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.

Fivecandles I think I must have given the wrong impression.

There are plenty of fully qualified MFL teachers, but they are n't working. For a variety of reasons including in my case just not wanting to. Your article stresses how many have left. As I said before many have been redeployed to other subjects because MFL departments have been cut to the bare minimum in the last few years.

There have been very few jobs going recently because most schools have had a surplus of MFL teachers.

So my point is theoretically there are probably enough, but whether they could be tempted back in sufficient numbers is in doubt.

The evidence says there aren't enough to fill the jobs that are there.

Obviously this is going to get worse now there will be more pressure on schools to deliver MFL.

It's frankly irrelevant whether there are teachers who have been trained if they've subsequently dropped out of teaching.

'Nearly a third of language teachers quits within three years of starting in the profession, according to government figures. Only 71 per cent are still in the classroom three years after qualifying ? the lowest percentage for any subject'

Of course that's going to lead to a vicious cycle. Headteachers have closed down MFL because there were no teachers:

'Headteachers' leaders say that the shortage of language specialists often means that teachers who are not trained in the subjects are taking classes and that schools are not pushing languages as an option for study at GCSE.'

It's frankly irrelevant whether there are teachers who have been trained if they've subsequently dropped out of teaching.

That rather depends why they've dropped out, no? If it's cos they hated it and fancied a career change fair enough. If it's cos they couldn't get a job and are working in Tesco instead then they still hold QTS and could come back. There's no limit on doing your NQT year any more.

We need to look seriously at recruiting the French/ German / Spanish equivalents of EFL teachers or encouraging them to do a PGCE here. Given the competitiveness of teaching training in France I could see that working. And we need to start making prospective teachers spend time in a country which speaks the target language as part of their training, which some primary language courses already do.

A good introduction in primary would be even better (rather than the half-arsed attempt at the moment) but there are still going to be some pupils starting from scratch in secondary because they didn't learn the right language.

When I say it's irrelevant what I mean is if they're not teaching for whatever reason then they are not teachers. There's still a shortage.

I think one reason why there's such a high drop out rate is because it is a particularly difficult subject to teach IN THIS COUNTRY. Because there is so much xenophobia esp among white working class kids. Certainly I've known MFL teachers (one comes to mind who was sacked and another who went to work at a completely different job; both native speakers) who were given an incredibly hard time by students who didn't want to learn MFL. The frankly racist abuse that the German German teacher suffered who was eventually sacked because he couldn't control the kids was shocking.

A lot of kids don't want to learn MFL and making them do it at 14 is going to make everyone's lives Hell. As I think we're all agreed we need to start at primary school properly and change attitudes towards foreign countries and foreign languages too.

I think that the key here is a change of attitude towards MFL in the schools. That has to be root and branch from SMT to parents and students and the exam boards.

With the examboards it is chicken and egg. They are producing the kind of qualification that will assess the kind of rote learnt material that students are spoon of force-fed. Teachers in turn complain that they are forced to teach to the exam because less and less time is allowed on the timetable. Language acquisition is best done slowly, especially the first one. When you have slowly absorbed the complexities of the first you can springboard into others. The reason being you have learn how to learn a language. If this is not done, there is no foundation and not only will what you have learnt just crumble away, but you will have nothing on which to base any further MFL acquisition.

SMT have had no reason to value MFL in most schools since 2004 when it became optional. As has been said many times soft options have been prefered yielding multiple equivalences. If this is to really change sufficient time has to be allocated on the timetable.

The rush to cut KS3 to 2 years will only work if primary MFL is properly taught. There needs to be a well organised transition from KS2 to 3. It also needs to be taught at KS2 by someone who knows how to speak the language.

In this more positive atmosphere where an MFL is seen as part of the core, a more positive attitude amongst parents and students can be fostered.

I have reason to go into the MFL dept of a local public school frequently. This department is thriving and the students enthusiasm is evident. The contrast to many departments in your bog standard comp is painful. Not in equipment and books they are the same, but in the atmosphere. The environment is cared for and the students line up for lessons testing one another for vocab tests, listening to one another practising dialogues or in one case rehearsing a Spanish song. I digress.

In the circumstances I have outlined above I decded I did not want to work anymore. I love my subject with a passion. A passion shared by a number of my friends who I meet with regularly to practise my languages. They share my passion but could not bear to work in the conditions of MFL teaching over the last decade.

This is why I maintain there are plenty of qualified MFL teachers out there. Only either they don't want to work in the status quo/ante or they have been made redundant. If the conditions were right they might change their minds. Goodness maybe I would!

meant to pick up on this earlier.
Whilst I agree with the decent spread of GCSE, some parents have no real choice when the only school in the area is specialist in something not quite relevant.

We had 4 comps within reasonable distance
In order of rank by 5 Gcse results) at the time, these were:
1 school that insisted on 7 years church attendemce (not an option for us)
2) school with 2 irrelevant specialisms, but also offered triple science and several MFLs
3) performing arts specialist school, results only slightly below 2 but no triple science and only MFL was French
4) another performing arts specialist school, but on the list of failingg schools and further away.

3 years ago, with a DD leaning towards music and science we chose 2), as the best of two average schools.

As it has had more support over the years, it would now be no. 2) on the above list. But it would still rank last on the Ebacc figures. DDs school was 1st re
Ebacc - although still only with 25%.

that last para should have read "the failing school" rather than "it"

I agree with you Rennie.

Of course, the reason that MFL were made no longer compulsory is because of the shortage of MFL teachers and the fact that kids didn't want to do it leading to poor results and disruptive classes. Legislation and league tables are not going to change these thigns.

As we have agreed it's attitudes that need to change and support for MFL from primary school and as a culture.

