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'm a MFL teacher and welcome the inclusion of a language in this initiative. Too many bright kids have been allowed to drop languages before GCSE. However, I would be surprised if all schools make a MFL compulsory, because it would be totally unrealistic to expect pupils who aren't going to achieve Cs in Maths and English to take a MFL if they're really struggling. Depending on the intake, I expect to see schools making a MFL compulsory for those with a realistic chance of achieving the EB.

I agree with other posters about Geography and History, as I think it puts too many constraints on choices and undervalues creative options. I would like to see English, Maths, Science and MFL as components in the EB with a choice of other subjects, such as Geography, History, RE, Music and Art.

I would also like to see a parallel vocational bacc, so that less academic pupils could be accredited. However, they should be reported separately, so that parents and pupils know what the results mean.

Anyway, I must sleep - goodnight all

You could say that about good writers too. Perhaps we should stop teaching writing then. Or anything really.

Actually, I'd quite like to learn about web design.

GCSEs are only ever going to be the 1st step towards somehtign else eitehr academic or work.

YOu're very naive if you think doing GCSEs alone is going to make you a millionaire or a Nobel scientist or novelsit.

But universities do have soft option a levels :

Accounting
Art and design
Business studies
Communication studies
Dance
Design and technology
Drama and theatre studies
Film studies
Health and social care
Home economics
Information and Communication Technology
Leisure studies
Media studies
Music technology
Performance studies
Performing arts
Photography
Physical education
Sports studies
Travel and tourism

By choosing these subjects at GCSE at the expense of other subjects it may make A Level study in more traditional subjects difficult which could have an impact on degree study.

I agree daphne although as I said making langauges compulsory overnight fro 13 year olds is going to be counterproductive.

I think it's useful for kids to do at least 1 creative GCSE too. It'll be the only chance they get probably to do art or drama or music or HOme Ec. Nothing wrong with those things if its just one optin.

Nobody is making the EBacc compulsory. Isn't the whole idea to differentiate those pupils who are capable of achieving results across a wide range of subjects, those who can do languages and Hist/Geog and etc etc?

I think it is a good idea if it encourages more pupils to keep their options open for longer. Children shouldn't specialise too early.

BTW. Latin is hard. ICT is easy. Everybody knows this. Don't try to pretend that all GCSEs have equivalence. This is the sort of rubbish that bad teachers have been feeding unsuspecting pupils. Keeps teachers league tables up but can wreck the children's academic chances.

FC, I have mixed feelings about making creative/practical GCSEs compulsory. Personally, I think pupils should have less choice than now at GCSE, especially as they won't be allowed to leave education until 18. I think there's plenty of time for specialism at post-16 level and they should have a solid core curriculum until then.

My dd did English Lang, English Lit, History, French, Maths, Further Maths, Physics, Biology, Chemistry, Music, Textiles, ICT (short course) and RE (short course) for GCSE. This suited her fine, although she possibly wouldn't have done Textiles if a technology hadn't been compulsory. However, my ds is very academic and has ten left hands (he's possibly slightly dyspraxic), so a technology or creative option would be a complete waste of time for him. He plays saxophone for fun, but he doesn't have the slightest interest in doing Music GCSE. I'm very relieved that his school is no longer a technology college, so he won't have to do a technology or creative GCSE.

Moldywarp - his A level RS didn't count for what? What subject was he wanting to study?

RS A Level is considered by universities (including Cambridge) to be a good option at A Level. Here is the list for Trinity College, Cambridge

Both RS and Philosophy are considered suitable A Levels.

Now obviously if he wanted to study something like medicine that had specific requirements that didn't involve RS then that is fair enough. But to just say that it didn't count implies that it was considered worthless, which in general terms is wrong.

FC, I agree to an extent about MFL, but something has to be done to halt the exodus. Part of the problem is going to be the proper training of MFL teachers. This was the problem when MFLs were made compulsory in the 1990s. Schools were desperate for teachers, so took more or less anybody who had a smattering of a language, which meant pupils weren't taught well, leading to lack of motivation - and a downward spiral. I could go on about the changes which need to be made to the GCSE MFL syllabi and teaching methodology, but this probably isn't the place (and anyway, I've got to go to bed).

No purits, no one is making the EBacc compulsory, but like it or not schools are being judged on it. As a result they will push students towards those subjects (and indeed already seem to have started doing so).

I hope they do, Willow- No way should bright children be encouraged into Leisure and Tourism GNVQ as they are at the moment (I could quote many examples where schools have done this as it's the easy option for the the school, nor should anyone kid themselves that Leisure and Tourism (to quote a personal bugbear) is anything like equivalent to learning foreign languages, science and humanities. If this does anything I hope it encourages average and bright children from any type of home to aim higher.

From what I have read the requirement is to do one Humanities (plus Eng, Maths, Science, MFL) - and the Humanities listed exclude RE/RS (which many schools opt to do the Philosophy and Ethics syllabus which is not about religions) but includes Music as a Humanity. I am confused!!

