English Bac

[eatyourveg]

I see the weekend papers are full of the "only 1 in 6 children pass the English Bacc" the new benchmark that has been brought in retrospectively this year.

Is it, or is it not a qualification. Worthless and just for the purposes of league tables or something that can be put on a CV to show you are one of the 1 in 6? If the latter is the case, does it mean last years cohort of GCSE students should expect some sort of certificate in the post?

I don't think its a qualification so just for the purposes of league tables and worthless.

It's what most decent employers and universities have looked for since the 1940s and parents in the know have ensured their children did. My parents had those subjects and the other core traditinoal ones. I did. My children have. It's amazing it's been a secret that you might look good if you have
maths
english lit
english lang
a language or two
2 or 3 sciences
geogrphay or history or even better both

As we as well as few fun extras

The fact state school parents seem to haev been in blissful ignorance of what look like good GCSEs absolutely astounds me. No wonder their chidlren don't tend to do very well

What Xenia said, but I think state school are now going to have to pull their socks up with languages. Hopefully from nursery/reception age.

My DD's both would have got the English Bacc and DS will - all from a state school. A bit of a sweeping statement Xenia.

I'm a State School Parent AND a State School teacher and I'm slightly astounded to read such a sweeping statement too.

At the State School where I teach we have said every year 'But surely they're cooking the books to count 5 A*s to C where this includes PE, Tech etc'.

Don't get me wrong - a GCSE is a GCSE and I think they need to be right for the child.

The English Bac will force a clearer picture of a school's results I suppose. And every child should be taught these subjects - but there is no getting away from the fact that it just does not suit all children equally. And they deserve to be catered for.

DD is year 10 expected to get 11 A to C grades but no bacc cause she is not doing history or geog the school options did not allow it. She is doing physics chemistry,biology and spanish as well as RE and a couple of English CGSE It seems a bit unfair that this was introduced after she started CGSE work but what can she do?If she does history with AS levels will this count?

If the only one missed is geog/history that is not the end of the world but since the 1940s most decently educated reasonably bright children in the UK have done one of those and the better private schools and state grammars do.

I suppose I assumed say 50% of children in state schools weren't very bright, say, at a guess and might do metal work and acting GCSEs etc but surely the other half at least could manage decent GCSEs even if they just got Cs because their IQ was only just above the average of 100.

if it makes sure schools have to timetable things so chidlren can do the core traditional sub jects that's great news. It also means parents can work out which schools are those for the low IQ type of children and which can offer a range of good GCSEs and choose accordingly.

Xenia, you are absolutely priceless with all your knowledge of 'since the 1940s'and 'low IQ type of children'. However, did you know that in the 1950's less than 10% of children left school with 5 or more O levels?

True. But I do know what were the subjects in the School Certificate and they were just about the ones I quote in the 1940s. YOu had to pass them all to get the school cert and if you failed even one you had to do the entire last year of school again.

So is it because the children of the richhave higher IQs or just that teachers in our private schools are much better than state that poor children do such poor GCSEs on the whole? I think it's also partly low expectations.

Yes, you had to pass all the subjects to get School Certificate, but obviously only a very small percentage of school leavers left with School Certificate. Certainly far less than the percentage who have achieved this so called English Bacc. More could have achieved this but simply chose a different, not necessariy worse, set of options. It really is just a matter of chance that the schools who achieved the greatest percentage of English Bacc passes happened to have those particular options as compulsary subjects 2 years ago.

Do the children of the rich have higher IQs? Well I suppose the children of those who have used their brains to be successful do. But I am not sure how strong the correlation between IQ and GCSE results actually. Pupils have to do the work whatever their IQ.

Are teachers better at private schools? Who knows! We do know that many private schools select on ability. They also have pupils whose parents think education is important so will encourage regular attendance and commitment to work.

We have lots of different exams for chidlren of different abilities. Some comprehensives and indeed private school with mixed IQ intake will do those. There is nothing however wrong in parents knowing that most children at this school get exams in subjects which suit those with low IQs and 100% of chidlren in this other school get exams in the traditional subjects. It is the information parents need. Not parents like I am because we've always known your child needs the 8 school cert GCSEs or similar to get on i many careers but parents who were not aware of that and though GCSE joinery was as "good" in terms of Oxbridge entrance or whatever as GCSE maths.

The parent of a child doing Joinery knows full well that their child wants to be getting on and 'doing' rather than studying academic subjects. Of course there will be more children like this in state schools - because we are comprehensive; we include everyone and do our best for them.

I don't think the rich necessarily have children with higher IQs. I presume they will be driven by the 'good' job meaning a high income, so they are pushed in the academic areas to succeed. Our children are more varied than that. I teach English - not so they can be well read in the Classics, but so that they can make sense of the world around them, via poetry, prose and the written word.

And I'm an ace teacher too btw :)

Xenia, FYI - GCSEs in "metal work", "acting" and "joinery" don't exist.

