To think that this is terrible news for my children's education?

[ICameOnTheJitney]

Axeing of Soft GCSEs to hit Drama and PE

Exam board insiders confirmed this weekend that subjects such as law, media studies, drama and PE were at risk of being culled from the list of about 58 GCSEs. One source said that as many as 20 subjects were under scrutiny

Why the arts? And surely PE is a VALID subject...not all children are academic and we NEED PE teachers and drama teachers and actors ffs!

Please tell me why, if this happens it's a good thing?

noble those stats are true, but let's not forget that a sizable proportion of those state schooled students still come froms selective schools.

A few super selectives are well represented.

Also, when we look at certain subjects we're not looking at anyhting like 57%.

There's a long way to go yet, I think.

The issue for me here isn't the subjects themselves but the GCSE as such.
Because it means that from 14yo some children will never do some subjects, such as PE or music that are essential to the development of the individual.
I would be much happier to see all children having to do some PE because that might the only time they do an physical activity. I would be happy for them to do some music because they might discover it's more than the Top10 charts. Just as they need to do done geography and some history.
So that at the end if it we will have formed individuals for our society that will be able to discuss and take informed decision, as far as possible.
If course parents can do a lot of that. I do. I am sure most people on here do. But what about the others? The ones who at 6yo haven't been to the beach yet, even though it's only 3 miles away from the school?
Education should be a 'get out' card for everyone. Not just the ones whose parents will be able to educate them, bearing in mind some parents education levels aren't over a Y4~Y5 level.

wordfactory there isn't really an indication there that it's poor results, rather lack of knowledge of arcane admissions procedures. The more acquainted with the requirements, the larger number of students successfully apply.

Several members of my family have gone to Oxbridge from grammar schools.

They also come from generations of the Oxbridge-educated.

It is surely useful to distinguish those Oxbridge state school educated students who are "first generation" from those for whom it is a long established family tradition?

It is in fact extremely difficult to obtain an A in PE. My daughter scred full marks practically and gained A,s in all her sciences, but still could not manage an A* in the theory, hence an A overall.
Drama is similar.

I can't really swallow the line about "essential development of the individual". Especially with the parallel thread going from people who feel they gained only scars from their school PE experiences.

(scarred is genuinely how I feel about my music experiences in primary, btw).

but yes I agree the British system makes people specialise way too young. Did y'all not realise that before??

I'm getting the impression that a lot of posters believe that elitism in education is best; an accepted truth at an unconscious level.

You need to be exceptionally careful if you are going to claim that an academic student taking an equivalent non-GCSE qualification shows any sort of failure by the school

Absolutely. But I've found schools which are entering their 5@KS2 students only for 60% GCSEs, the rest "equivalents", including schools that don't offer GCSE science or MFL.

I haven't seen and can't find the sort of analysis you are talking about.

I've done the analysis city-wide, although I haven't published it. But two of the more egregious examples I identified have gone into special measures in the last twelve months, so I'm not the only person noticing what's going on. The signs are the same: the 5@KS2 sub-cohort does not much more than 50% of their GCSEs as actual GCSEs, there is a very low EBacc, and the VA for that group is 950ish. Ofsted would sign these places off at good (or in one case outstanding) only last year, because they were overall doing OK.

noble lack of information re admissions is only part of it.

Though it does beg the question why so many schools don't impart this information to their students.

Where have I said anything about not wanting state schools to help children get into top universities??? But narrowing the curriculum won't help with that. What is a fundamental missing from education at the moment is developing a love of learning. restriciting the curriculum will kill that still further!

lljkk yes I agree that it also needs to be done properly. But then if the emphasis is not to gain an A at the next GCSE but as a subject taught for its importance then surely it would be easier?

Where have I said anything about not wanting state schools to help children get into top universities??? But narrowing the curriculum won't help with that.

"narrowing" is so ideologically freighted that it doesn't really illuminate much.

The issue is not that schools are offering GCSE Media Studies as well as GCSE Triple Science. It's that they're offering it instead. How is that widening? There are schools where children who are perfectly capable of doing triple science, one or two MFLs and a mainstream humanity like history are instead being fed a diet of thin gruel. Their chances of admission to a selective university are substantially reduced by that, in exchange for, well, what? What are they getting of benefit in exchange? Are there employers all over the country thinking "I know, I need more people with GCSE Media Studies?"

Why is it that "love of learning" can be only be fostered through qualifications of limited applicability, but can't through more widely respected ones? The answer is "because that's not true".

Talk of "elitism" and "love of learning" is a smokescreen for secondary moderns. It's the claim that if your parents earn under thirty grand, you're inherently incapable of doing certain subjects and should instead settle for subjects that are more "relevant" and "applicable". It's a 2013 version of metalwork for the boys, needlework for the boys. Why do you think that being poor means that you're not capable of doing certain subjects? Why shouldn't the working classes (for want of a better phrase) be offered an education of the same quality that the rich give their children?

Friday I hear ya.

And why on earth do we assume that the only way to foster a love of sport is through a GCSE? Or whatever?

Do we think the kids at Westminster or Colyton don't play sport?

Do we think the kids at Westminster or Colyton don't play sport?

Do we think that there is no drama performed at Eton because they don't offer GCSE Drama?

