News today: Most GCSE equivalents axed from school league tables

[LittenTree]

here

Which is what happens when you try comparing apples with oranges in the first place... or create a society which only values academic achievement and treats all else as 'dross for the stupid'.

DD is doing the Latin Cambridge thingy - is that one GCSE or two now?
(ah, the joy of options as well)

For a long time schools have used this to improve their results. It is a direct result of league tables. Schools vary enormously and while vocational studies are absolutely right for some pupils, I have seen many able students choose subjects which will certainly reduce their choices later, which is, I think, a great shame. If employers are complaining that school leavers are not equipped for the work place, it is not helping our young people. E Bac results have shown exactly what pupils are studying. I am not a fan of Mr Gove but do find it very interesting to see a school with 80% A-C actually has an E Bac result if 7%. What are the pupils studying and is it preparing them for work in the 21st century and a global market?

Some of the kids at my school miss out on the Ebacc because they are doing triple science. Some others miss out because they do an AS level in an Ebacc option slot.

It's not as straightforward as suggesting that anyone not doing the Ebacc is doing crappy subjects instead.

it certainly isn't! Your story is similar to my school too.

What really worries me is if it becomes a requirement to have the Ebacc to get into University (or a decent one anyway). Things are changing fast and its hard to predict exactly wwhat will happeen

morebiscuits - pupils are studying English, Maths, triple Science, an MFL ... BUT possibly want to do Music or Drama or Art as a 4th option. So no humanity, no EBACC.

I hope that is the case but I have seen many doing PE, drama, media studies, dance, ICTetc. Sometimes the only subject which requires essay writing is English. Still think that 7% E BAC is very low, that is only a handful of pupils.

The line that interested me most in the tables as published by BBC wasn't so much how variable the EBac %age is (always lower, but so easily confounded, as noted above, by triple science etc) but the difference between the 5 A-C column and the 5 A-C (GCSE only) column. In some schools, there was indeed a big gap.

But the curriculum does need to move in. EBacc is not always the most appropriate path- even for a bright student. Gove is so out of touch, it's ridiculous. I hate the fact that ALL vocational qualifications are being lumped in together and seen as Mickey Mouse qualifications for numpties. As I said up-thread, my BTEC students work their socks off- the expectation is at least 4 times that of any GCSE spec in my subject. The GOOD thing about some (not all!) vocational qualifications is the actual vocational aspect. For a student who wants to go to work rather than university, for example, the real experience they gain (for example BTEC level 3 Health and Social Care requires 100 hours relevant work experience) is far more valuable than being able to write an essay. OK, it's not appropriate for someone wanting to apply to read medicine at university, but that does not make it an invalid choice for everyone. The lumping together and ridiculing of these courses makes me angry!

Ooops- curriculum needs to move ON not move IN

I guess the bit of Gove's angle I support is that it will make the schools concentrate on teaching core skills that ready students for ANY walk in life.

Take my client who popped round this evening.
He digs holes for a living. That is all he ever has done or wants to do (he makes over £20k a year doing so by the way). He deeply regrets not having Maths or English GCSE and admits that having studied a language would have helped him cope better with immigrants (because of learning about other countries) and Geography or History would have helped more of the news make sense to him.

Which is nearly an EBACC - and then he goes on to vocational stuff AFTER 16 .... in his case accurate pickaxe control!

Hocusponts it depends on the school options - some DC can do all that.

My DS, state comp, is doing triple science, english, maths, a humanity, a MFL AND Geology and Music GCSEs. He is perhaps lucky that triple science doesn't take up an extra option - they are just expected to work harder! So he got 4 choices.

Of course, schools have the option of offering things like GCSE child development, GCSE Health and Social Care and GCSE Performing Arts, rather than their BTEC equivalents, and being able to count those in their performance tables, so getting rid of the vocational qualifications won't get rid of the subjects many are so negative about.

but the subjects you listed are in fact vocational subjects; the GCSE is so boring in my subject and will not help the students in the least to understand the reality of working in this area.
The BTEC gives them a reality check, to achieve merit or distinction is hard work and does give them the chance of furthering their education within the subject up to degree level whilst also understanding how they might want to specialise. It should not be easily dismissed as is too often the case

I agree entirely, and as a teacher of a BTEC subject, get really angry that people who don't know enough about it assert that vocational qualifications aren't worth the paper they're written on. My post was to make the point that the same children can still do the same subjects, but because the qualification has been changed from BTEC to GCSE, they're suddenly seen as more worthwhile. Schools cannot count more than 2 BTECs per student in their headline figures, but can count the same subjects at GCSE in their entirety.

BBC has an article today reporting a survey which found that academies are more likely than LA-controlled schools to "inflate" their results via vocational courses. I don't know how muchthat is confounded by relative numbers of each type of school at the time of survey, or when (and therefore why) the school became an academy.

The true argument should not be about the name of the qualification - GCE, GCSE, BTEC, GNVQ, NVQ, HND, C&G you name it
the point is that education up to the age of 16 should concentrate on transferrable skills
and I am sorry but "child development" and "performing arts" are subjects that should be studied AFTER a child has a good qualification in English, Maths, Science and the world around them, not instead of the core subjects.

I think vocational BTECs are important to children who would not achieve well via the traditional academic method. It teaches them a skill and can keep them engaged. However, to count them as a GCSE in league tables is desperately misleading to parents choosing a school for their child. Why don't they separate them?
My local school claims 69% of pupils achieve 5 good GCSEs or equivalent. I thought this was good but now I have found that only 40% achieve 5 good actual GCSEs. This has put the school in a completely different light for me. I want my DC to have an academic education but it seems to me that the school is not anywhere near as academic as it tries to make out.
I feel cheated by this but it is too late as I have already made my choices for high school.

Edith Weston said The line that interested me most in the tables as published by BBC (was) the difference between the 5 A-C column and the 5 A-C (GCSE only) column. In some schools, there was indeed a big gap.

Exactly! This gap is very telling and why I feel so misled by my local school.

But lunatic, those GCSEs could easily be in subjects which were otherwise done as BTECs. It makes bugger all difference. As I said up-thread, GCSE Performing Arts (which I will be teaching next year) is considerably less challenging than BTEC Performing Arts (which I teach now) in terms of both the level and amount of assessed work the students are expected to produce. But you, and many other parents, would see the GCSE as more worthwhile than the BTEC. Why?

And Talkin - whilst I agree that core subjects should always be focused on, I see no reason why Performing Arts or Child Development shouldn't be taken as well.

Eviltwin
yes, they can be taken as well - especially if they are an added motivator to keep kids who want to look like an extra from TOWIE in school (dead eyed chaverama at Sainsburys this afternoon)
BUT it has to be as well rather than in .. stead of - and that is what has been happening.
Fine, let them do the BTEC or whatever but make darned sure they can read, write and add up first.

I always remember seeing a superb head confiscating footballs and football boots from boys instead of giving them detentions. If they played footie in school shoes they got a detention. But they had to knuckle down for a day or three to get their pastime back.

For too long English kids have been told that they can choose what they want to do rather than realising that life ain't like that - hence why the Poles have their jobs. You work (three R's) first THEN do the fun stuff.

As far as I'm aware, BTECs etc can only be taken in addition to Maths, English and Science which are compulsory.

I meant vocational BTECs etc....

hocus
'taking' the subject is very different from ensuring that the student attends the classes and passes it.

How would you do that?