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....

TalkinPeace2, I know, groups of subjects qualify, and that is what we are talking about here, and what gelatinous was using the shorthand for - a very specific question about why a school would set up an "ebacc pathway" that specifies groups of subjects that do not qualify, while offering groups of subjects that do to those in the other pathways.

It is not an ethereal concept though - it is clearly defined. You may disagree with the definition, or with the interpretation of something that is one measure of a school. I would also say that the "choices" children made two years before its introduction were often dictated or guided by the prevailing league table methodology at the time they made them. They were not in a vacuum either - look at the rise and fall and rise of MFL.

It does seem odd, reading both the OCR and AQA ebacc routes. But definitely what the current option book offers. and it IS meant to be the only (compulsory) Ebacc path.

Possible the school have got it wrong.
It won't be the first time they have messed up in Science. The current year 10's all took the first Core modules in yr9, then realised it was useless for those taking triple (as OCR won't grant 4 GCSEs).

The difference between module numbering by AQA and OCR has nothing to do with the Ebacc,

Maybe they started off meaning doing triple as opposed to double would use up an option........and then it got lost in translation?

It is making a real difference in some schools.
A school near me with dreadful GCSE results (even taking into account intake) scored 0% on their Ebacc because they only offer combined humanities, and very few pupils take languages either.
Because of the Ebacc (and, admittedly a terrible Ofsted report) they are bringing in seperate humanities, building up their language provision and offering seperate sciences for the first time.
These are the schools the measure was aimed at I suspect, because they were seriously letting down their most academic pupils and taking the easy route.

Absolutely, OneMoreMum, that's it exactly I think

Onemoremum
I totally agree that the Ebacc has shone a light on some pretty poor practice
and that in itself will make more schools at least attempt to each every child five sound grounding subjects
BUT if you have a born engineer who hates languages, why fight with them over it?

It would be almost better if the Ebacc were redefined as
English
Maths
Science
MFL
one from : Art, Music, History, Geography, RE, Tech , IT

then it would get rid of the junk subjects - and things like Psychology, Economics and Accounting that should not be taught below degree level.

I see what you mean, but MFL is on your list. I think the ebacc could be tweaked happily, but think these things should not be set in stone because then schools have perverse incentives and learn to game it.

If someone is a born engineer and doesn't do a language but finds lots of lovely extra maths and physicsy things to do, then that will be on his or her applications. And the high grades he or she gets will boost the school in other bits of the league tables, whereas forcing him or her to do a MFL and do it badly will pull them down (now the tables show so much more than A* to C, separate out grades for high attainers, include points etc etc). So I hope the ebacc, combined with the other changes to the tables, will have a balancing effect, so that the interests of the school and the child coincide.

And I think even a born engineer, if clever, should at least seriously consider doing a language. If not for them after thinking through, then OK.

Part of the reason I support MFL teaching - even for those who will scrape a "C" is that it gives them two years of learning about another culture, country, way of thinking and way of speaking.
There are people who never venture outside their teeny tiny worlds. MFL is essential for widening perspectives
(one of my friends used to keep her horse in the New Forest paddocks of a lady who had only been to Southampton a few times and had never left Hampshire)

Completely agree. I only mentioned MFL because of what you said about the born engineer. And lots of kids seem to be choosing in year 8, so very young to decide MFL not for you. I think the same applies to the other ebacc subjects - so even though Gove turns my stomach, I can see merit in giving schools an incentive to steer kids - for whom suitable - towards them. If they aren't suitable, then they won't do well, so incentive is removed. Whereas before there seemed to be an incentive to squeeze lots of GCSEs of dubious value out of the brighter kids.

Twoterrors-are you sure Latin counts as a MFL?

It doesn't count as a MFL because it isn't one.

It counts for ebacc purposes as a language, which it undoubtedly is, along with classical Greek, Bengali, Biblical Hebrew etc - you can download the full list here
www.education.gov.uk/schools/teachingandlearning/qualifications/englishbac/a0075975/theenglishbaccalaureate.

But I would have though the main issue for a child is whether universities want a MFL rather than a classical language - I can't see to a child doing Latin why it matters whether or not it counts for the ebacc.

Oh sorry I thought ebac needed MFL.

And no ... in yr 9 she won't care about ebac

I didn't mean to sound offhand, sorry.

I agree about year 9, but not sure why it should matter at all, to you or her at any stage. I don't think it matters for individual children like that.

Twoterrors -

No - that was last year. DD1 was in the triple science path with 3 free options (no forced Ebacc subjects, just recommended). She could have dropped down to Double Science + 4 options including a compulsory language.

This year, the top (Ebacc) path is the usual core stuff plus
Physics & Chemistry *, then one choices from BOTH

1. French, German, Spanish AND
2. History, Geography

• 2 free options - *those interested in medicine.veterinary/dentistry advised to include Biology as an option.

The nest path down (Ebacc recommended, but not forced) is the usual core stuff plus
Core & Additional Science
And EITHER* one of 1) French, German, Spanish
OR one of 2) History, Geograohy

• 3 free options - *ensure 1 taken from both 1) and 2) above for Ebacc

Also two lower paths for the less academic that do not mention Ebacc at all, and include compulsory Btec.

Hi Circular

Aha. So it must be a mistake then - they cannot mean that many, perhaps all, people on the "forced" ebacc pathway won't get it (which according to the links about what counts for science would be the case if you don't choose biology)? Whereas it will be easy for those on the next pathway down?

Bet you are glad your daughter is through, as whatever you think of the ebacc, this sounds like a muddle, and flies in face of prevailing wind that everyone should do some of each science too!

Yes, glad in some respects that it's over and done with for DD1. Although she did choose Ebacc options (3 sciences, French,Geog,Music). She would have been quite tempted to drop Biology though, as it's her worst of the three. Struggling slightly with Geog.

Seriously worried about that school in how they group the A level subjects as well. As it stands, DD will need to compromise her choices or change schools for sixth form.

Not even beginning to think what the system will be like for DD2, yr4.

Oh dear! Maybe a change will be good anyway?

On the doing two single sciences thing, see here www.education.gov.uk/popularquestions/schools/curriculum/a005557/what-is-triple-science

"From September 2007 a new statutory entitlement was introduced for all students to study science courses leading to at least two GCSEs. Specifically this includes either science GCSE and additional science GCSE, or triple science GCSE."