My school has recently decided to implement a radical curriculum change for next year. This involves the introduction of a 2-year KS3 and a 3-year KS4. Not necessarily a bad thing in itself, but there are certain aspects of the proposals which concern me. Firstly, pupils choose 6 options over the 3 years. They will follow 2 GCSE's over each of the 3 years, one whole morning (4 x 50 minute lessons) and a whole afternoon (2 x 45 minute lessons) a week devoted to each subject. In response to our argument that Year 9 pupils may not have the maturity to cope with GCSE work, we have been advised to offer non-exam courses as an alternative. The core subjects will be able to enter pupils at any time during the 3 years, but we already have a history of multiple re-sits in maths. Many of the staff in the school have grave reservations. The lack of continuity in a subject, ie where pupils study a subject in Years 7 and 8, but then do not return to it until Y11, or study it again in Y9, but then have forgotten all they learnt but wish to take it up again post-16. In general educational terms, is this going to provide any depth of learning and how will pupils develop a passion for a subject by squashing it into a year? How will pupils cope with spending a whole morning on one subject on a regular basis? And perhaps more importantly, how will staff cope with these changes? We have been assured that there will be no increased workload (!), and in fact there will be less work! Does anyone have any experience of teaching a curriculum along these lines, or any views generally. Personally, I think it is dangerous to proceed where there is still a large number of staff who need convincing.