff!

Indeed- oh and that monkey who sometimes was on top of the TV, behind or in front.

It was harder because of the useless nit picking, granted. But hard useless nit picking is ... well, useless. A language is about communicating, discussing culture, and the differences in so many ways.

The HoD at my first school had brilliant O'Level results for his students- he could speak neither French or German.

I’m not talking about “useful”. I’m talking about difficulty plus amount of study required. Yes the grammar etc was nitpicking and when I arrived in Paris I couldn’t “speak”. However oncè I got into my stride with speaking my French was much more correct.

This is not the place or the topic. I am not talking about 'mere' useful- but about what is important in learning a language- and we disagree. That is OK.