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.

Latin appears easy when you first start, but it is not easy as you progress. One of the many reasons it is worth studying Latin and Classical Greek in spite of the fact that they are not spoken as first languages nowadays is that you really need to apply yourself to do well with these subjects. You have to learn a lot of vocabulary, and that trains your memory as well as giving your English vocabulary and spelling a big boost. You have to learn a lot of grammar - memory boost again and it's also not easy to grasp the underlying principles, because the langauges work in a different way from English. And once you've learned all of that you have to have a rigorously logical mind to apply what you have learned and translate Latin/Greek into English. Employers and universities who value application, good memory and well-developed logic are going to look kindly on applicants with Latin/Classical Greek GCSE, A level or a Classics degree that involves a lot of translation.

I would say a great deal of that applies to learning any language to a good standard. In that way, studying languages is like studying maths - rote learning can get you so far, but there comes a point where you have to understand what you are doing or you can't progress any further.

I can't make any sense of usualsuspects's comment that she wouldn't want her state-educated son to do Latin. Why on earth not, if he wanted to?

Latin is on the list not because they count it as an MFL but because the specifications are a modern or ancient language.

I'd disagree with 3 years in secondary not bring a good foundation. Undeniably earlier is better but 3 years of applied study is still enough to attain a solid, basic level of competence when taught well (and with application on the part of the pupil).

I don't understand this attitude to foreign languages. Why does everyone think that they are so hard?
I did no foreign languages in Junior school but started French in Y7, in the days when we had to learn reams of vocab, did grammar and numerous tenses. I got a decent grade at O Level.
If you can conquer you own native language then it's not that hard to conquer what is, after all, merely someone else's native language. This is especially true for European languages which have a common alphabet and etymology.

Why does everyone think that they are so hard?

I think people are self conscious and embarrassed if they make mistakes.
My children will talk to French waiters at Novotel hotels which I specifically book for them to practice speaking to the staff and they love it (the staff and the children).
Once the embarrassment kicks in teens don't want to try in my experience (ie me) in case they look a fool getting it wrong.

There are modern jobs where Latin is very useful.

It is a bit like brain-training games on the DS. You have to be logical and analytical to crack the code. My two seem to enjoy it and I think my son will probably take a GCSE in it. Some of the history you learn is interesting too.

I think languages are hard, but not because you have to sit down and learn vocabulary lists. They are hard because you have to use so many skills simultaneously when "go live" and actually have to speak and write them with native speakers. Languages are completely different to bodies of scientific knowledge and research, like sciences, maths, history, geography - your whole being has to come alive in order to use them in any meaningful way.

purits - i think it depends how your brain works. if you can remember facts/words/things easily then you are fine, but if you tend to work things out in preference you aren't - so i find geography a synch (apart from place names) and struggle with french

bonsoir - all you have to be able to do to speak a language is have a good memory. the other subjects you mention need memory and analitical skills

Because you don't use analytical skills when you speak ?! Come, come! On the contrary, when you speak a foreign language, you have to review all the automatisms and reflexes (that you acquired subconsciously in your mother tongue and mother culture) in order to communicate. It's an immensely analytically challenging process.

purits - i think it depends how your brain works. if you can remember facts/words/things easily then you are fine, but if you tend to work things out in preference you aren't - so i find geography a synch (apart from place names) and struggle with french

I can't follow this. I found Geography a synch including place names and I am an MFL graduate. In fact Geography and MFL followed by history were my best subjects at school. So how does my brain work?

I don't really understand why people are so upset about showing the retrospective picture on the achievement levels in this particular set of subjects. Leaving the included subjects aside, surely it's a useful baseline?

I suppose teachers might be upset if they are financially targeted on such results?
Is teacher's pay the issue?

Having looked at how the results panned out with our local comprehensives, it was much as I would have expected. Nothing new really.

The thing is you can't put subjects into a hierarchy because, as is evident here everybody has different ideas about what is most important and what isn't important at all. These views often come from prejudices according to social class or relate to our personal experiences and interests or to tradition and since we all have different backgrounds and personal experiences of course there will be clashes. Likewise everyone has different strengths and different interests and enthusiasms. As I've said earlier most people wouldn't have an issue with Gove's list as a core set of subjects that most students should aspire to (with the exception of the narrow definition of humanity which most people agree could be widened) but this list shouldn't be made compulsory or itemised in the league tables.

The thing that comforts me about all this is the fact that it will make Gove and co so unpopular.

As I think we all agree, you cannot suddenly tell headteachers that you will judge their school on a set of criteria that they weren't aware of.

Nor is it helpful to suddenly make MFL compulsory when there are not enough teachers to go around and when many kids have had very little experience of good language teaching by the time they have chosen or come to choose their options for GCSE.

It is quite extraordinary that Gove should want to judge schools according to the EBacc without offering to put in place the support and infrastructure to enable schools to encourage it.

