The English Baccalaureate has really affected the League tables...

[MrsTweedy]

Is anyone else finding this fascinating? I am really surprised at how few pupils at well-regarded schools in my area have done what I would consider core subjects eg
Richmond Upon Thames

The Ebacc is basically English, Maths, a science, a language & history or geography with A*-C passes. These were compulsory in my day (okay I am ancient and did O Levels). It just shows how the curriculum has changed and how schools have been slanting it recently to improve their league standings on the previous benchmark.

I suppose it depends on which criteria you use to rate them ie either the EBacc or just 5 A-C GCSEs at the end of the day but it is certainly a surprising result in some cases.

The whole concept is clearly very "traditional values" and focused on academic achievement.

I agree that English (both), maths, a science and an MFL should be included, though I'm not sure about the humanities.

It will probably be a good thing for DD who is at comp where they have in the past had lots of less academic students and encouraged them to do easier subjects which ratchet up the points. However they will now ensure that their curriculum timetabling allows more academic students to take a good range of academic subjects and maybe not do 10+ easier ones to get the points scores up.

gramercy, you seriously do not have to know anything about the future conditional at GCSE even to get a B. To achieve a C, you need the present, perfect and future tenses. A C in any modern language is a piece of p&ss if you've bothered to pay any attention in years 7-9. The averagely bright year 7 could probably walk a D/C by the end of the academic year. There is nothing unacheivable about it.

Hmmph. I did French up to O Level and we most definitely had to be au fait with our tenses. Ds, in year 8, appears to be following what appears to be a "holiday French" course (shudder emoticon). Nevertheless, there are still a few in his class who can't grasp the concept of any tense, nor that nouns have genders etc etc.

jenandberry natural sciences

IIRC i think one of his five choices may have included it the offer but the other 4 did not

makes me very very wary and makes me advise my children to choose their a levels from a narrow sphere in the current climate

I haven't read the whole thread so apologies if the point has been raised but:

The reason that Latin is so valuable at GCSE, and so highly regarded by good universities is of course not because the ability to understand Latin is directly relevant to day-to-day life. Its value lies in the transferable skills that it teaches.

The study of Latin requires many different skills - the ability to learn and recall a lot of information quickly; to make critical judgements on a text or texts; the ability to apply knowledge in a variety of situations; logical and critical skills of analysis (good mathematicians often make good Classicists); intellectual curiosity; skills of literary analysis (as the course requires pupils to understand and comment on passages of literature in the original language).

The course also provides a grounding in the culture, history and mythology of the ancient world, which ties in well with other humanities subjects and English Literature. Its benefit is its breadth AND depth, a combination that is lacking from many other school subjects.

There are obviously other courses that offer a similar range of skills, but I would not include, e.g., ICT among them.

duchesse and grammercy Yes, the way French is assessed now is so different from when I did O and A level. DD is in Y7 and doesn't seem to be being taught how to conjugate verbs I am "helping" her at home, of course I remember chanting them in all the tenses from day 1. And we had avocab book!

However, if it came to a choice between a MFL and Latin, I would advise pupils to opt for the MFL. Languages are so important and I'm pleased they've been given the prominence they deserve under the new proposals.

I'd actually suggest including Latin as a humanities subject for the purposes of the eBacc - that way, a linguistically able pupil could do an MFL and Latin (or Greek, or Hebrew), plus another MFL, and not have to worry about fulfilling the requirements for the Bacc.

could you not argue that ict (that includes programming) is leaning a modern computer language - why is looking to the future not valued as much as looking to the past.

DD2 (13 and in yr 9) is lucky enough to be in a school where she is able to study both Latin and Ancient Greek along with two MFLs. I say lucky because she has found out that she is a natural latinist and adores Greek. her only worry at the moment is whether to choose Latin or Greek at GCSE. In most schools she would never had found out where her strengths lay. My DH's cousin's children (same ages and years as our two older girls- 15 and 13) live 15 miles from here and attend a school with a very good reputation that basically does not let its pupils study a MFL to GCSE level- making them opt for a technology instead, even if they want to do a language at GCSE as the cousin's children did/do. It's crazy, and I'm very pleased to see that their ridiculous scheming places them very low down in the new league table. Hopefully that's something they will address in coming years- alas too late for cousin's children.

