@HelpfulScience Hi, have you any interesting ways pupils can record their findings in primary science (to share with ITE students) please? #primaryscience#asechat
Well our school is quite unique -from ones I know. Triple science is a free option to all pupils. But i do know that parental involvement has a large bearing. #ASEChat
I know some schools start everyone on triple and then change towards end of year. Others there is a small class of triple because less interest. #ASEchat
I am no longer sure what 'harder' means. Triple is 3 subjects so more study time and exams, but is it harder than say double + geography? No idea, and JCQ data is not too illuminating #ASEChat
@ROwen_84 raises an interesting point - are schools still trying to squeeze the time allowed for triple science rather than give parity with other GCSE subjects on the timetable? #ASEChat
The combination of anchoring and disparity of cohort entered nationally suggests Paul is correct no? I haven't directly compared marks and papers but our data seems to bare this out #asechat
In reply to
@ViciaScience, @PaulCaden1, @TheScienceBreak
We do entry level, dual and triple. Lots of dialogue between students, teachers and parents. Teacher assessments and knowledge of students decide triple/dual route in year 9 but lots of change in year 11 when entries are made. Message is that dual isn’t easier just less #ASEChat
Putting my head on the block I suggest triple is worse preparation for A level than double because of time pressures in the timetable not allowing the development of broader science skills - too much content #ASEChat
I'm not sure we have the flex in timetables to teach in school hours if reintroduced in many schools. Cuts to backroom staff mean I'm not sure there is the capacity to build a timetable 2 different science slots other than "stealing" a slot from an open bucket subject #asechat
#ASEChat Can the EiS article by @YeasminMortuza be made open access, @theASE (with a full page membership ad, of course)? One of the most important articles I have read there for some time.
That does not surprise me. I wonder how often resource implications are considered when deciding to offer triple? It may be the children entered for double get very meagre provision #ASEChat (see case study 5, p16 EiS)
We do both. But triple is accelerated (which I personally hate, but live with) and is only for top performers at KS3. #ASEchat don't think we're unusual, but wish we had triple option as in nqt school
I'm not sure double (esp new spec) is really an inherent disadvantage. I suspect a large part of the 'advantage' is triple students tend to be taught with an eye to a-level while many double students are taught with the assumption GCSE results is the end game. #asechat
Sounds good, but then the numbers in a 25 period week do not stack up well for triple science provision. Has science brought about a fortnightly timetable in your school? #ASEChat
#ASEChat Can the EiS article by @YeasminMortuza be made open access, @theASE (with a full page membership ad, of course)? One of the most important articles I have read there for some time.
LOVED seeing these while I was walking around Y5 this morning! What a clever way to demonstrate how Earth and Moon orbit 🌕🌏🌙 I was also impressed at the children’s questions about Space! @Psqm_HQ@Pickhurst_Jnr#science#space#curious#questions
we get 10% for science. I think open bucket get less (150 mins compared to 250 mins a week). We do double content across Y9-10 and do mastery/ tighter consolidation in Y11. Should point out our cohort start significantly below national #asechat
True. I really struggle to reconcile it. At the moment only the top 60 pupils get to do it because it's accelerated. But I understand argument against option. Also wouldn't want to start GCSEs in y9... So... Answers in a postcard, please! ;-) #ASEchat
And that must influence the quality of the teaching? #ASEChat We would suggest that all children should benefit from a scientific education irrespective of whether they plan to follow a scientific career
Also as the new EEF report suggests Science language is a key focus and the technical language can be a huge barrier for students. Science exams and texts always have a very high reading age #asechat
Strongly agree. we have strong progression to a-level virtually all off double and never found offering triple as an add on made much difference to their start to Y12. #asechat
In reply to
@NeedhamL56, @PaulCaden1, @ASPIRES2science
Nope. And I do speak to year 9s at parents evening and assure them they haven't 'failed' if they choose double! It's optional. But you have to be given the option, iyswim... #ASEChat
It's a worry I've always had. But it seems to be a pretty common thing to do. So I appear to be in the minority ;-) I had high hopes when Maintaining Curiosity mentioned it as an issue but... We're still here! #ASEChat
What continues to amaze me is within a national system there is such diversity of provision - and not all reflecting local conditions. Just asking the question 'How much time for GCSE science?" produces huge variation in response #ASEChat
I wish there was only one route, then everyone would feel they could do science not feel like the also rans #asechat@ASPIRES2science if in the double group
#ASEchat when triple was introduced a consultant arrived at our school to discuss various models. The school happened to be very supportive and we had 10% time for each science, but there were some much less favourable models put forward and schools use many different ones now
I suspect it's the engendered sense of belief generated by more affluent schools teaching triple. A mastery of double science content doesn't/shouldn't imply a lower quality of teaching. Potentially a greater mastery of core concepts above less well embedded breadth #asechat
In reply to
@ViciaScience, @NeedhamL56, @PaulCaden1
My answer would be to provide a single route at GCSE for science, with different provision for those for whom GCSE is not an appropriate qualification #ASEChat
Too many as far as I’m concerned. I’ve seen some very strange patterns of entry over the past few years. Some schools moving to entering all students for triple in the hope they will get 2 good outcomes #asechat
Sounds good! All the schools I've taught in have done '3 in same time as 2' model... And schools often have less time for science than they used to (I think?) #ASEChat
I want a single Science GCSE back for those students that find Science a real struggle or possibly those that prefer other subjects. #asechat#notgonnahappen
Yes. Actually. That's what has changed, isn't it? There are fewer option blocks now. Hadn't made the connection. Although it's over 10 years since I taught in a school with optional triple block #ASEChat
We only had double and single Science when I started teaching. Students still went onto A levels. On another note we can’t recruit enough Science teachers as it is. So if more students do triple the who is going to teach them #asechat
#ASEchat Surely this is part of a larger debate around the purpose of the GCSE qualification. I've just been working with an international school and they asked a lot of sensible questions, including 'what is the purpose of this qualification?'