"Whilst I agree with the decent spread of GCSE, some parents have no real choice when the only school in the area is specialist in something not quite relevant."

We didn't really have a choice; it was catchment school or nothing. Luckily, the Headteacher chose to specialise in Business. He said that he chose it purposely because it was a bit of a nothing subject that could be dealt with by shoe-horning it into other subjects. There was no requirement to take Business at GCSE.
He was one of those that aimed to get the maximum number of people scraping the minimum qualification, and has been found out. His school has gone from a respectable-looking 51% getting '5 GCSE inc Maths & Eng' to only 7% (less than half the national average) getting EBacc.

The school that DD attends has gone from approx 73% to 15% in these new league tables.

Biology A level is a firm requirement for medicine or rather 2 sciences are. Language at GCSE isn't and I cannot see why it would go against an applicant if they didn't have it.

Chemistry is the firm requirement for medicine, not Biology. You need an additional science which could be Biology, Physics or Maths.
However, loads of people apply for medicine so, to stand a chance, you have to have all the usual excellencies and then some.
Medicine goes beyond treating the physical body - you need to be part of a team and have a good bed-side manner. A language GCSE shows that you are good at communication.

I've skim-read this thread and find the English Bacc idea fascinating. I have hated Gove's rushed and bigoted pronouncements so far but this measurement (though with flaws) has thrown up some really surprising results.

Contrary to what Xenia says there are very many private schools with less than 35%. At the same time some posters complain that they have 12 GCSE's and a string of A's but never studied history because it was too hard. That was my experience too (I got a C) but I'm glad I studied it because it's both a skills based subject (essay writing) and a core knowledge base which can inform the study of literature (including foreign languages), politics, economics, etc.

I'm really glad this will put languages back on the map and I think this will make it harder for schools to skew their results, even the private school exam factories.

Now I'm off to find lots of examples of crap private schools to make feel smug about qualifying for this Ebacc despite going to a crap (ish) comprehensive.

'contrary to what Xenia says there are very many private schools with less than 35%.'

Many of them will be scoring this because they take IGcSEs not GcSE.

For instance, my daughter's school, number ten in a recent Sunday Times league, scores below the sink comprehensive. They take IGcSE French, Maths and sciences.

Yes that's been pointed out in the press so obviously I wasn't looking at 0% - more at the 33% at St Catherine's (to take the Richmond schools example). That surprised me because it's a selective private school but other comprehensives beat that. Unless the 'clever ones' take IGCSEs and the rest take ordinary ones within the same school? didn't think that would happen.

My older children's schools is bottom of the league tables in Devon (just below the next crappest at 1% in the Ebacc leagues) because they do IGCSE for a lot of their subjects now. They score 0% for the GCSE tables and 0% under the new Ebacc.

muminlondon, lots of the children who show an aptitude for languages or sciences might not be taking any humanities at all. And I think that it is quite possible that the cleverer ones are taking IGSCEs and some not.

Having looked at the results, I've changed my mind. St Catherine's are only getting 58% on the 5 A*-C measure. That's not very good, is it? It's certainly worse than eg Waldegrave, Orleans, Christ's.

Maybe some of them are failing one subject out of the chosen ones and the ones who aren't likely to fail one are doing at least one IGCSE?

There isn't enough data on private schools to make a good comparison, to be fair.

I'm very pleased to see Grey Court has 27% which is nearly twice the national average, given the fact it has had to work hard to regain its reputation after a wobble years ago. That confirms all the anecdotal evidence I've heard.

It's certainly worth looking at what GCSE options most children do and what are on offer at potential schools and I think it does most children who are reasonably bright no harm to do
maths
eng lit
eng lang
2 or 3 sciences
a language
geography and/or history (my daughter who did geog not history now wishes she'd done historya
and then if you've time/inclination music or art or RE

I was also delighted to hear about Greycourt, muminlondon, as that's very likely where my daughter will be going. It does show they are encouraging children to do sensible subjects.

Having said that, I would actively prefer a school that does not insist on humanities for those who have aptitudes that lie elsewhere. I'm pretty keen on the other subjects required.

What seems abundantly clear to me from this debate is that it is the very existence of league tables in the first instance that is at fault here.

My kids are very small and I'm not well informed on matters edu. But it seems to me that almost everyone contributing to this thread would like to see their children getting a so called rounded education, but the potential for them to secure that within the state system is very insecure with an insecure political leadership constantly changing the goal posts and there-by influencing the way schools secure funding, choose to employ teachers and encourage children to make choices that will affect them for the rest of their lives...

Are politicians making a mockery of voters, the teaching profession and us as parents by trying to measure educational institutions by outcomes only?

I have never worried about state schools but I have worried about standards generally, grade inflation, English laziness/timidity or plain insularity regarding language learning - and lack of understanding of a historic narrative, location and how we compare with the rest of the world, or even just Europe.

On language learning - I do actually live overseas at the mo' and my two attend bi-lingual kindergarten. From experience they have learned more at their age than I have in three years, to me it makes sense for my children to learn languages when nature is giving them the cue and the where-with all to do so, it's no strain to them they just think there are two words for everything. In fact in all of the countries I've lived in English language has been a pretty standard requisite from much earlier than we teach any ML in the UK, I concede we are complacent because English remains the dominant global language.

I did however recently do a preso to a group of 16-19yr olds attending a 'pretend' United Nations Conference. They were representatives of International Schools across Europe, they all were fluent in English and at least one sometimes more than one Euro language. They were all pretty posh and priviledged, I didn't think necessarily exceptionally bright although some were. However I expect many of them will turn up in the machinery of powerful International Institutions and it did make me wonder we don't place more value on learning languages.