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?

Here is an extract of an article from yesterday's Sunday Times. It is about a comprehensive school in Hackney. This school does do exceptionally well, and I do wish we had comprehensives like this in my area (33% Ebac, 82% GCSE incl maths and English, 41% free school meals).

Ten Cambridge places for East End academy

Ten sixth-formers at a city academy in one of the poorest parts of Britain have won places at Cambridge University, putting it on a par with some of the most famous public schools in the country.

The performance of pupils at Mossbourne academy in Hackney, east London, is comparable with those at Fettes College in Edinburgh, where Tony Blair studied, and Haileybury in Hertfordshire, whose old boys include Clement Attlee.

Mossbourne, which opened in 2004, was one of the first academies created under Labour?s programme designed to turn around sink schools by freeing them from council control. There are now 407 in England, accounting for more than one in 10 secondary schools.

The academy, designed by Lord Rogers, has been hailed by politicians of all parties. Tony Blair saw it as a pioneer of the academies movement, while David Cameron and Michael Gove, the education secretary, argue it shows how education that concentrates on discipline and core academic subjects can bring structure to the lives of pupils from poor or tough backgrounds, giving them the same opportunity to succeed as those in more prosperous areas.

Hello Danebury/Poppy!
Nice to see you - and you talk much sense!

In answer to the OP specifically, I cannot see it being a qualification in its own right, ie., can't imagine anyone saying 'what did you get in your E.bacc?' - as I see it, it's for the league tables primarily (and in order to be able to show 'improvement' in 5 years time) - because the kids who were going to take those subjects probably always would have, if they were going down a trad academic route - so they will care about their results the same amount as they would have before, and probably frame it in terms of 'I got As in Maths, English.....' rather than 'I got a distinction in my E.bacc', iyswim!

I'm not sure how it's going to work, but it seems to me to be a good idea to make it more explicit that the traditional academic subjects are still the ones most valued by the universities. To me that's obvious (I work in universities, I know a lot about the system) but I'm often surprised how it's not so obvious to everyone. I would have been pushing hard for my dc those English bac subjects anyway, if they were likely to want to go to university (they are all quite young still so it's a bit early to say).

What she said ^^

It's just a way at grouping results is all. Employees and universities, I am sure, will only be interested in the individual grades. And depending on what course they're applying for - the relevant subjects!

It's all cobblers really. Just another way of schools to be able to cook the books and present themselves favourably.

There are a couple of points on this thread that stick out to me like glowing thumbs.

Firstly, the idea that it's all down to IQ. IQ is a fairly meaningless measure and simply shows an ability to perform well in particular tests. Sure - it can be a useful guide and give some indication of an individual's potential to perform academically but it is completely wrong to define a child's future by it. How well someone does in life academically and professionally has an awful lot more to do with teaching, hard work and motivation than anything else.

Secondly, the current problem is that a large number of children are narrowing their life choices at far too early a stage. Doing a large number of soft subjects for GCSE does mean that a child is taking the "vocational" path and will find it very difficult to cross over to the "academic" path in the future. That might be okay and realistic for the very lowest performers, but potentially disastrous for many of the middle-rankers who shouldn't be having their futures written at age of 14. This is, afterall, why the grammar/secondary modern school system didn't really work for the vast majority.

And how very patronising to say that a girl should do drama because it will help her communicate with her customers when she becomes a hairdresser.

What part do IQ tests actually play in education now? Neither of my children have ever had an IQ test.

Milly, no part at all. It's been fairly widely known for some years that IQ has no bearing on educational achievement.

Good old Xenia and her up-to-the minute knowledge of all things educational.

Yes, we all seem to be in agreement.

my point was Fennel's really - that some parents don't seem to know which GCSE will close off choices and the schools have not been telling them loudly enough. The fact you need these core 5 and probably a core 8 - i you had enlgish lit without lang that would look rather strange to many schools and indeed you might want 2 languages not one or 3 sciences. It's just about letting people in on the knowledge they ought to have.

Yes, MrsMipp how patronising indeed. Or perhaps a sardonic example that children who have succeeded in taking non-English Bacc subjects might somehow exist in the real world.

And not be written off.