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.

Humble pie here - flew off on a rant without checking the stats. Did anyone see Michael Gove on Question Time? I now think a little differently about his motives. As usual, it's the way Mr Gove goes about his business that's the problem.

My reading of his logic is: "Less academic" pupils are generally from lower socio/economic groups or are middle-range achievers. These are the pupils who lack confidence and, perhaps the 'cultural capital' and high expectations from home that the more affluent enjoy. Given the opportunity to drop subjects early, this very large cohort will obviously "choose" to do so, or even subconsciously be encouraged to? As a result way too many are not realising their full potential. Whatever pathway you choose post-16 - practical learning, work, training, academic - a broad-based and rigorous academic education will provide you with a better foundation for longer term success and well-being.

It is difficult to argue with that but to be truly broad-based the "core" has to surely comprise of: English, Maths, a science, a language, a humanities subject, an arts subject and design and/or technology (i.e. some demonstration of higher order practical thinking).

maths syllabuses varied at O level back then hugely (I seem to remember lots of controversy over the relative merits of 'modern maths' vs 'traditional' syllabuses). Some (including the one I sat in 1979) had no calculus whatsoever. We then sat an A/O level in pure maths the following year (we did maths a year before the main set of O levels) which was designed to bridge the gap between O and A level - that had a good bit of calculus in and went well beyond the level of the current 'C1' AS level maths paper which I think is supposed to serve the same purpose.

I think the problem with including 'an art subject' or 'a technology' is that art requires talent, music requires talent and cash for lessons (self-taught students don't necessarily do well), drama requires confidence at the very least and talent helps and technology...well that depends what you mean by technology, but that probably requires a basic level of manual competence and talent too!

On the other hand everyone, with good teaching, should be able to achieve a pass in the proposed subjects even if they've been entered for Foundation and drilled to reach the highest grade.

One could include a practical component which could be art, music, drama, technology etc but that reduces the options for separate science/a second or third language even more without adding that much value IMO.

I think the english bacc is a brilliant idea. but my understanding is it's not something pupils will actually be awarded, but just another tool for measuring schools.

I think most criticism levelled at it is based on the idea that it discriminates against less academic schools. I would say it does not discriminate against anyone, but it distinguishes academic from non-academic schools. And why should all schools look the same if they offer very different things. Some parents and children may be drawn more to academic schools while others would prefer more vocational ones. This is simply a way of measuring them.

As a teacher at a more academic school I would say that the geography/history option is it's only weakness, and more other subjects should be avaliable in this category (e.g. politics, latin, economics) My school got a low score in english bacc simply cos not enough pupils took geography and history (languages are compulsory), and I know the school will probably respond by making geography/history compulsory which then just limits pupil choice.

Re Maths O'level syllabus - I took Modern Maths in 1977 which contained no calculus.
(Although still more difficult than the current GCSE).

This was at a Girls Grammar School, that was in the process of turning comprehensive. IIRC, the boys grammar schools were still doing either traditional maths O'Level or AS.

Going straight to A'level without the AS was huge leap.

having taken the old style O levels I certainly agree that the way we took our choices meant that we had an individual science/maths/foreign language - could be modern or latin/english language and history or geography as an academic core before settling for extra individual choices - and this gave us a strong academic core - I also agree that RE should not be seen as a cop out, taken correctly it is a good in depth subject. history in particular is still seen as a 'quality' subject - if you are tying for a university place with another person and 1 has a good history grade and the other a good media grade guess who will get the place (NOT media)
school grading tables showing 5 A-C GCSE are
totally meaningless unless you know which subjects are included - why are we always trying to put down academic achievement

IGLF same with DD's school mainly because of language hasn't been compulsory for the last few years, also the teaching to the ones who took languages left a lot to be desired.

I don't think it's fair to judge a school on these results until they make all the subjects covered compulsory.

Couldn't agree more about the underskilled 16 yolds leaving education and attempting to pass on/use skills they do not possess. I had first hand experience of this when I employed a nanny for a few months who had just completed an NNEB. Her reading (of children's books ffs!) was less secure than my then 6 yr old son's.

On another note, my high-achieving 15 yo is learning differentiation only as an aside to her IGCSE. It's not an official part of the course I don't think- evidently considered too challenging even for high achievers.

I also come from the O level age. My daughter has taken the compulsory Maths, English language, the now compulsory Science (all 3 together not the individual biology,chemistry,physics that i did )
Initially she took french but found it was the class the school had dumped the unruly kids in? so changed to geography and she also took history and art. So does this mean my daughter now has no chance at all of getting this EBACC as she hasnt taken a language??
When iwas at school you tended to take the subject options that you would need to get into the college you wished to go to or that would in some way benefit your future career.
Another thing has anyone elses teenager been told that english literature is optional and so long as the pass english lang. they dont have to take eng lit.??
Again when i was at school you did both!

IN fee paying schools just about every child does
English lit

English lang

maths

a language (sometimes two - they are hard, state pupils avoid them, employers know that; I did two)

2 sciences, often 3 or double science award -2 gcses

History or geography ( I did both)

Then once you have your core 8 or so above you could do 1 or two extra things like RE or music or art.

