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.

[Moulesfrites]

Just to give an example of how this has skewed the figures...

My school has 99% of a* - c

76 % a*- c including eng and maths.

But 26% on the ebacc.

We are a mixed comprehensive with a wide range of vocational courses including engineering, hairdressing, health and social care, construction etc. Some would argue that the ebacc is a marker of a middle class catchement with a lot of children being encouraged to take traditional subjects. Whilst this was the route I took, I appreciate that some students are much better suited to a vocational route - surely it is wrong if the school focuses on the league table rather than finding the right courses for each student?

Schools will play the system and put the emphasis on these subjects now. As an English teacher, it makes a refreshing change for the pressure to be on mfl and humanities rather than us and maths...

[fivecandles]

Out of interest where does English fit in this lot given that there are now 3 options (Eng Lang, Eng Lit or English). Does it make a difference if you only do English or English Language without Lit?

[edam]

(Oops actually what I did was called Religious Studies - no idea whether there's a curriculum difference between RE and RS.)

[Caoimhe]

But really shouldn't children at a grammar school be doing the EBacc subjects (which would be 7 or 8 GCSEs depending on whether they did Double or Triple Science) plus a couple of others thus giving them the opportunity to do a tech subject and an arty subject?

I guess I just assumed that a range of subjects like that would be taken by a huge majority at a grammar - not just 62%!!!

[Moulesfrites]

I don't think eng lit is included at all five candles. On mat leave at the minute so a little out of the loop.

[GoldFrakkincenseAndMyrrh]

IB diploma is Alevels standard and can't be compared to the EBacc as that is at MYP level. EBacc is excellent prep for the IB diploma though.

Retrospective application is interesting, and the results are illuminating, but I'm not convinced about the direct comparison and swapping one for the other. I think it would be more valuable to show both EBacc and the equivalents currently used in the future. A clear marker of academic schools vs those who give good value added in more vocational subjects.

People who complain that the EBacc is unrealistic are typically coming from schools with shit timetabling arrangements. If it's truly impossible to do that range of subjects plus a couple of interest options something is wrong with that school's priorities. At 16 children should have a well rounded education with a solid background - plenty of time for specialisation at A-level should they choose.

RE should be rebranded as philosophy and included IMO.

[GrungeBlobPrimpants]

That was my thought at first Caoimhe, but then when some other posters pointed out other subject combinations the penny dropped

Actually one of my dd's friends is taking v academic subjects and a lot of languages, but neither hist or geog as there isn't room on the timetable and she's really into langs (we're at a comp, not a grammar btw)

[mitochondria]

Certainly for science, there is a big difference between GCSE and IGCSE.
Although the GCSE science is changing (again) in response to criticism about how dumbed down it was, so maybe some of this will be addressed.

Will be interesting, I would imagine there will now be more jobs out there for History / Geography / MFL teachers.

[maktaitai]

I have to say this is one of the most entertaining things that has happened in public policy for ages. Really, with the MPs' expenses, Wikileaks cables and now the EBacc, I think this is a whole new type of news story - Geek News - consisting of a huge dump of information including lots of local detail and a larding of shock revelation on top. Absolutely fab.

The EBacc is what was compulsory in my day and I think it makes a lot of sense - it's what I'd like ds to take. If he wants a more vocational route after that, fine.

[noblegiraffe]

Fivecandles - the list of approved GCSEs has in the English section 'The new English Language GCSE Specifications will only count towards the EBacc (as indicated above) if taken with the matching English Literature GCSE. A pass in English Literature is not necessary'

So they need to take Lit for their Lang GCSE to count, it seems.

[Alexandra93]

"Actually one of my dd's friends is taking v academic subjects and a lot of languages, but neither hist or geog as there isn't room on the timetable and she's really into langs (we're at a comp, not a grammar btw)"^
Yes, this is where there's a problem with the English Bacc. system. Out of my 13 GCSEs, not one of them was an easy option. Out of RE, Geog. and Hist., I found RE more interesting and also timetabling constraints led me to choose it. I'm not uneducated in the other two at all. I wouldn't have achieved this English Bacc, despite getting good results in every subject I chose. While I recognize that History and Geography are important, I hate to think that people will be forced into doing them rather than a subject they might have more passion for.
I do think everyone should have to do MFLs though.

"Stupid idea 'English bac', just as the Welsh bac is a laughing stock they should just do the Interntional bac."
The Welsh Bacc. is a ridiculous waste of time and the bane of my life at the moment. We only do it because the school gets money.
It's unfair to compare them though, since it's a completely different concept to this ENglish one.

[Alexandra93]

Sorry. The italics in my post messed up. i tried to put quotes.

[fivecandles]

Do you have a link to that noble please?

I hope schools know about this because it may or should affect how they teach English and which English tot each.

[BelligerentGhoul]

I think it's wrong to say that schools currently failing to have a high percentage of pupils meeting the needs of the Bac must therefore have a 'shit' curriculum. What about pupils who may well be following a perfectly well-rounded curriculum, including a language but who haven't opted for History or Geography because not all schools, or indeed many schools, have required them to do so.