If a company wanted someone to build a website, I doubt they would employ anyone based on their GCSE results. They most important skill in website design is the ability to design, and so the most useful qualifications would be Art or Graphics. The IT element of it can be picked up very quickly. It is the design skills that take a long time to learn.

The Philosophy and Ethics courses do study religious beliefs and practices. I have not seen an inclusion of music.

I am sure you have evidence but in years of guiding students in their choices I have never seen a bright student pushed towards a GNVQ in leisure and tourism.

To whoever was moaning about French further down it's probably a case of all the staff being French teachers at one point so the school chose that as their main language, didn't see the point in offering options when compulsory MFL GCSE was dropped, made all the Spanish and German teachers redundant and then you're left with French.

I wonder sometimes why RE and IT were compulsory short courses. I'd have kept a compulsory MFL short course, even possibly at ab initio level.

Daphnedill - I agree there need to be serious changes. The current GCSE is terribly set out.

Okay, I did a short course in ICT at GCSE last year. Friends of mine did the whole course as well.
What we were taught would be no where near good enough to 'manage a computer system' or do any such job without further knowledge, for example in programming languages. We had to do a project where we planned a trip to a foreign county. In the first part, lot of it involved 'learning how to use clipart', 'changing fonts', and other rubbish that everyone these days can do when they're about ten. We then did a bit of MS Excel, which I can't say was very challenging. And the last unit was using MS Access. That was useful in itself, but the depth we learnt it in would not be enough to actually manage a database.
I got 40/40 in my coursework with little effort, just revised the night before, and got an A*. I don't think it would have much relevance in the real world because you'd need to relearn and learn a lot of stuff to do any ICT job.
Someone doing Latin spent the two years doing an interesting, intellectually stimulating course. If the trend in my school is widespread, then someone doing ICT spent the two years doing a bit of coursework and then messing around on Google Maps and Copter Game.

IF the ICT skills taught were more relevant, I would have more faith in it.

That sounds like the CLAIT course I did in years 7,8 & 9 over 10 years ago in our computer skills lessons (half an hour a week). I wonder if I should start putting that on my CV in the spirit of all qualifications being worth something.

Honestly what reasonably intelligent person wouldn't be able to achieve that? And why does it merit a certificate? Not that I wish to belittle your achievement, Alexandra, as an A* is something to be proud of but I get the impression you weren't too enthused by the course either.

I don't know, maybe kids should be allowed to specialise at 14 if that's what they really are interested in? If they're into humanities they could do History and Geography, if they're into arts the Art and some other arty subject.

Why try to force a child into doing a subject they are not interested in?

I had to fight at school because I was into science and hated arts. I wanted to do three sciences, geography and german. I didn't want to do art, home-ec, textiles and whatever else was in that option. In the end I had to go to another school to do CDT which was midly acceptable because it involved electronics and mechanics. But I couldn't do German. I ended up getting E in CDT and passing german the next year at college.

Then when my brohter took his, he was into art and wanted to do music and drama, but not allowed to do two arts

There is always going to be a subject someone doesn't want to do but has to (for me it was science).

Surely that is the purpose of having a well-rounded education? That you end up with some knowledge of everything even if it means -shock horror- having to do something you don't want to?

But why study a subject you have no interest whatsoever?

Why the need for well-rounded education?

Even today I have no interest in the arts. I tried to expand myself by studying social sciences with the OU but found it boring and am back to maths/science again.

And my brother, he went on to a theatre and then a DJ.

I agree on the point of this that some schools put kids in for 'easy' subjects. But a combination of biology, chemistry, physics etc isn't 'easy'

I can't see that not having the EnglishBac will have any impact on children getting in to university.

Universities are more interested in the individual GCSE results.

Who would a university take on?
Someone with As in their GSCEs whatever the subject (assuming a good cross-section including maths and english) or someone who has only got Cs in the English Bac subjects?

Our school insisted on these English Bac subjects but History or Geog could be exchanged for RE.

This English Bac will probably only be used to judge schools and will fizzle out for individuals in the same way the National Record of Achievement did.

Actually, anxious parents place too much anxiety on the exact subjects taken. Oxbridge justs like clever, thinking students who are self-motivated and inquiring. Obviously, if you want to study maths you would need maths A-levels but for many of the arts subjects the combination is less critical.

For example, Cambridge offers Anglo-Saxon and Norse but who has ever done an A-level in those subjects?

bad idea - don't see the logic in putting history (surely a totally useless subject) ahead of equally challenging academic subjects that are much more relevant to the modern world - economics, businss studies, psychology

Dreamingofsun - as a history graduate, I'd have to disagree with you there . History gives you vital training in critical thinking, and about how we got to the place we're in now. The whole point about the English Bacc subjects is that they should be as broad as possible - I agree with this, it's mad to shut down options for yourself at 14.

However, thinking about it overnight, I think the main thing that this highlights, is that league tables have done a disservice to schools rather than the opposite.

dreaming - at GCSE level, those subjects are not considered to have sufficient rigour.

Consequently many good universities will not alook kindly upon them. Very able students are caught out by this every year.