Planned changes to secondary-school exams (EBacc etc): teachers say there should be more consultation; what do you think?

So it really will be like the old 'Matric' (School Certificate) or the current BTECS?

Do they not? Crikey, all that fuss about it and they don't even get a piece of paper to prove they've got it. Employers will really not give a shit, will they?

There is no EBacc certificate right now noble. The current EBacc is just a way of measuring schools. It's shorthand for 'GCSEs in these 6 specific subjects' which is too long a title for an Excel column.....

Ah, see I thought the kids would sit EBCs in English, maths, science, mfl, humanity and these would be individual qualifications. If they score a full house then they will (like now) get an ebacc certificate to go with it.

I maybe wasn't clear: I wasn't asking about 'science' now. I agree that double science wasn't a bar to a child going on to do A levels in sciences since I had one who did that. In the old days the O level combination was usually Physics and Chemistry, or Biology and Chemistry but very rarely all three and usually gender biased at that. (I am not sure that this has changed much - wasn't there a report out this summer saying how few girls are doing Physics A level?)

But I digress. When you say gelo No one really seems to know, that is what I expected the answer to be. It sounds too as though you won't just get the one certificate for it, so it won't be like now when getting all five components deems you to have got an Ebac. This will be unlike the BTEC, which as implied up thread, is a much misunderstood qualification but where you do have to pass all the components to gain the award, so in that sense is a more rigourous award.

Personally I don't see why an educated person shouldn't be expected to have science and language qualifications, so I don't have a problem with the concept. What does baffle me, which I think has also been said elsewhere, is why have the qualification at 16 when that is no longer the school leaving age? Why not rethink the whole 14-18 exam structure instead of chopping it in two? Again though I think various reports have been made about this, which have been perfectly sensible but have just been binned.

What a mess, especially for those children who will be the guinea pigs.

Seeker they're talking about Goves proposed new qual for current yer 7s which will be one award EBC as long as kid gets maths English science MFL and humanity. If you're crap at languages tough - you don't get the qual even though you may be a math genius.

Can somebody clarify something for me? I thought the EBacc was just a certificate you got if you got GCSEs in English, maths, a science, a language and either history or geography? People are talking on here as if it's a new exam. Have I missed something?

triple science isn't necessarily for higher ability kids - double is all you need for A level science and some high ability dc choose to do extra languages or humanities instead of the extra science. It is true though that higher ability children now have an 'entitlement' to do triple science if they want to (in theory at least).

Back in the old days of O levels when 8 subjects was normal, it was quite unusual to do all 3 sciences. Lots of people just did one or two. I personally think doing one or two science GCSEs that cover some of all the sciences is better than doing just one or two specific science O levels and I'd be surprised if Gove tries to move back to that. I'd expect his new ebacc science to be at least the minimum needed for A level which is the equivalent of 2 GCSEs, but he maybe thinking it will be more - No one really seems to know.

LaVolcan I don't understand the English components, either, but I think with double or triple science GCSE, there are different components when course-worked based,including a sort of general science exam taken early as part of the modular work.

But hey, don't worry about wrapping your mind around it, Gove wants to change the whole structure anyway!

Double science counts as 2 GCSEs & is usually considered the lower ability science qualification. Both interpreted as general science, not specialised.

Triple science is for higher ability kids, counts as 3 GCSEs: one each in bio/physics/chemistry.

Okay, I have two children who are doing GCSEs, but they vary a lot in syllabus and assessment methods from my eldest (sat them last summer) to my younger (sitting 2015). I also have a youngest who will be in the Ebacc years.

I assume that private schools will choose to sit iGCSEs instead, and I kind of hope that my DCs state school will take those instead of the new untried qualification. You can sit a foundation paper in iGCSEs btw.

I don't believe that Gove listens to anyone, expert or otherwise, he just goes on the fuzzy memories of his (and maybe his friends) schooldays.

Could someone tell me when it refers to 'science' is that the equivalent of a single GCSE, double science award gcse or 3 separate sciences? Much the same applies for English - will it just be language, literature or a combination?

It may be a silly question - but will there just be one piece of paper awarded for the subjects in question - I suppose a bit like the pre-war matric exam?

I may be an old cynic but I can see that the certificate of achievement for those who don't achieve the ebacc will have zero currency.

Yup. And damn sexy they are, too. 'Specially with my cellulitey thighs poking out above. Foxy lady, that's me!

But are you doing it in yellow cross-gartered stockings, Maya? .

My point exactly, ravenAK, very well put.

I spent my childhood surrounded by people who took Gove's dim view (there's a double meaning in that! - and that's a Shakespeare quote, ho ho!) of the arts. Because I was academic as well as artistic, it was assumed that that was the direction I should be pushed in.

Decades later this square peg has finally rejected the round hole and I am now developing my own arts career. NEVER before have I been so stimulated, challenged, inspired, blah blah I shan't witter on about myself! I have never been so determined to build a career as I am now. And I wish I had had the strength of mind not to listen to the fuckers who lost me many, many years of career success and fulfilment. Nobody has the right to do that to anybody - particularly not those who haven't a fucking idea what they are talking about.

I'd be a 'yes, no' too, & I'd argue that studying trig was quite good brain gym & gave me an insight into 'real' Maths - I didn't study Maths beyond A-Level, & had no great aptitude for it post O-Level.