I think you've swung me from a pragmatic abandoning of triple into a political one @ViciaScience. Although outside of a fully comprehensive system many teachers with the most developed subject knowledge will gravitate to 'better easier schools regardless of triple/double #asechat
In reply to
@NeedhamL56, @PaulCaden1, @ViciaScience
I hear this a lot and I don't really get it. For history, yes, because GCSE has a narrow selection of periods and KS3 allows broader development of a sense of the full sweep of the thing.... #asechat
So what is the purpose of GCSE as you ask? It is becoming more of a school accountability measure than something of benefit to students. I am sure if GCSE was abolished there would be little impact except on comparison data between schools #ASEChat
Apart from the advantages for students, teachers would have one GCSE course to prepare, employers would understand the qualification #asechat reduced elitism, same starting point at FE
...but in science, I don't get what is fundamentally different about KS3 and GCSE. Completely agree shouldn't be piling on past paper Qs and exam focus in Y7 but can't see why 5 year curriculum design to get to GCSE is wrong. Open to persuasion, though. #asechat
#ASEchat It's a good route through for a school with large cohorts going into the sciences...if you can recruit the physics teachers—why don't more graduates go into teaching (physicists in particular)?
Ofqual have provided an analytical tool to compare outcomes for different subjects. Try comparing B,P and C results for 2018 and see if the result suggests we need three different GCSEs #ASEChat
We have 1 triple class out of cohort of 240. We invite them to do it, and they can turn it down. Triple students have 3 additional hours of science per fortnight, all done after school. Last year we offered 55 students a place on triple, only 29 took it up #ASEchat
But teaching your specialism at GCSE at least is an attractive prospect for grads considering teaching. I worry that if ‘double’ were the only option then everyone would be a ‘science’ teacher and I believe strongly in subject specialists #asechat
For me there are three reasons for questioning a double/triple GCSE route:1. social equality and mobility; 2. the politics of school accountability; 3. making best use of scarce resources. Tied up in 1 is a load of stuff about careers, aspirations, self worth #ASEChat
I'm also in favour of one route for GCSE. All the best intentions of x2, x3 get subsumed by the reality, which (anecdotally) is top sets do triple. #ASEChat
It's possible to 'blurs' GCSE and KS3 in Year 9 by keeping out certain more challenging topics but teaching to tighter more GCSE acceptable answers and moving beyond the traditionally more vague 'KS3 answers'. The KS3 curriculum is now pretty heavy regardless. #asechat
In reply to
@dodiscimus, @ViciaScience, @TheScienceBreak
You can still teach in your specialism. You just need to be creative with timings that’s all. Also as a biologist I’ve had to teach all 3 more often than not as we have had very few chemists and physicists #asechat
You can indeed but the temptation for SLT in tough times is for everyone to be a science teacher... been there, had it done to me, left the school... #ASEchat
Which sends the message ‘your pants at science coz your not doing triple’ 3/4 cohort written off for future STEM careers. Let’s offer same to majority #ASEchat
Ofqual have provided an analytical tool to compare outcomes for different subjects. Try comparing B,P and C results for 2018 and see if the result suggests we need three different GCSEs #ASEChat
#asechat It's common practice, as an intervention strategy, for triple science students to drop a science in Y11. So there are a group of students who have certainly not experienced a broad science curriculum. How do we feel about the 'compulsory' nature of the courses?
So do you think that triple science is providing the technical expertise the country requires? I heard that we had plenty of science graduates, but not all choose to follow a science career #ASEChat
In my experience that’s the norm. However, we have only had one set of students through the new quals so I’m assuming that it will take a few years to settle down. #asechat
Don't confuse the number of GCSE certificates awarded with the disciplines of science being taught. Trilogy AQA is in effect 3 sciences with 2 certs #asechat
Oh no!
Not only telling majority you’re no good, but minority opt out coz expected to do extra after school!Where are the future scientists coming from? #ASEchat
Not my circus, not my monkeys.... People with SLT hats on look at it differently. I know what is being done in local schools and it isn’t everyone teaching to their strengths that’s for sure... #asechat
