To think our generation should be encouraged to take on a healthy mix of non traditional subjects at GCSE?

[webbygeek91]

To think our generation should be encouraged to take on a healthy mix of non traditional subjects at GCSE?

And to say non traditional does not equal = soft option.

And to say that you cannot judge whether somethings "soft" if you haven't been taught it or teach it?

Having just done some research into the English Baccalaureate it seems to compromise of english, maths, science, foreign language and humanities.

Where is the inclusion of the non traditional but current STEM subject IT?

Bumpy :D

Most pupils do 8-10 GCSEs (or more), so if 5 comprise the EBacc, then there's space in the week for other subjects - whatever they choose. IT is not a STEM subject. Can't see why the fuss about the 'limitations' of EBacc.

IT in schools should give the basics if pupils don't have them (and most def do), or take them beyond into more advanced stuff like manipulating databases.

I thought it was made one two years ago?

Children should be learning subjects that are appropriate for them. For many that does not include MFL. Why should someone who is struggling to pass English be forced to take French or German?

IT as studied at GCSE is not usually a GCSE in ICT it is some sort of 'equivalent' qual and worthless to employers. So it should rightly be missed out. Also most children do some sort of IT qual by the end of year 9 anyway so do not need to continue it into KS4.

You can judge is something is soft if you talk to employers. If ultimately a qual doesn't get children to where they want to be in terms of career/job, then it is a 'soft' ie pointless option.

Children need better careers guidance, not more cuts in CG funding.

Bumpy. :D

ds(17) did a btec in business and computing and from reading on here i guess he's wasted two years doing it

still he enjoyed it and is now doing a levels.

i understand STEM to be science, technology (ie Design & Technology group of subjects, including electronics, product design etc), engineering, maths).

agree with vj32 on status of IT.

DS is doing enough for Ebac
Maths
English
German
History
triple science

He is also doing
electronics
ITC
Photography (twilight course)

So plenty of time for the other subjects

Agree with vj32 I don't really see the point of having MFL in it. MFL should be for those who want to take that path.

Relating to what vj32 has said:

I personally do not think children need more career's guidance. I say that though because I myself had this 'guidance' and it was useless. Utterly useless and pointless.
I often found that if you turn out to want to do something that is not 'common' then they are sorry to say, crap.

However, when I spent a year or two thinking on what I wanted to do in life, what I would enjoy and how to get there, I received way more than that so-called 'guidance'.

On top of this, I think all children should start learning a language from the age of around seven/eight, as I do think children don't progress much into the language and then drop it often. I think doing a language should be compulsory but there should be a wider range of languages to choose from in a lot more schools than there are now.

Having seen the current IGCSE exam paper at a parents evening, I could do paper 1 and I have never studied IT being of the age where we didn't have computers in school as they didn't exist.

I would far rather that ds does traditional subjects (which he is) and avoids the non-trad subjects(which he is).

By careers guidance I don't just mean half an hour supervised while they answer questions on a computer.
I mean everything to help them make an informed choice about options and careers. So for example. They cannot make an informed choice without knowing:

The difference between a GCSE, BTEC, Young Apprenticeship and Diploma

Some idea of what they want to do at college - if they want to go on. Eg if they want to do science A levels they really need to do triple science if it is offered. Also some career paths insist on double science (eg RAF) and if they do not do this at school it is very difficult to do after - usually will have to be paid for privately.

Most children have about a month in school to decide their options - they don't have a year or two to go and think about it. Because of the last minute changes this year this has been reduced to weeks. Hence the need for good careers guidance.

I think a mfl should be compulsory.

I don't believe that learning one is not possible for 'many' students, whatever many might mean. We could just as easily say that learning maths is not possible for 'many' students.

Why should a pupil who cannot write clearly and constantly in their own language be forced to learn another and carry it on all the way through school? In my opinion it should only be optional, although you should be strongly encouraged to take it if you are more academic - predicted B or above in English only.

Far far more rides on getting Cs in English, Maths and Science than anything to do with the other grades anyway.

There is also the point that the less free choice students have the more disillusioned they will get, the more behaviour problems there are. And this is likely to lead to problems with teacher recruitment. Would you want to teach French to a bottom set who can hardly write a paragraph in English and are only there to make up (yet another) government target that everyone knows they will fail to achieve anyway?