It was a glimpse into something that was not for me, but might've been had my talents been different. Hopefully I'm better informed as to the value of Mathematics as a result.

Teaching & learning should be about opening doors in this way - Gove seems quite keen on slamming them in people's faces.

Just a quick reply to Chloe - the first news report I heard on the EBacc did say that the arts would be sidelined. That was a few months ago, IIRC.

Secondly, despite my lengthy post about the way that art can change society and individuals, you are still completely missing the point. I won't bother trying to explain it again! Except to say that as a professional choice the arts are more classless than masses of academic/ 'professional' careers such as law, publishing, medicine, architecture - the list is endless. You'd probably see that if you engaged with the arts.

FWIW can we do a straw poll: who did trigonometry at school? And who has used it since leaving school?

My replies: Yes, No.

I suspect that most people would answer in the same way. We all study a whole bunch of subjects which we are unlikely to ever refer back to in later life. Education is generally not tailor-made until we make our own choices as adults. So why do you consider the arts (which we've established you know next to nothing about) to be different, less valuable, and therefore justify a booting out?

Doubt it. I blame her English teacher, tbh.

Chloe I find it very interesting that you haven't responded to my worries about the changes so I will state again...

*do not cater for all abilities
*not workable to have one exam to suit 80% of ability range
*the limited curriculum it will enforce (don't believe the hype that the subjects that don't contribute to the league tables will continue when that is what a school is judged on)
*the speed in which it is being brought in
*the lack of consultation with experts
*the complete contempt to the misgivings that experts have already voiced

so rather than just sounding like Gove's puppet can you actually articulate a sound argument/reference to the above issues?

chloe74 - we got nobbled for Community Cohesion, which was then a limiting factor (ie. you couldn't get above 'good' overall with a 'satisfactory' for ComCo.). Our ComCo person had just left - under a cloud - & the new one had been in the job for less than a fortnight.

We were 'Outstanding' for Teaching & Learning, & we've since been graded 'Outstanding' by HMI in subject inspection.

My own opinion is that we can't be genuinely outstanding, in terms of quality provision for the children we teach, if we're left in the dark as to what we're supposed to be teaching & it's not been properly worked out. I can write Schemes of Learning for terminal exams only if that's where we're going, but we need a properly worked out spec in order to do our jobs properly.

'FYI I am not fully in favour of the proposals, I am fully in favour of waiting to see what the proposals are before I dis them.'

This is the problem you see. Those of us with a genuine interest in education would quite like to have seen them too. What we are 'dissing' is not the proposals but the process.

Thing is, I'm fully in favour of scrapping the current maths GCSE. I'm a maths teacher and think that it's not fit for purpose. But what Gove is suggesting it is replaced with is horrifying. He also doesn't appear to have paid attention to the extensive review of maths education that was commissioned by the Tories not that long ago, led by Carol Vorderman, which was surprisingly thorough and generally well received by the maths education community.

Look why can't we just keep GCSEs, as individual qualifications, so if a kid is genuinely unable to learn an MFL they can still get a decent number of qualifications. Maybe we could call them something else if there's that much sneering over the standard of the GCSE. Maybe we could have a pass rate as Chloe suggests. But please let us NOT have one school leaving certificate type qualification where the subjects are pre-defined. And let's keep the tier system the same, so late starters can get the same qualification and have a chance at a decent grade.

But you're too late, Chloe, the consultation has finished. Anything that you say from now on is irrelevant to what will actually happen.

Wouldn't it have been nice to know exactly what the proposals were before the consultation ended? Or maybe re-open the consultation after the proposals have been revised and refined?

By the way, GCSEs are not university entrance exams, as most students go onto further education, then maybe higher education. Businesses that are looking at 'top candidates' will also not be looking at GCSEs. They are mainly a stepping stone. If some universities can't distinguish between top candidates at A-level then perhaps they should set their own entrance exams that tell them exactly what they as individual universities want?

What on earth do you mean businesses and universities can't tell the outstanding candidates cos they're all lumped in together? Yeah right cos everyone gets 10 A*s don't they?

raven out of interest (and I have no hidden agenda in asking this) but if you teach in a good school, what in your opinion would make it an outstanding school or is it Ofsted that is a bad measurement scale.

I have read the website you referenced before, its not really unbiased is it?

Personally I would peg each grades results to the top 10%, 20%, 30% etc in that year which would stop grade inflation but I am willing to accept a system that people more experienced than me think is better.

giraffe - I disagree that GCSE's are able to provide the necessary, business/universities etc are unable to differentiate between the bright students because they are all lumped together. At the other end they are disregarded because kids are told they have qualifications who cant even read or write properly.

FYI I am not fully in favour of the proposals, I am fully in favour of waiting to see what the proposals are before I dis them.

We don't know, MoreBeta.

Hence the concern.

I teach in a 'good with outstanding features' state school - we're known locally & with some justification as a proficient exam factory.

I can assert with some confidence that we won't be doing all that much of anything that doesn't show up in a league table somewhere. I don't imagine non-Ebacc subjects would disappear - parents would go nuts! - but they'd be low priority.

My dc are similar & I also worry about narrowing of the curriculum.