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.

I have great respect for computing as an intellectual subject. I have no respect for the way it is taught at GCSE.

Similar, I think theology is of tremendous social value, even if considered purely on literary merit. The RE GCSE, on the other hand, is a nonsense.

Of course, even the core GCSEs in maths, English, and the sciences, have been dumbed down beyond all recognition - but they at still carry that tiniest shred of academic respectability, if only just.

ds(17) did ict and learnt programming (basic)

What do you know about the way ICT is taught at GCSE?

In any case there is no way you can argue that Latin is more useful in the modern world. That's ridiculous. It's like saying chariot racing is more useful than learning to drive a car!

I think it is because there is no substance to the qualification.

A silly, but still instructive first test might be: look at the record of the people who take Latin and not ICT, and try to guess what proportion would do well at ICT. Now reverse the experiment.

But we are talking about GCSEs. What you think about the GCSE is irrelevant here. The issue is what makes Gove think some GCSEs are more important than others. They're all GCSEs and no amount of them in any subject will get you very far without A Levels, university etc or work experience.

I am sorry LFN, while you may be right that there are too many poor teachers in schools I do not think a GCSE in RE is nonsense if taught well and a challenging specification is chosen.

I have been involved in recruiting (albeit graduates from the top of the Russell Group, and internationally comparable institutions) for a long time.

The problem is perhaps partly one of perception, but there is at least some substance behind that perception.

Of course Latin isn't directly employable. On the other hand, it is a genuinely difficult subject - probably much harder than modern foreign languages because of the dearth of populist learning material. The study of difficult and esoteric subjects for their own sake is far better evidence of skills which might translate to the workplace than the GCSE ICT syllabus.

What do you mean by 'substance'? For someone with an EBacc your ability to constrcut an argument is sadly lacking.

Looks like quite a lot of substance here to me store.aqa.org.uk/qual/pdf/AQA-3521-W-SP-11.PDF And very clearly skills that require both intelligence to master and are clearly applicable to the workplace.

I don't think it is about saying that some GCSEs are more important than others but that some GSCEs are more suited to certain students.

And you're right your 'test' is silly. There's no reason to believe that someone doing ICT couldn't do Latin and vice-versa. Why shouldn't students do both?

I actually don't think an EBAcc is a sign of great intellectual depth. We are suggesting that all of our students who could be considered average and above should sit the EBacc qualifications.

LFN, therefore, could be distinctly average.

Longfinger, the Academies close to me are not how you described. One bumps.its results up with DIDA, media studies etc. The other is run by an evangelic Christian group who teach creations in science and do assemblies on how homosexuality is evil.

I agree that they could do both. I don't think there is a problem in having a lighter option. But if a very bright student sat at my desk and asked me to suggest options I would not leap to ICT.

'but there is at least some substance behind that perception.'

I'm still trying to understand what you mean by 'substance'. It sounds to me like you are talking entirely about 'perception'. Perception and prejudice. It saddens me that on such grounds alone do people continue to make judgements about whether to employ someone or not.

Our local academies have not raised standards either. They are very good at massaging their figures and I hope the EBacc puts an end to that.

I think that ICT syllabus is mindlessly mundane - and around 70% of it is already known in practice, if not in theory, to the average 10 year old.

Out of interest LFN which ICT syllabus do you know the specification for?

I agree about key stage 3 ICT having taught it, my 12 year old boy could do most of it a few years ago and my daughter who is at primary school would probably breeze through it as well.

The one I am referring to is the one linked to by fivecandles.

I understand why you might want students to do an MFL. I don't particularly object to encouraging students to choose 1 MFL, 1 science, English and Maths. I don't think this is the sort of change that can be brought in over night. It should be gradual starting with recruiting more language teachers and teaching MFL in primary school better. I also think students should be allowed to pick from the rest. With Eng, Maths, 1 MFL and a science they will learn a range of skills. There's no reason to value any of the other subjects over another. If a student wants to drama rather than history what's the problem? If a student wants to do RE ove geography likewise. And likewise with ICT over history. Not one of those subjects is inherently better than any other.

fivecandles Perhaps I have over-concentrated on the very best graduates in my argument, when I should be talking more about employability prospects for school-leavers who do not go on to university.

Even in that case, though, I don't think an ICT GCSE will be of any use whatsoever to an employer. Imagine a small regional chain of shops (around 5 shops) who wants someone to manage their computer systems. Will the boss of this company really put any weight whatsoever on an ICT GCSE?

You're just being silly long. One of the elecments of the ICT Spec is web design. Now that's not for me but given what we're doing right now it amazes me that you can say it is 'mindlessly mundane'.

As with anything else. YOu can teach and learn the basics and it's up to the students what they do with it.

YOu could say that writing stories is mindlessly mundane and any 10 year old can do it. But what about Dickens?

Actually I more or less agree with you about the fifth GCSE - I don't think history/geography are particularly essential, though I am sorely disappointed that today's school leavers have such a woeful understanding of our glorious tradition and heritage.

On the narrow subject of the employability of Latin versus ICT GCSE, however, I will not yield!

Any sensible employer will take a range of things into account including GCSEs (what they're in and what grades).

If I were going to employ someone who wanted to manage computer systems certainly I'd rather have someone with GCSE ICT than not if I was going to employ a school leaver. Who wouldn't?

I would need to double check this, but I think that state secondary schools are still required to teach ICT and RE in Key Stage 4. This has been the case for a number of years. Some schools choose to teach both through different subjects and pupils don't necessarily take exams. For example, some schools teach ICT across the curriculum, so it's included in maths, science and humanities. Others teach RE through PSHE or integrated humanities. Many schools insist that their pupils take short course GCSEs in RE and ICT to encourage pupils to take them seriously. My ds has opted for Eng Lang, Eng Lit, History, Geography, Latin, German, Maths, Physics, Biology and Chemistry for GCSE. He will also take short course GCSEs in ICT and RE, which are taught as Life Skills and are compulsory. (This is a state comp.) My dd got an A* in short course ICT, even though she spent most of the lessons emailing her friends or browsing fashion sites!

I would never advise a bright pupil to opt for a full course GCSE in ICT, business studies or law. They might seem the logical choice for anybody who wants to go into business, but they're a bit of a con. Oxbridge and other RG unis don't accept Law A level (even for Law). Anybody who wants to do Computing at uni would be better to do Further Maths. A humanity, followed by Economics A level would be a better choice for somebody who wanted to study Economics.

fivecandles aren't you a teacher?