And without acknowledging the Government's responsibility for schools drifting away from core subjects in the first place or struggling to make provision for them namely:

1.) Lack of MFL and science teachers
2.) No or poor MFL and science teaching (Biology teachers often end teaching 'science' or teaching physics for example.
3.) The introduction of league tables in the first place which meant schools naturally wanted to hit the magic 5 A-C target regardless of what those grades were in.
4.) The polarisation of schools according to social class such that some schools have large numbers of students who would not be able to cope with E Bacc subjects as a result of league tables, the expansion of faith schools and the 'choice' agenda.

"It is quite extraordinary that Gove should want to judge schools according to the EBacc without offering to put in place the support and infrastructure to enable schools to encourage it."

I'm not so sure about that. Schools seem to be quite adept at doing whatever it takes to look good in the league tables. When it was '5 GCSE' then that was what they got, sometimes in dubious subjects. When it was '5 GCSE inc Eng & Maths' then they suddenly managed to achieve that, when they didn't before. Now that they are being judged on EBacc, I'll bet they find language teachers and space in the timetable for Humanities, even without oodles of expensive Government 'support and infrastructure'.

If head teachers aren't aware that univesrities and many employers want 8 never mind 5 core GCSEs they should be sacked.

If the objection is that some children aren't very clever so of course will never get 5 decent GCSEs no one would disagree with that, b ut let more try than currently do.

But

a) Schools should not be getting their students to do subjects on the whim of the secretary of state for education. There's an irony that the Tories talk about giving more power and freedom to individual schools but won't let them choose subjects to suit their own school and their own students. In fact this is more prescriptive than ever before.

b) Schools cannot simply 'find language teachers' or physics teachers. There are already not enough. Where do you think they're going to come from? And obviously some schools are going to find it much harder to recruite than others. Some schools are already struggling to recruit and retain any teachers let alone good ones in shortage subjects.

'If head teachers aren't aware that univesrities and many employers want 8 never mind 5 core GCSEs they should be sacked.'

But head teachers also have to satisfy league tables. Without a decent position in the leage tables schools will fail.

They have been forced to play the game of the league tables which has at times meant they don't always make decisions in the best interest of the children.

And now they're being punished for that.

But it's going to happen again with the EBacc.

And I really don't think there are too many employers out there that care whether a student has got History or RE GCSE. That really is a bizarre notion.

Nor would too many universities particularly care that a student with 9 A*s including ones in maths, physics, chemistry and biology didn't have a language if they wanted to be a medic.

"If head teachers aren't aware that univesrities and many employers want 8 never mind 5 core GCSEs they should be sacked."

I think this is utter tripe. Sorry.

The school I teach in apparently scores 1% on the EBacc, but every year we merrily send students off to universities (yes, even RG universities) without 8 "core GCSEs". We even send them with (shock) BTECs. In Business Studies. And Performing Arts. I guess our Headteacher should be sacked then.

I am convinced that it is middle class parents who care about these "core" GCSEs, not employers.

As I said earlier in the thread, my school has re-jigged the Yr 9 options in the light of the EBacc, and I don't think it's a bad thing - for one, it means that one of our two lovely MFL teachers, who feared that she might be out of a job at the end of this year won't be, as the top half of the year group are going to be told that they have to do a language. However, they will all be taking a BTEC Extended Cert in one of five options, and I think this is good too - the vocational aspect of BTECs doesn't = Mickey Mouse Qualification and is often A) more interesting and B) more useful than some of the more "traditional" GCSE subjects. Balance is what is needed, not snobbery.

'I am convinced that it is middle class parents who care about these "core" GCSEs, not employers. '

I don't think that's the case either or their kids would have been doing them.

It would be a weird parent who would care whether their kid did History or RE or a weird parent who would care if their child wasn't doing a language if she was gifted in science subjects and wanted to be a medic.

Parents and teachers and headteachers are perfectly capable of making sensible choices for and with their students.

It's league tables and Gove who force them into caring about these issues.

"Schools can't simply 'find language teachers'" - I don't know, perhaps they could just pop across the water and find some?

Seriously, though, difficulty in recruitment is a pathetic reason to not try to teach something. Sure, it's an issue that needs to be addressed, but it sure as hell isn't going to happen until a subject is seen as important.

French tends to be the favoured MFL in this country simply because France is close and there has always been a tradition of learning French hence more potential French teachers and so it goes on. I'm quite sure that the discipline of learning French is going to help a person if they need to learn (for whatever reason) a different language in the future.

I did Latin for two years, but dropped it in order to do needlework . I was quite good at it and found it reasonably interesting, but didn't see the relevance. But actually, having studied computing at university - I can now completely see its benefit. It's a very logical language - so a perfect grounding for programming... (I never regretted not doing computing GCSE/A'level though!)

'the top half of the year group are going to be told that they have to do a language'

This will be happening all over the country but it's hardly the best way for kids to make choices.

I cannot believe the social engineering which this government is doing. You would think this stuff would go against their ideology.