Interpreting the EBacc stat

[Aigle]

Is the '% obtaining EBacc' in the league tables a good proxy for how academic a school may be? Is EBacc still being used, somehow I thought it was going to be phased out (post-Gove) but it does appear on the 2015 table?

No, EBacc is not being phased out. It is not a qualification. It simply shows you what proportion of the school's pupils obtain the full set of GCSEs for the EBacc subjects. It is intended to discourage schools from guiding students towards subjects that are seen as soft options in order to boost their league table position.

Treat it with caution. My dd' excellent school had a low EBacc % because RE doesnmt count as a humanities subject, the school had an excellent RE department and lots of kids, particularly the scientists, chose it instead of History or Geography.

I agree. Don't use it to judge a school. DS' school forced them into the ebacc even at the cost leaving the kids who were doing triple science with only 1 option of their choosing. They like to wave their ebacc stats around when the reality is that other schools would probably perform the same if they took the same tact.

They force them to do RE as well which is odd since I've heard before that it's not an ebacc subject. They also have to do History or Geography which I guess is to meet the humanities requirement. I've no idea why they have to do RE then.

Doing RE until GCSE is a statutory requirement. You don't have to take the exam, but you have to study it. Many schools think they might as well do the exam if they've done the work.......Others interpret studying RE more broadly for the people who don't want to do the exam..........

Thanks for explaining, Haklyut. I wondered after seeing posts where DC wanted to do RE but couldn't fit it in due to ebacc choices. My DS would have rather done Philosophy & Ethics which covers similar but different topics, since RE had been very well covered over his first 9 years of school.

My DD did triple science and still did 8 other subjects, of which RE, Maths, English x 2, and a MFL were compulsory. Most did Geography or History (as well as RE) and therefore in addition, she chose History, a 2nd MFL and Drama. Children should not really specialise at 14 into science or arts. GCSEs should be a spread of subjects including science, arts, languages and a humanity as well as maths and English. I think the most academic schools still expect these subjects to be covered, EBacc or not.

I don't understand what history and geography show that English lit or RE doesn't

Thanks for the replies. Will treat cautiously, but where the % is very low, it does seem to suggest less academic ethos.

dd's school had 37% last year, I think the year before was 64% but it has been as low as 13%.

They are the most academically successful state school in the county but are flexible - they don't make MFL compulsory for example (but offer three & most do at least one) and have an excellent RE department (90% got A or A* two years ago - it's a comprehensive!). DD is one of very few in her year who isn't doing RE & many of the triple science pupils chose RE as their humanity to free up a space for art/drama or computer science - most dc think if they have to spend an hour a week doing it regardless they may as well do the exam.

Locally the number doing triple science (if any - there are several schools that don't offer it due to staffing or other issues) is a better guide ime.

I see what everyone means now. If just one subject is missing from the EBacc the whole % will drop. Thanks for extra clarification.

"Thanks for the replies. Will treat cautiously, but where the % is very low, it does seem to suggest less academic ethos"

I honestly don't think it does necessarily. It could mean that they give kids more choice and don't feel the need to jump through hoops. It could mean that they have a lot of lower ability pupils and don't put them in for more exams than they can cope with- while putting the higher ability kids in for plenty. I wouldn't read anything into Ebacc %ages alone.

Doing RE until GCSE is a statutory requirement.
No its not.

In a comp, Ebacc of anything over 33% is good.

"Doing RE until GCSE is a statutory requirement.
No its not."

Really? Fantastic- when was it changed?

hak
www.secularism.org.uk/your-rights--withdrawal-from-re.html
At DCs school the opt out was part of the year 9 options form so that only those who wanted to do GCSE RE had to.
And the school is not at all unusual in that option.

It's statutory to study RE until 16, not to do an exam course. LA schools have to follow the agreed local syllabus, most of which say GCSE. academies' and free schools' funding agreements often specify they have to do the local syllabus too.

Baby
It's statutory to study RE until 16
No, it is not.
DCs school has had the RE opt out in its options form since before Academies and Free schools were even thought of.

Yup, Schools have to provide it.
Kids do not have to attend.
Simple.

we withdrew dd from RE at the beginning of year 9 - she won't be doing it again (she uses the hour to do homework or read).

DCs school treats RE as an option
so if you choose not to do it you do something else
and their GCSE results for RE - being only the kids who want to be there -are stonking

It still astounds me that other schools make kids to GCSEs that they are set up to fail

But note that the approach of Talkin's secondary seems to be highly unusual. Most schools make it much harder to opt out.

(Talkin hope your DD is getting on well at PS).

teen
I thought yours had that option : it certainly used to
as did most of the other feeders into PSC and the rest

we'll have to do coffee !!

Talkin, no easy opt out given. They use it as exam experience in y10 ahead of the important ones in y11. Coffee would be lovely.

My DS did not do RS after year 9, DD sat the exam last week (year 10), she will not do any RS in year 11. The compulsary element is covered in their weekly tutoral hour.