I totally agree that pupils would be far better leaving school with 8 or 9 decent GCSEs in 'good' subjects than with 12 or 13 GCSEs that are all made up of strangeTechnology subjects and BTECs - but there were far fairer and better ways of going about this.

[bulby]

Not read everything but am one of a few people who have taught both igcse and gcse science. To say one is easier than the other is misleading, to start with neither have coursework but both have practical assessment. If you have a child who is willing to work hard then the igcse is neither easier or harder, in fact there are some areas covered that are less rigorous. If a child is c/d borderline though I would suggest igcse would be harder. I would recommend the igcse for more academic interested kids but the gcse for bright less interested kids. Unfortunately igcse has simply become a selling point for private schools, a bit like teachers with a phd, looks good on paper but the reality is far more complex.

[southeastastra]

how come latin is a modern language?

[MrsTweedy]

Alexandra93 may I ask what your 13 GCSEs are in? It seems amazing to me that the school could let you do that many without History or Geography included.

In my day you did nine with maybe a tenth 'for fun' in the sixth form (repeats, am v v old and did O Levels in the 70s)

[ouryve]

I'm quite amused that with 10 O-levels, 4 A-levels and a degree plus postgrad qualifications I don't meet the requirements for the English Baccalaureate. I agree with the comment that History/Geography shouldn't be one of the requirements (that's the bit I'm lacking :o) but I do think that if a humanity is required, then the scope should be broader and include subjects like RE, Social studies and Economics.

I was annoyed by -stingy's- Michael Gove's comments on TV, earlier, when he said that it was designed to counteract the prevailing attitude that these subjects were elitist and not for the poor. Funny that I worked in inner city schools with these "poor" children and most were taught a curriculum including most of these subjects. He seems to have little regard for the fact that there are many children for whom getting these 6 A*-Cs is nigh on impossible, though and plenty more for who it's just downright irrelevant. HE does these children no service by placing no value on the more vocational courses which have become available for them over the past decade or so. I know I don't give a hoot if my plumber has GCSE history (and to be honest, I don't care if my GP doesn't have it, either).

[noblegiraffe]

Fivecandles, you need to go here and download the excel spreadsheet 'List of qualifications that count in the Ebacc'. The note about English Lit is in the English tab.

It took me ages to find, too, had to follow a list of instructions which were on an separately published addendum to the White Paper. It's like they don't want people to know what actually counts!

[fivecandles]

Thanks, noble. But it says although they need to take Eng Lang will only count if taken with Eng Lit they don't need to pass it. How would they know then if they didn't take Eng Lit at all? It's very confusing.

[Alexandra93]

MrsTweedy - I have two GCSEs more than most people because I go to a Welsh-medium school. I have two As in Welsh Language and Welsh Literature. Before now people have said these don't count because "you speak Welsh anyway", but they were honestly really difficult. For Literature the knowledge of set texts we required was far superior to what I needed to learn for Eng. Lit., and you needed 95% for an A!
My others are English, Literature, French, German, Maths, Biology, Chemistry, Physics, Religious Education, Business Studies(which I admit is a bit 'softer'), Art.

I suppose ten subjects is the norm.
I'd bet that in "your day" the O-Levels were a lot more difficult than the ones we get. While I don't think exams have been dumbed down as much as the media and some older people say, they're certainly not as challenging as they would've been thirty years ago.

[noblegiraffe]

I guess it would show up on the exam entries. I expect that they don't really care about Lit, but they don't want kids to count as academic if they take Media instead.

[QueenCrystal]

I agree that really students should study these subjects but being introduced retrospectively is unfair because up until now, schools have been encouraged to offer a wider range of subjects and now they are being judged on the basis of something different.

Also some IGCSEs count and others don't eg IGCSE French counts in the system but not IGCSE German ??? And no Edexcel IGCSEs count whereas some do for other examination boards. This explains why some v successful independent schools have not scored as high as expected.

So maybe it is a good idea and will be helpful for parents in the future, sounds like another botched up rush job to me - typical Gove!

[WillowFae]

Well I'm concerned about my future now. I'm an RS teacher and academies are already excluded from having to do it as a compulsory subject and many other heads are finding ways to get around it. :(

Gove says that it isn't included in the Bacc as it is already compulsory. He doesn't know what is really going on in schools.

It just doesn't make sense (and I would be saying this even if I wasn't an RS teacher). It's a humanities subject. It always has been and always will be. Look on any university prospectus and they list it in their humanities faculty.

It is NOT an easy GCSE (no more than most of them are anyway). The skills are difficult and varied. Also as an A Level subject it is highly respected by universities (Cambridge list it as one they accept). Lack of take up at GCSE will have a knock on effect on take up at A Level.

I know some people don't rate it as a subject, and there are some bad teachers out there who make it seem like a doss. My students work incredibly hard in lessons and get lots out of it. It gives them a world view and understanding that they don't get elsewhere. The philosophy we do is very popular and give students the chance to ask the questions they don't get to in other lessons, and the chance to express themselves. My students tell me that it is a safe environment and they don't feel embarrassed talking about their beliefs and ideas (whatever they may be).