What IS the English Baccalaureate?

[ampere]

Only just heard the term!

Not concerned because DS1 is only in Y7. The educational qualification system will undergo 3 more changes before he hits 16....

DD1 has just got her form signed with permission to tell the EBac to get lost.

A diabolically behaved French set plus dyslexia does not a C at GCSE make!

A pity because I think French would look better than a new the new ICT course she's chosen, but she's so far behind it's just a non starter.

hay2 the English Bacc isn't a qualification in its own right its just a grouping of GCSEs. My take on this is that the English Bacc just covers a spread of GCSEs that an academic child would be likely to take anyway. My older DD's took English Bacc subjects and DS is taking them as well without needing Mr Gove's input. It doesn't matter if different subjects are included later or if it scraped as a measure - they still have those GCSEs.

hay2 The EBacc is nothing new. It is merely a codification of what the best schools have been doing with their best pupils since, um, forever. It shows that a pupil has a wide range of abilities: that they can do Maths and English and science and humanities and languages. Some pupils will never get the EBacc, for example they hate languages, so it would be foolish to force them to do it. However, if your DD wants to be a dentist then she has to realise that competition is fierce and she has to have outstanding results. Questions would probably be asked why she hadn't got EBacc.

PS You do realise that the EBacc is not an actual qualification. It is just a shorthand way of saying 'this student has a wide range of abilities'. The teachers may be right that the term 'EBacc' may disappear but the concept will remain. It is not a new idea; it is a re-hash of what my mother did back in the day when it was called the School Certificate.

When I chose my options back in the day we had to pick subjects that make up the English Baccalaureate, plus extra sciences or languages and an arts subject. Education these days has been allowed to become too narrow because kids can't cope with doing things they don't like and schools are only interested in league tables; as a result many school leavers are lacking a good general education. Don't get me started on subjects like sports science and media; these are hobbies.

I don't understand the fuss about this. It is not supposed to be for every child. A typical package for a bright child of, say, two English, maths, 2/3 science, one language, one humanity gives you eight subjects (or 7 if you do double science). Lots of schools seem to expect academically inclined kids to do at least 10 GCSEs, so that leaves at least two or three more for art, drama, another humanity, a technical subject etc. The thing I hope it will stop is schools insisting on say everyone doing ICT or a tech subject, even if they are brilliant at science and want to do triple, fab linguists or whatever. If schools force kids that will never get a C in French say to do it, then they are shooting themselves in the foot.

The league tables have a lot more information than they used to and can be sorted on lots of different measures (for example results divided by ability). This will just be one measure and I think it is useful as far as it goes - if a school has a lot of high ability children and a very low ebacc% then I'd ask what subjects those kids are doing instead. No-one is, I think, saying it should be 100% and there are lots of good reasons why not. As others have said it is not a new idea or a particularly radical one - I really don't think it is moving the goalposts, just digging up some old ones that seem to have been forgotten.

I hope they look at the definition of a humanity though. And that schools devote some energy to explaining it to current and prospective parents.

Reading this makes me even more impressed by DS's school. He has a statement and has been allowed to drop the foreign language and concentrate on science and getting his English grade higher. Normally every child HAS to take a modern language

As the school rates itself highly on its English Bacc Status in the tables, by not having him do the formal 5 subjects they will lose points. Glad they are putting his needs above their boasting rights

OP
The EBacc was a political wheeze of the current education secretary thought up as part of his plan to knock anything other that traditional education
and to weaken LEAs
a change in politicians could change it radically

worry about what is right for your child and tell the league tables to take a running jump

twoterrors -The difficulty in lack of choice starts when the school had further compulsory subjects like ICT and RE. So the DC can be up to 8 or 9 in core with only one option.

DD is in yr 10, and last year the ebacc was encouragd but not compulsory for any pathway. The top pathway was for those taking triple science, and a language and humanity was optional. The top pathway for the current year 9's has been replaced with an 'ebacc' pathway. This has compulsory Physics & Chemistry, a humanity, language and 2 free options choices. But only one real choice for any potentional medics and the like who would have to chose biology.

circular - yes, that's what I mean. I hope it will make schools look at what else is compulsory and provide an incentive to at least offer full range of academic subjects rather than ICT etc, to those kids for whom suitable. Am no fan of Gove, and disagree with much of what he says - but I don't think this is a new idea, just a new name.

I don't know what you mean about the science thing though:the standard triple science is 3 modules in each of Phys, Chem, Biol; double is two in each of Phys, Chem, Biol. If you do triple rather than double, you do an extra module in each science. As far as I know, no-one insist on triple because they know that not all schools offer it - you may have to work harder at A level to catch up is all. I think having more subjects compulsory may level playing field and make it less dependent on parents' understanding of which qualifications are valued - good thing IMO.

How many GCSEs do most schools encourage? My dd is only in Y5 but many of the (independent) schools around here suggest 10. That would leave more than enough 'free' options, wouldn't it?

Exactly, sonniebonnie.

You get to choose which of the humanities (maybe from wider menu in future), which language (probably), and then have another two or three really free choices as long as your school has not clogged up the timetable with things that would previously have pushed them up the tables but are not necessarily in the interests of all the kids. It redresses the balance I think: as far as I know, no-one ever issued an edict saying do ICT instead of geography with your top sets.

