English Bac

True. But I do know what were the subjects in the School Certificate and they were just about the ones I quote in the 1940s. YOu had to pass them all to get the school cert and if you failed even one you had to do the entire last year of school again.

So is it because the children of the richhave higher IQs or just that teachers in our private schools are much better than state that poor children do such poor GCSEs on the whole? I think it's also partly low expectations.

Xenia, you are absolutely priceless with all your knowledge of 'since the 1940s'and 'low IQ type of children'. However, did you know that in the 1950's less than 10% of children left school with 5 or more O levels?

If the only one missed is geog/history that is not the end of the world but since the 1940s most decently educated reasonably bright children in the UK have done one of those and the better private schools and state grammars do.

I suppose I assumed say 50% of children in state schools weren't very bright, say, at a guess and might do metal work and acting GCSEs etc but surely the other half at least could manage decent GCSEs even if they just got Cs because their IQ was only just above the average of 100.

if it makes sure schools have to timetable things so chidlren can do the core traditional sub jects that's great news. It also means parents can work out which schools are those for the low IQ type of children and which can offer a range of good GCSEs and choose accordingly.

DD is year 10 expected to get 11 A to C grades but no bacc cause she is not doing history or geog the school options did not allow it. She is doing physics chemistry,biology and spanish as well as RE and a couple of English CGSE It seems a bit unfair that this was introduced after she started CGSE work but what can she do?If she does history with AS levels will this count?

I'm a State School Parent AND a State School teacher and I'm slightly astounded to read such a sweeping statement too.

At the State School where I teach we have said every year 'But surely they're cooking the books to count 5 A*s to C where this includes PE, Tech etc'.

Don't get me wrong - a GCSE is a GCSE and I think they need to be right for the child.

The English Bac will force a clearer picture of a school's results I suppose. And every child should be taught these subjects - but there is no getting away from the fact that it just does not suit all children equally. And they deserve to be catered for.

My DD's both would have got the English Bacc and DS will - all from a state school. A bit of a sweeping statement Xenia.

What Xenia said, but I think state school are now going to have to pull their socks up with languages. Hopefully from nursery/reception age.

It's what most decent employers and universities have looked for since the 1940s and parents in the know have ensured their children did. My parents had those subjects and the other core traditinoal ones. I did. My children have. It's amazing it's been a secret that you might look good if you have
maths
english lit
english lang
a language or two
2 or 3 sciences
geogrphay or history or even better both

As we as well as few fun extras

The fact state school parents seem to haev been in blissful ignorance of what look like good GCSEs absolutely astounds me. No wonder their chidlren don't tend to do very well

I don't think its a qualification so just for the purposes of league tables and worthless.