May I suggest you become slightly more informed before you start making such bizarre (and frankly bollocks) statements about 50% of state school children being thick?

Thanks.

Having looked at what my local schools results are, though, the girls grammar school achieves 98% grades A-C, but only 51% EB, and the local Independant also gets 98% A-C at GCSE, but only 51% achieved the EB. Both are selective schools, so I'm thinking a non selective state school with 27% of pupils achieving the EB must be doing quite a good job.

That's definitely our line PigTail - schools haven't apparently had to limit themselves to the Bac subjects when declaring their 5 a* to cs. Once our Head started filtering through this data it was quite reassuring.

Eviltwin - thanks for that. :)

As this EBAC was introduced 2 years after pupils had actually chosen their options, it is just a matter of chance that the schools achieving some of the highest percentages at EBAC are doing so. Some selective schools, with points scores over 600, have less than 70% achieving EBAC, which suggests pupils chose other academic subjects in preference to history or geography.

I do take your point though PigTail.

Xenia, I really wouldn't worry about other parents. Schools will often provide a much more detailed breakdown of results than those shown in league tables. They will also become aware of their child's strengths and weeknesses as they progress through secondary schools and pupils will be advised about their options in relation to this.

I doubt if a child capable of Oxbridge entrance (very few indeed) or their parents would be too dim to choose appropriate subjects. And if they have enough academic subjects, they might well choose woodwork as an extra, as a welcome break from the more cerebral stuff.

Xenia, the state has a duty to educate all our children. Some arrive in the school system without English as their first language, some have special needs (across a huge spectrum, from mild dyslexia to Severe Learning Difficulties), some are the children of drug addicts, some are the children of dual income parents who work long hours and aren't necessarily around to test their children on their Latin verbs.

The curriculum changes and exams are validated by the state.

Then the regime may change and whichever government takes power will find a way of discrediting the previous government.

That is what the Eng Bacc is all about.

I don't mind if my hairdresser can't order a decent wine in the Loire Valley. But I do like her or him to have good social skills (perhaps partially learnt in the GCSE acting, good creativity (perhaps honed in GCSE Art and Design), enough Maths to get by (probably fulfilled in about Year 9) and whatever other subjects she might have done for the love of learning (perhaps s/he installs all her shelves herself - GCSE joinery does have its uses after all). She might also have an A* in GCSE Business Sudies - no wonder her local salon is thriving. A shame some people would right her off as being thick. She's a bit of a hero to me.

Studies - sorry I wasn't allowed to take typing at school

Agree NonnoMum!

Yes, no one is saying you cannot continue with mickey mouse GCSes, just that parents have the information to know which places churn out chidlren with those qualifications adn which don't.

They are NOT mickey mouse. They are alternative and appropriate to the child and the future that child wants to pursue - as articulately explored by NonnoMum above.

How insulting.

Xenia - please go and actually find out about some stuff before sounding off. You have demonstrated that whatever your educational attainment, you are an ignorant fool.

The English Bac is an artificial measure implemented as other posters have stated two years after children started their GCSEs and similar qualifications. Many of those children may have taken GCSEs in subjects such as ICT, statistics and Religious Studies. Or they may have 'specialised' in doing three sciences at the expense of a language or a humanity, as Chrissy said. This doesn't make the schools, the children or the parents 'not very bright'. Or Universities less inclined to recruit students who have chosen this route.

You are of course right that about 50% of children are below average (I can recommend a statistics course if you have problems coming to grips with that). And that children in selective and independent schools do better in formal educational attainment measures. But this has damn little to do with IQ. And a lot to do with the investment in teacher to student ratios, school environment, expectations and the demands of parents who are paying dearly for the privilege. Oh and of course overall achievement is most closely correlated to parental involvement. I'd much rather see parents who really knew, understood and communicated with their child and their teachers and came up with a selection of subjects which will best support their ambitions and abilities. Than an ignorant fool who would shove all kids through some bloody stupid sheep dip pseudo-qualification to make some cheap political point. But what do I know - I only work in an awarding body that writes the GCSEs.

Oh and reference 'mickey mouse' GCSEs - all GCSEs have to conform to a certain standard. These are available on the Ofqual website. They require that the subject covers a certain scope and places a certain degree of 'cognitive load' on the student and a number of guided learning hours on the teacher. Grading across subjects is reviewed to ensure that an A in one subject isn't out of kilter with others. Just because you don't value a subject doesn't make it pointless. I don't understand astronomy but I think it's quite important other people do.

GruffaloMama - brilliantly put!

If children do better in private schools where they mostly do the 8 core subjects etc then that means children at state schools could though. You can't have it both ways. So therefore it would be good for the Government say these aren't useless thick things who can do only touristm GCSE. They shoudl have a broad education fot eh 1940s traditional subjects employers adn good universities demand. In other words it could pull up expectations. You used to have to have a language to go to university and most parents realise doing a GCSE ni a language even if it's your worst subject is a good plan as is a knowledge of English history or whatever.