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.

Stupid idea 'English bac', just as the Welsh bac is a laughing stock they should just do the Interntional bac.

In my experience the int bac is a better qualification that going the Alevel route

It's just not possible to run Alevels and the int bac side by side. It's too much for teachers to cope with. If your school is doing both you should be worried

*than

Abgirl--no modules.

My son's indy school:

Compulsory:
Maths
Eng Lang
Eng Lit
Bio
Chem
Phys
MFL

and a choice of three from:
Latin
Greek
RS
Geog
History
Additional Maths
Another MFL

My 15 year old is doing Latin, History and RS and his older brother did History, RS and additional maths as their free choces, so they would make the grade but some of their friends do, for example, latin, greek and RS or Russian as extra subjects and they would fall short. But they're hardly slackers.

they have to publish english bac results this year, so that next year, when everyone ensures maximum uptake of mfl/humanities, the eng bac results skyrocket.

a lot of these results are misleading - ie my school is selective, we normally get 100% a*-c for gcses including english + maths, but have in the high 60s for the eng bac - not because our students failed history or humanities or mfl, just that it may not have been chosen as an option by more than that percent iyswim

these figures will be more meaningful when the cohort who choose options this year for a start in sept 2011 receive their results

To me, the shocking result was Kent.
Lots of excellent Grammar school results but all the secondary moderns were nowhere.
Grammar schools are great for those who get in but turn the other schools into dumping grounds.
At least here in Hampshire we have comps so every child has access to academic subjects and high level teaching.

Also fascinating to compare the general 5 with the academic 5 - really highlights which schools have padded their results.

And ANY comp that gets over 50% in the Bacc should be really proud of itself.

this Guardian article implies IGCSE in science is harder than GCSE. But the writer may not be representative.

I believe that Maths IGSCE does calculus and differentiation, which many GCSE syllabuses don't.

I think Eng/Maths/science and a MFL are imperative, but the geography or history requirement seems a little prescriptive, no?

I think I'd be perfectly happy if DC took

Eng/Eng lit/maths/science x 3/ MFL/ Latin/ Music.

Or how about

Eng/Eng lit/maths/ science x2/ MFL x2/ RE/ art.

The proposal is sound, just a little narrow, methinks.

sassythefirst "This is really interesting to me. The (very comprehensive) school I teach at has been seriously under the cosh from the LEA for years because our exam grades were not in line with the County average. We do not offer NVQs or other qualifications worth 4 GCSEs; just a fairly traditional well-rounded curriculum with a Route to Work option for the least academic. Under this marker, we have suddenly shot up to in the top 5 or 6 in the LEA. A huge relief really."

Well done to your school for sticking to your guns and actually educating the kids, not falling into the trap of teaching to the league table.
You must feel so vindicated.

It's not a massively surprising result because many very able pupils have not done a modern language.

So you could be an A* type of pupil and still not get the English Bac.

It's a bit like the old rules on University Matriculation; you had to have at least a C in Math, English and a modern language.

I was quite shocked at some of the grammars in the neighboroughing borough getting as low as 62% in the EBacc - what subjects are these children doing? Surely a grammar school is meant to be providing an academic education?

purits - we have a v happy headteacher today!

Caoimhe - they probably do, but the exact combination of subjects taken don't come into the new requirements.
E.g. Eng, Maths, triple Science - all OK. But Latin - not the MFL needed - and RE or Geology as the Humanities.

all it means is that likely 62% of their students took both mfl and one of the humanities
it may be also have a specialism, ie technology or performing arts such that the expectation is that all students must take these subjects as well

this would result in students then having to choose between one of the humanities and a mfl subject

One things for sure...we're gonna need a hell of a lot more history and geography teachers

Whilst, in theory, it may be a good idea to insist that every school gives every child the chance to take these subjects and indeed the fact that not all schools have insisted on an MFL GCSE in the past is scandalous, to publish these figures when schools haven't had chance to adapt their curriculum etc is quite frankly ridiculous and means that it provides no useful information whatsoever to parents looking to consider the impact that individual schools have on progress.

Why they didn't decide to bring it in as guidance for heads developing the school's curriculum, with a view to publishing it in two year's time, I don't know - unless they are trying to create more scapegoats out of schools that have maybe gone too far towards BTEC etc in an attempt to meet National Challenge Floor Targets.

Grossly unfair.

Ah - I thought the language requirement was classical or modern!!!

I'm right - it's not just MFL.

From the DoE website:
"?under the new English Baccalaureate measure, 15.6 per cent of pupils in England achieve an A* to C GCSE (or iGCSE) in English, mathematics, sciences, a modern or ancient language and history or geography."

Yeah you are right. Doesn't exclude the point about humanities though.

StewieGriffinsMum - on RE, I think that the point is that RE is useless for international comparisons (the teaching of religion is not part of the school curriculum in a lot of countries) whereas mother-tongue (English), mathematics, a science, a foreign language and history/geography all feature as basic subjects all over the world.

You are right sorry. I meant that some schools haven't insisted on ANY language for years EVEN an MFL.

Oh, we are pretty near the bottom. But then we always will be I think.

I don't object to the idea in principle, in fact I think it's a good idea for more able children. We are offering a reduced choice of subjects to our most able this year to fit the EBacc. It isn't right for every student, and we will certainly continue with vocational qualifications with those for whom it is more appropriate.

I object to the results being published now, and it being reported as children "failing to achieve" the EBacc, when in fact what they didn't do was choose the desired subjects three years ago, before we knew anything about the EBacc.

As this is the time that Year 9's choose their options I imagine that there will be chaos.

God, I'd hate to be the person responsible for timetabling.

Looking at the figs for some selective schools in a neighbouring LA, I assume those with c. 90% score probably make it compulsory to take either hist or geog.

Otherwise the 60-80% scores in highly academic independents and grammars can be explained by choices highlighted by other posters - choosing eg more MFLs, music or other subjects of equal academic stature

I didn't do O or A levels because I was educated in a European School, and did the European Baccalaureate as a school leaving exam at 18. That included mother-tongue (English), maths, history, geography, French, Italian, Latin, Philosophy, Biology, History of Art, Sport... oh, and I did German and Chemistry up until the final year, and Physics until the penultimate year.

It has all stood me in good stead! I am a great believer in a rounded education.

Agree it's partly a cynical stunt to publish results now applying to students who chose options before this array of subjects was a measure of success. Of course the figures will look better by the time of the next election when schools have adjusted...

But equally it is a good thing if it brings language teaching back into those schools that have pretty much abandoned it. AND gets more children doing history and/or geography which are important subjects for understanding the world in which they live.

Btw, don't knock RE - no idea what the syllabus is today but my O-level was rigorous textual analysis of the synoptic gospels - basically Eng Lit under another name but combined with history, geography and philosophy thrown in. (Comes in v. useful when in art galleries looking at pre-20th Century paintings and sculpture.)