I think you know very little of what goes on in a secondary comp Fri. I know children at the lowest performing schools in our borough who will do a language, triple science, humanities at GCSE. It IS offered.

I was fag end of 11+ and went straight through to top girls' grammar - channelled into Oxbridge prep but I walked away from school at 16.

Never having done a school play let alone GCSE in drama I won a scholarship to a top drama school and made a career in theatre/film.

We live in a culture obsessed with qualifications.
It is as if nobody can trust their judgement without some method of quantifying ability.
The failing local comp here offers GCSE in swimming.
Why?
So that the students they are failing can rack up a handful of utterly pointless qualifications.

LaQueen and WordFactory - It would be lovely if all state schools could offer a spread of traditional academic qualifications and respected "vocational" subjects (if that's how you want to categorise Art, Music, etc), in addition to excellent extracurricular provision for sports, drama, debating etc. Bearing in mind that many state schools already struggle to afford much needed equipment, how do you suggest that they pay for the necessary facilities, coaches and equipment (and keep the school open to pupils for an extra couple of hours per day in order to cram everything in)?

Or do you think that such (personal, social, and economic) advantages as creativity, physical fitness, and charisma or "presence" should only be cultivated in the children of the affluent? It's all very well to say that state schooled children can access clubs and private tuition outside of school but, as somebody who has spent years working in those fields, I know that's only true for a very small percentage (and, sadly, most of whom are the ones who least need the support).

I know children at the lowest performing schools in our borough who will do a language, triple science, humanities at GCSE. It IS offered.

We can cite anecdote all day long. London schools (I'm guessing that from borough) are far ahead of the rest of the country. Two of my local secondaries have 0 entered, never mind passing, Ebacc subjects, so they certainly aren't doing the mix you mention.

Nom I have conflicted views here, I think.

I accept of course that the majority of state schools can't possibly offer the same resources as independent schools. That will always remain so.

And yes, I agree that many of ths soft skills and cultural capital that are passed on by independent schools would be equally valuable to all students.

However, I think I feel on balance that for state schools to give the best value for money, the best chance of success, then the basics of an excellent academic education should take priority.

It is a fabulous thing to be able to act, and paint, and dance and play lacrosse, but there are other things far more essential.

And we all know that MFL proficiency among native English speakers is at a record low. Schools may offer subjects, but whether children acquire corresponding skills at a meaningful standard is another issue.

WordFactory: If Music, Art, PE, Religious Studies etc are no longer given equal weight to other optional subjects, the resources channeled into them will decrease, and the educational value of the courses will therefore be diminished until people decide that they're no longer worth studying. And what's next: English Literature? After all, most kids just need to be able to write business letters, reports and e-mails, not wax lyrical about the aesthetics of Keats and Shelley - the latter is a luxury, not a necessity...

I think this is a very dangerous path to set out on. It moves state education closer to becoming a production line which churns out skilled, compliant, and dogmatic workers rather than creative, analytical, and independent thinkers. More importantly, it threatens to strip away the lifelong solace which "soft subjects" can provide to those who aren't academically gifted or socially advantaged. Long after a "bright but hopelessly disadvantaged" student from a sink estate has forgotten his trigonometry and settled into a lifetime of stacking shelves in the local supermarket, his life may be enriched by his enthusiasm for music, or his love of WW1 poetry, or his skill in drawing, or his appreciation of abstract thinking and debate. Yes, qualifications are very important, but I believe that "soft subjects" are essential because they help us to exercise mental freedom and find beauty and value in the world when everything else has been taken away from us. Surely poor kids need that mental autonomy more than anybody else?

Sadly, we don't live in a culture which makes folk dance, music, poetry etc universally accessible any more (mostly because there is so much money to be made from charging people to access them), and so schools have to compensate by offering a more structured form of engagement with the arts as part of formal education.

Also - wouldn't you say that cultural capital is pretty much essential for social mobility? I have a really strong 1st in English from a RG university, numerous prizes for my subject, learned to play an instrument well enough to teach others, and was brought up to prefer live music and drama over any other form of entertainment. I have a good vocabulary and have never been shy. However, when I was invited onto a special programme for high achievers at my university, there was an extremely pronounced gulf between the few students like me who had gone to pretty average state schools, and the more privileged students who had developed an "aura" through years of debating and amateur dramatics. I wasn't exactly intimidated by it and I refused to let it make me feel inferior, but it did make me realise how much more there is to social mobility than qualifications...

LaQueen you can get up to a D without reading staff notation but really in my 18 years of being a secondary music teacher I have not known one pupil get a C or above with NO ability to read staff notation.

Nom, I agree with what you're saying about education (but disagree that music and poetry is inaccessible - I feel this generation expects not to pay for ANY content. As a writer, I find this intolerable... but I digress).

I was very interested in what you were saying about the "gulf" at university. Don't mean to hijack the post but could you please expand? Is this aura from private schooling just superficial gloss, or something more do you think?

and the more privileged students who had developed an "aura" through years of debating and amateur dramatics

There's nothing stopping state schools running debating societies, and some do. No equipment needed, either. It's easy to see why polo is the preserve of the rich, but debating? Seriously? What's so hard about running a lunchtime club?

My younger represented her state school at some regional debating thing a few months ago. They were the only state school present.