IMO the EBac is just a way to force more state school pupils to learn a language because it looks good in Europe and because private and grammar school pupils do.

I believe many schools cut numbers of language assistants a few years ago, when they were asked to make savings.
Now the government want schools to improve MFL teaching without any increase in funding

Startail, assuming the funding is there, isn't it a good thing to get pupils to learn other languages?

The thing to remember about the EBac is that it isn't a qualification you get. There is no certificate to say that you have it. The only purpose I can see (as a teacher) is that it lets parents see which schools are offering (and successful in) the 'traditional' subjects.

twoterrors

Circular, ASFAK, triple is P1, P2, P3, B1, B2, B3, C1, C2,C3 plus CAs in both at present (so three modules for each).

That sounds really like a big change - have you got chapter and verse on it? I ask because several people have said to me that under the current system they want their child to do triple so they do all three sciences, not realising they do under double (terminology is confusing I think).

And here (for example), the option is double, or "all three" of the singles
web.aqa.org.uk/qual/english-bacc/science.php

Our school has decided to run options over 3 years in order that everyone who's capable of the EBacc can take it without limiting themselves.
DS (year 8) has chosen triple science, German, history and geography, art and media (he wants to work in film so that's not just a hobby subject), as well as English Language, Literature and maths. He could have taken a second language instead of art or media if he'd wanted to.

Sounds pretty rounded to me, even when I was at school we had to choose a language, humanity and a creative subject.
Those kids that are not considered able to take the Ebacc won't have to, they have other options for them, so I think it's a good system.

Oh and I'd heard that although it's only a measure for comparing league tables at the moment, it will be an actual certificate by the time DS takes his GCSEs.

When I was choosing my O'Level options many years ago, the compulsory subjects were the Ebac subjects, so no change there.

DD will be choosing her options next year - hates French/loves Latin. I have tried to explain to her that school might put some pressure on her to carry on with French, because Latin is not 'modern'.

I suspect she may leave school without her Ebac.

Latin counts for the ebacc.

I think the ebacc is being given more attention that it deserves here. If you apply for a job/course, and GCSEs are relevant, you put them on, and they are what will count. The ebacc won't change that.

I agree with others - it is one of several broad measures to judge what schools are offering their more academic children. And a good place to start discussions with individual children - if they can do these subjects, then this ensures they have a broadly based range, with a couple of spaces for whatever floats their boat on top. It is a blunt instrument though.

The thing that would change I think is if it became a university admissions requirement - which doesn't seem to be happening any time soon.
www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201012/cmselect/cmeduc/851/851we08.htm

Twoterrors - re the Ebacc requirements relating to taking 3 sciences, from your AQA link:
"Enter all three of the new single sciences (certification available from 2013). Achieve A* to C grades in at least two of them"

But it looks like DD1's school is allowing current yr9's to opt for 2 of the three. Their top pathway allows just Physics & Chemistry, with Biology optional. The lower pathways offer Core & Additional (two thirds of all three).

DD1 is in yr10, and is taking 3 separate sciences, OCR board. We may be at cross purposes with the module numbering if it differes to AQA.

circular/twoterrors the science modules are indeed numbered differently for AQA and OCR. AQA module 1 roughly equivalent to OCR modules 1 and 2 (all core science), AQA module 2 roughly equivalent to OCR modules 3 and 4 (all additional science) and the extra modules needed for the separate sciences are AQA module 3 and OCR modules 5 and 6. They are also bundled differently, as in AQA you can take them individually, but in OCR they are packaged together according to what option you are doing (so you take fewer exams with OCR, but each exam covers 3 modules: C1P1B1 + C2P2B2 for core or C1C2C3 + C4C5C6 for Chemistry etc..).

Thanks gelatinous.

But it still seems to me then that circular's dd's school is planning to offer a non-ebacc-qualifying route to their top set (physics and chemistry), and one that will qualify for ebacc to their lower sets (double science)?

The difference in module numbering and bundling (2 OCR=1AQA) doesn't affect that I don't think, but maybe I have misunderstood.

www.ocr.org.uk/qualifications/type/ebacc/index.aspx

If you click through on science and scroll down, OCR also said routes to ebacc are either entering all three sciences and getting at least two, or doing double science. So people entering physics and chemistry on their own will not qualify - that is what seems odd to me - especially if it is called the ebacc pathway!
Maybe they mean everyone does double, and the top set have the option of triple but it uses up an option?

It also seems odd because I thought it had been generally accepted that it was good that everyone did some of each science as far as GCSE.

I agree. Fairly sure you do have to do some of all the sciences to qualify for ebacc. Perhaps they're planning to enter everyone for biology to qualify for ebacc but then let some of them not sit the exams (what a nonsense that would be - can't really believe it would be admissible).

NOBODY "qualifies" for the Ebacc as it is an ethereal concept in the addled brain of Michael Gove.
It was announced without warning onto students who had made their subject choices over two years before.
It will be changed again without warning.
Any school that INSISTS on Ebacc has forgotten that its job is to educate each child, not jump through political hoops.

Yes, ensure that your child has a broad grounding of strong subjects from which they can diversify
but do not worry about the ebacc until it is actually set down in statute