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.

As I understand it, state schools can't teach the IGCSE because they don't get funding for it. So no way it can take over GCSE.

The problem with GCSE music is it isn't an essay based subject. I think the humanities category is partly meant to encourage youngsters to develop their essay skills beyond just Eng lang/lit.

It's not easy to score highly in music without being able to read/write music, but there are alternate options like using guitar tab notation in order to widen access. I think it's probably best left as it is as an extra subject that's reasonably respected that people can take in addition to their ebacc subjects if they want to.

I don't think it would be right to include Art or Music in the core subjects as these require talent on the part of the students.

In art, a student has to be able to draw. They may be able to scrape a C without, but this leaves too much to chance. In music, the student has to play at least one instrument to a decent grade and/or have a good voice, before even thinking about the academic aspects of the course. This would exclude those pupils whose parents canot afford music lessons and instrument hire.

Art and Music students still need a good core education. They may be good at what they do, but in the world of work, they will still have the same pressures as everyone else. A professional musician will never be rich (unless also famous) and will often rely on a second job. A drama professional is only as good as their current job, even if they are great.

Fivecandles - State schools can and do teach the iGCSE; they are moving over because of the nightmare that controlled assessment is turning out to be in terms of eating up curriculum time.

Well thats my son's school results mucked up then, as in his options he could not choose a language (he wanted to do Spanish) if he wanted to do the triple sciences!

The best thing about state schools encouraging pupils to do subjects that constitute the EBacc is that they will then be able to compete on a level playing field with the private sector, in applying for top university places.

No more pupils wanting to apply for Medicine, for example, who find out too late that they have already taken the wrong GCSEs.

I think that vocational courses have there place in education but I will admit I'm probably the only parent on MN to think this

Nickname
Watch and wait. As with the schools that did the BTEC in science, there will be significant changes to the timetabling by September I'll bet.
Schools would be daft not to ensure that all bright kids do a MFL - they will find ways.

Interesting this discussion.
I have been brought round to agreeing that the list of "humanity" subjects needs to be widened which would make the EBacc

English ;
Maths ;
Science ;
MFL ;
Humanity : Geography, History, Art, Music, Classics

Usual
Yes, they do, but not before 16.
Up to 16 is the core skills
Reading, writing, numeracy (esp money), a bit of understanding of the big wide world.
At 16 then those who are trade oriented are allowed to go that way with specialist courses and apprenticeships.
Take my field.
Accountancy GCSE is an UTTER waste of paper.
Do further maths instead!

Snorkie then it makes no sense to leave RS out as that is essay based as well.

Have you heard this? www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-12171281

No I think that before 16 vocational courses are a good thing for some kids...I think they should be more widely recognised in the work place and not seen as a failure ...

Not every child wants to go down the A level uni route ...although I freely admit that I'm seen as a couldn't give a stuff parent for thinking this way

Education needs to move on imo not go back to the 1950s

I agree except that RS GCSE (but not A level) does have a reputation for being rather easy, so I suspect that's why it was left out.

usual
I have worked with and do accounts for people for whom formal education just did not work out.
Many of them earn good money but it is SUCH a shame that some of them (men in their 50's) cannot read or write. THey regret being able to bunk off to woodwork rather than be forced to get English and Maths.
I'm a real believer in apprenticeships. THere are too many 'certificates' and 'NVQ's' out there that are essentially meaningless.
2 1/2 days at school / college 2 1/2 in work would produce tradesmen of a higher standard than the Poles, hopefully with the same work ethic.

Of course some kids should do vocational courses.

The way I see this new metric is that - once they've sorted out the 6th subject as a humanity/serious art subject rather than randomly promoting geog/hist - the selectives and 'good' independents should approach 100%. Proper comps - in areas with no significant GS creamoff - should be expected to come in somewhere around the 25% mark i.e. the approximately quarter of the intake who are 'academic' should be what you're looking for here.

I'm not talking about maths or english ...yes yes students need to learn to read and write to a high standard ...I'm taking about latin and french ...we need plumbers and carpenters and all manner of skilled tradesmen and women ...we need to stop thinking that A levels and uni is the only way

Of course it's not the only way usualsuspect, but these are 13/14 yo. Doing some academic subjects at GCSE will not prevent them being a skilled tradesperson, and may enrich their lives in other ways too.

Usual
Tony Blair's idea of 50% at Uni was one of the most STUPID policies imaginable.
A good third of students should switch to fully vocational courses at 16.
When I went to Uni, the "manual" people did an HND at local colleges
It was highly respected as a technical/vocational qualification.
Now that WOULD be worth going back to.

You see I don't agree ...learning Latin or French seems like a waste to me for some students ...learning buisness studies for example prepares you for the world of work imo

You can learn GCSE business studies by watching the news and reading a decent newspaper once in a while. You don't have to use up one of your GCSE options for it.

Employersstill want the original 1940s subjects which indeed were the ones I did in the late 70s.

Before 1950
"Previously, the goal was the School Certificate or Higher School Certificate, which involved sitting a set of examinations such as English, mathematics, a science, a foreign language, history and geography. All the subjects had to be passed in one go, otherwise there was no School Certificate. This was proof of a good general education."

I rest my case

i wish for once, they would bloody make up their minds what they want pupils to study!

But that's the point. Most of the teenagers are obsessed with the world of work, often thinking they will do completely unlikely things. They have enough time to worry about preparing for work at A level. Just get them a decent, broadening education up to that point.

No I don't think that taking A levels is the be all and end all