Xenia
if you think kids are only doing 8 GCSE's nowadays you need to read more school prospectus reports.
At DD's school the top six pupils each had 14 A or A* at GCSE.
The top two sets do at least 11
Middle sets at least 9
Bottom sets 7 or 8

Most sensible schools do no more than 10 or 11. That is quite enough to be getting on with. Many (mostly state) schools bulk out numbers to 14 by adding inconsequential subjects such as media studies.

My two older children have and are doing:

Maths
Eng Lit
Eng lang
Physics
Chemistry
Biology
MFL x 1
Geography
History
DT or Art

It seems to keep them quite occupied enough. can't imagine where they'd fit more in. And seems perfectly balanced to me.

Third child (13, yr 9) is at a different school where they do ICT GCSE in yr 9 and begin their GCSE science coursework. But they still only do 10 or 11.

Forgot to say that at older two's school they do only end-exam courses. The maths, english x 2, mfl, and I think the history are all IGCSEs.

Talkinpeace - top indies don't do more than 11. I think SPGS limits to 9.

It's not an actual award that students get certificates for, is it?

To my understanding it's a league table only measure, and therefore as stated rather misleading because of the history / geography element.

My son is aiming at 10 A and B grades this summer but wouldnt gain the EBACC because of not choosing history or geography but opting for full course religious studies. His other two optional subjects chosen were PE and Music - subjects chosen because likely to gain an A in both. Does this make him a failure?

goingforit - no, of course it doesn't make him a failure

But I do, nonetheless, think that this measure encourages the pursuit of the study of humanities, which I greatly support.

I find myself struggling with the concept of agreeing with any initiave from Gove but I do think this new measure makes interesting reading. Local faith school here which everyone bangs on about being so brilliant had 79% incuding Maths & English but only 30% on the new bacc measure - huge difference.
High school to which dd will be going only has 20% but bearing in mind how many of the brighter kids get creamed off by the faith school , I am not overly concerned.
I am waiting to see if they are going to highlight the difference ( if any) between girls and boys achieving the bacc.

A French friend was explaining the weighting in the French Baccalaureat System to me recently which goes like this:

Weight system

Each baccalauréat stream has its own set of subjects that each carry a different weight (coefficient). This allows some subjects to be more important than others. For example, in the ES stream Economics & Social Science carry more weight than the Natural Sciences. Therefore the former is more important than the latter. Students usually study more for exams that carry heavier weights since the grade they obtain in these exams may have a bigger impact on their mean grade. It is in the calculation of this mean that passing the bac and eventual honours are determined.

So my friend was a language person and terrible at maths. She did a maths test but it was very very simple (oral I think) and her best subjects were more testing and more involved. I guess this meant that you still got the rounded aspect but were able to delve deeper into the area you had skills at.

The French system is better for the average pupil, since more subjects are studied for longer, ensuring the general population is better educated than in the UK. But it is a longer, more laborious system for the brighter pupil. Many bright pupils get very bored at school in France.

The English system is better for bright students who do lots of GCSEs and can then specialise at A level and go on to university and specialise further and come out of university and work aged 21/22.

Highest scoring state school in Devon (apart from the obvious Colyton Grammar) is 27%. And that's a selective-by-the-back-door "comprehensive".

I did the A2 Litterature-Langues French Baccalaureat and I can firmly say that the Maths was NOT simple! Definitely trigonometry and differential equations, and definitely in written form. That was back in the Dark Ages though, may have changed since then

Bonsoir,
You have just hit the nail on the head about the fatuous nature of international comparisons of school systems.
Finland always comes out top for basic skills. Which is fine but dig a bit deeper and they are dire for developing excellence.
The English system has its problems, but the "brain drain" tells me that it produces what people want all around the world.

Gold
I agree, I think there were a couple of paddings in there but one of the kids who got 14 had done maths, further maths, applied maths and statistics as well as the three sciences and four languages (extra languages are taught after the end of the school day) she is now doing IB at sixth form and will do Law at Uni.

I do think that the academy / grammar system needs to be reviewed. If you want selective, go private (as my parents did) otherwise use comps so that the nightmare of secondary moderns can be avoided BUT with setting not streaming to ensure academic mobility.

I also wonder at the value for money of so much education administration in London. LEAs with only 12 or 13 secondary schools must cost a fortune to the taxpayer.
One London LEA with one set of CLEAR admission criteria and this board would be a lot more peaceful!!

Sorry, Lettres-Langues. We were the school dunces (vs the scientific stream) but I loved it.

'The issues I have with law/psychology/business studies at GCSE is that they are very much 'lite' overviews. They are not easy subjects, but they are not suitable for study at 14. These are huge areas .'

What, as opposed, to physics or English Literature which are very narrow areas?

That's a stupid argument: that a subject isn't worth doing at all because it's too big.

Let's get this straight - nobody thinks that GCSE is going to teach a child everything about a given subject. That's why we have A Levels, BAs, MAs and PhDs and further qualifiactions for law, medicine etc.

Have you noticed how the prestige subjects are also the oldest and often the least relevant to modern life and vice versa.

There is NO reason why Latin is a more valuable subject than ICT.

Which is not to say that Latin is not valuable.

And it's also a stupid argument to say that some subjects are not hard enough. If you don't feel that one subject is as rigorous as another then you could argue to make it more rigorous. Not to just get rid of it!