TillyMint- your DD would have been taught grammar if I'd taught her! In fact they should all be taught grammar- that's been the case for nearly ten years. There are lots of teachers out there though with little idea how to teach it in an engaging way and they tend to avoid it altogether. It's a pity.

Does ICT GCSE include programming southeastra?

I've just deeply depressed myself by looking at a sample ICT GCSE module. I know it's only one module - but blimey, it looks incredibly similar to what ds is doing now in year 2 of primary school.

Why is everyone assuming pupils can't take the EBacc subjects PLUS Art/Music/RE or whatever. My son is!!

He is taking English Lang, Eng Lit, 3 X Science, Maths, MFL, History, Geog AND Design Technology (but could have chosen Art or Music or PE in that category). Is at a state Grammar School BTW,

bigTillyMint - Yep. I don't think I even really understood the concept of verbs being conjugated in French until at least Year 9. All we did was learn stock phrases and random vocab about animals or holidays. I could easily spout out a paragraph about what I do on the weekend, but I was lost if I had to actually think of my own original sentence. This carried on to GCSE really. Any reasonably able person could get a C with little effort or aptitude in the language.
It's better now at A-Level, but years of rubbish teaching has had it's toll. There's a huge step up as AS Level. It's almost as if they though "Oh damn, they'll actually have to know some French after A-Level!" and pile on the work. In my school the entire subjunctive tense is ignored until Year 13 too.

DDs French lessons include discussion of the fact that "envers" is no longer cool and how business French works.
I did conjugating verbs.
Her method will be more useful for World domination.

Alexandra, I feel for you since you clearly wanted to learn more. You have been sold down the river for A levels with the crap you have to learn for GCSE. I consider that only people who get A or A* at GCSE are even remotely well-enough equipped to carry on a language into A level without an enormous amount of work and dedication to right the wrongs of their previous learning. Yet colleges and schools happily accept with a C at GCSE to study at A level. It's a recipe for desastre. I hope you've managed to overcome it- sounds like you have. Like every other 17 year old I meet who is not my son you sound supremely sorted and mature.

As a teacher at a state school where the head is currently turning cartwheels, obviously this is nice for us. We work damn hard & it's nice to have effort recognised in the press etc.

However, to castigate some schools for encouraging pupils for taking soft options is unfair. A lot have been forced down this route by the fall on your sword league tables. Figs vary as to the %, but say 30-40% are in a GCSE system in which they are going to fail (or not get their Ebacc), so in order to keep them behaving, learning & to maintain the figures schools direct them to the 'softer' courses which have a greater practical element because they are going to get a B in Business studies rather than a U in physics. It's not schools doing them a disservice but having to operate within the confines of narrow system, with the conveyor-belt mentality of all must go to university. If a proper vocational pathway was funded and sourced & valued from 14 we wouldn't have this fudging that goes on and actually an education system that might meet the needs of all.

Can I ask a quick question? Do the current guidelines say 5 A-C or equivalent ? i.e Are NVQs etc included?

Just wondering how so many schools can drop from 70 or 80% to 10%.

Monty
www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-11947183
unless the NVQ is in one of the required subjects - which is unlikely - no.
The Ebacc is an academic measure, not a vocational one.

Sorry, I didn't word that very well. I meant did the old standard (that was being used by schools until this week) include equivalents?

I'm basically wondering how so many schools can drop so dramatically. I understand why so many have dropped and why some have dropped so much if, say, they disuade most from choosing a MFL.

I'm just stunned that so many have dropped from 70%+ to below 20%. Therefore I was wondering if the old system was 5 A-C GCSEs or equivalent. Knowing that 'equivalent' is unlikely to count under the EBacc.

yes
in the link I gave read the section on "why are the tables different this year"
equivalents were included before
hence the panic about things like the BTEC science

montysorry - the 'equivalent' included other qualifications like BTECS or Diplomas (BTECs for example were considered as the equivalent of 4 GCSEs). The new system only includes GCSEs, hence the massive drop for some schools.

what will happen is GCSE will be devalued and the new IGCSE will be the qualification that employers will require.

It happened with o'levels and CSE's the latter where considered second rate qualifications

ivy
CSEs were second rate.
A 1 at CSE was equivalent to a C at GCE
and back then grades were set on the normal distribution (10% A, 15% B, 20% C, 20% D, 15% E, 20% fail) so straight A's really meant something and there was no 'grade creep