I'm not in the UK, but if I had the option, I would rather my children cover the sciences, maths,a few languages and history or geography.

Thankfully the school they will be attending (and most around here) only cover these.

vj32 - the idea of limiting foreign languages to a select few is patronising and would be considered utterly bizarre by most on the Continent.

Such an attitude holds children back.

What about RE - thats not included in the new English Bacc - only History or Geography.

(Apparently geog was added at the last minute - it was only going to be history - see Conservative Manifesto about the need to teach about Churchill. I don't think the Conservatives would like my balanced view of Churchill!)

I'm not talking about limiting languages, I'm talking about giving people a choice. Surely it is more patronising and demeaning to make children do something they will fail in?

vj32, I do see your point, however I don't think the people you've described in your first sentence are a majority at all. And if there are, then clearly something is wrong.

Languages are important. I suppose to me personally it's similar, obviously not the same, as learning an instrument. The people who are learning languages are fewer, and it is a valuable skill. England doesn't support a wide range of languages, they are severely lacking in that area.

In Europe, it's common for children to learn at least two or more languages, and are able to cope with this.

And my career's guidance included me going to the career's advisor at secondary school as well as having a connexion advisor. Both of them were useless. I know children don't have much time to think on their options, but this I feel needs to change. Most students in the middle or towards the end of secondary school don't know what they want to do in life, but I think they need the time to think for themselves.

RE I don't think should be compulsory at GCSE.

YANBU

Personally I worry that 1 man's misguided view of what is important in Education should not be enough to limit choices available to children who do not want or need the curriculum narrowing. The league tables are going to focus more on the results of The Baccalaureate and as a result some schools will focus their funding and efforts to these subjects in order to improve their scores.

It depends on the interpretation of schools as well.

School I was working in all pupils are now forced to take hist or geog and a language regardless of how suitable it is for them. So even the children with significant SEN needs who previously would have had a specially tailored curriculum now have to do these subjects. And lots of them will fail.

It just makes me really angry that there has been a knee-jerk reaction to govt proposals and absolutely none of it has been properly thought through. .

MFL should be compulsory except for those who seriously struggle with English and are in much lower sets (eg taking the foundation paper in most subjects.

• Pupils might want to study/work abroad (with fees and job availability so crap here).
• Employers like it - and useful for international businesses
• In other countries all pupils study English and other languages.

I think that a range of subjects is very important up to GCSE level and then being able to specialise after that according to your interests, preferences and abilities is important too.

I went to an academically selective secondary school and we had guidelines as to what we were allowed to study at O level. So we all had to do English, Maths and either French or German (it was a small school). And then we had to take one science, one humanities and one arts subject and then the final option was a free choice. I don't think it was totally rigid, but the idea was to have a balance in order to keep options open. I certainly found it useful as I moved from wanting to pursue science to discovering I actually was much better at humanities (and that my maths simply wasn't good enough).

Definitely understand vj32.

The government hasn't thought the education system through very well at all. They are thinking more about scores and exam results, and less about the emotional, mental and educational welfare of the children. For a while now it's seemed like they only cared about children getting higher scores, and not about the sacrifices or how it affects the children.

The curriculum does need to be more tailored for those who want and need it. Children who cannot cope/children who may have stressful situations at home, those with learning disabilities, severe medical problems.

But the english bacc isn't compulsory is it? So, the really struggling students aren't going to be forced to do it "for targets" as apart from anything else, if they're that poor at english then they're not going to get the english bacc anyway, modern language or not, better to let them do something else entirely

My personal feelings on GCSE topics are that, if DD has remotely academic tendancies I will strongly advise her to do the subjects which will keep the most options open, so that will be the english bacc plus other more traditional ones like three sciences in case she wants to pursue a more technical career in the future. If she is interested in something like photography I would much prefer she went to a club for it rather than getting a qualification which won't do her any good from a career point of view, even if she turns out to want to be a photographer, it won't do her much good.

It's up to you what works for your DC though.

this is why schools will never win.

some parents want a range of non-traditional subjects

other parents want vocational subjects

some want purely academic subjects

others want to go back to O levels.