The new GCSEs have forced us to think hard about our priorities and principles for the curriculum at KS4. Although we undertook an in-depth review of our model last year – as documented here – we are already looking to make some adjustments. In particular, as shown in the diagram, we’ve added an hour to Maths and taken it from PE. Although I resisted this initially, even though we’re effectively starting core GCSE courses in Year 9, it is now abundantly clear to me that Maths needs more time in Y10/11; 7 hrs a fortnight just isn’t enough for our students to tackle the volume of the new GCSE. However, taking time from PE doesn’t sit well. We’re going for three hour-long hits of PE instead of weekly two-hour hits; our view is that this will have more impact despite the time for changing. Why PE? No reason other than I couldn’t justify taking it from anywhere else, especially given the commitment we’ve made to PSHE.
The other change is in relation to triple science. With Combined Science coming in September, we think that a) it is a sound basis for students to go onto A level on its own and that b) the volume of the separate science GCSEs will be too big to be delivered through extended day provision. So, we’re going to offer triple science as an option. Students can (and must) take humanities, languages and an arts subject alongside triple science if they choose it as an option; they will need to be in the same teaching set(s) for their core science. Our rationale is that we want each course to be taught in depth without trying to cut corners, limiting the experience to a relentless exam cramming course (which triple science can become.).
I am aware that part of the pressure we’re putting on the core comes from our insistence on teaching a broad curriculum to all students through running four option blocks. This gives us scope to insist on Ebacc +Arts for all and still allow for students taking two humanities or two arts. In theory we could squeeze the time for these subjects down to four hours per cycle instead of five – but I don’t think that would be setting our students up to succeed.
For comparison, when I was at KEGS, our KS4 looked liked the model above. We offered five options! This was done by squeezing the core even more with a shift between Year 10 and 11 as shown. Five options gave students huge flexibility – students could take two humanities, two arts and a language, for example. We were offering 12 GCSEs as a minimum with most taking extras – including the GCSE in MFL they took in Year 9. But that was KEGS. It worked in that context. We’d been sucked into a success profile based on maximising total points and that was hard to break away from.
At another school I know, School X, they have put a three-option model in place as shown. This is the bare minimum Progress-8 structure for all students. Here, the priority is to give maximum time to each subject in the P8 framework at the expense of breadth. Students will get 8 GCSEs and a short-course in RE. They’ll be delivering the Ebacc so the third option is the only place for arts; this means, not everyone will take an arts subject if, for example, they want to do history and geography. No-one can do two arts subjects. On the plus side, every option gets three full hours per week – so they have time to deliver the courses in depth. There is merit in the simplicity of it even though breadth has been sacrificed. Significantly, a triple science option does not exist – that’s a casualty of the model. They are hoping the Combined Science GCSE negates the need for separate sciences.
In trying to find the right balance we’re all trying to weigh up the value of exam results (more time giving a greater chance of success?) with the inherent value of breadth in the curriculum and the possibility of accommodating students’ different interests. I know some would dispute the validity of students having real preferences age 14. Arguably, if the whole curriculum was fully prescribed, students would just live with it. However, it’s clear that you can’t learn everything in depth – something has to give. My view is that our model provides a good balance of these competing priorities. Every element of the curriculum has room; nothing is squeezed out. At the same time, I admit that I am anxious that, in a few years’ time, the School X model might be seen as giving schools an advantage in the outcomes game and we’ll have backed the wrong horse – so to speak; if you ask me, it will be sad, if the narrowest curriculum becomes regarded as giving schools the best chance to win in the bell-curve contest. Hopefully, we’ll be on track for a win-win with more chances to get good grades from more options and stronger student motivation from making choices they’re happier with. Hopefully.
Of course there is another option: a longer school day! But, with the current level of teacher workload already firmly at Maximum and the reality of declining school budgets, that’s just silly talk.
Share your model via the comments to add to the discussion. I’m always interested in collecting models. My previous collection of models is now out of date but it would be good to re-run the exercise at some point.