Does EBacc mean anything??

[bamboowarrior]

Any thoughts? about to take options here!

Ah right, thank you. I didn't realise the Arts stuff was excluded from the EBacc. That's interesting.

It does seem like a pretty meaningless thing to have, in that case.

Our school doesn't insist on the Ebacc, the Hank goodness (for example, why isn't RS a humanity?). DS didn't want to do a language and as GCSE doesn't teach you to speak a language I was quite happy. I get that it might open doors to go further with a language but doing GCSE just teaches you to pass the gcse.

Can I ask why people would not want their reasonably academic children to do these 5 very basic subjects? It seems very odd to me, in the absence of any additional educational need. Children have at least another 4 choices.

Because they might want to do Art and Computing. Or Food and music. Or RS and Textiles. Some pupils only get 3 choices if they choose triple science.

Bertrand - my rather clever, academic dd didn’t do the ebacc. She is talented in dance and music and has a particular aptitude for RS, philosophy & ethics this subject area really lights her fire so she chose those subjects rather than than the narrow definition of a humanity which was history or Geography. She has chosen to take RS (a philosophy biased syllabus) to A level

She took 9 GCSES as will my ds who goes to a different school, as did her best friend who goes to a private school.

I feel that her GCSE subjects of Maths, English Language, English Literature, Biology, Physics, Chemistry, French, Religious Studies & Music has given her a broad and balanced education

Schools are under pressure and under funded. Children who would have enjoyed and done well in arts GCSES are being persuaded (not always by teachers but often by parents) to drop arts subjects in favour of ebacc subjects. This has a knock on effect, no one chooses drama or music, the teacher is out of a job.

“Because they might want to do Art and Computing. Or Food and music. Or RS and Textiles. Some pupils only get 3 choices if they choose triple science.”

What’s stopping them? The Ebacc is only 5 subjects.

English Language
English Literature
Maths
History or Geography
A language
Triple Science

That leaves just one free option choice.

I do agree that RS should be a choice for a Humanity....

Including an MFL in the Ebacc contraversial now. There's no real need and they aren't a high enough level to allow students to actually use them later on.

However I think if they made the MFL category "MFL or an art" (to include art, photography, drama, music etc) that would ensure a broader range of study.

Ebacc is used as a measure by Ofsted. They have also explicitly referenced it in their new framework so I can't see is disappearing anytime soon. There is a light at the end of the tunnel, ofsted have said tonight that they would like the arts to be included in Ebacc.

Our boys' GCSEs both satisfy the Ebacc. For their options, they chose drama, history and media studies; and drama, art, history and geography respectively.

The most controversial element of the EBacc is the compulsory MFL element - and that has far more to do with how bad we are at teaching languages in this country than what we think constitutes a broad and balanced education.

I find it sad that there's a view that learning an MFL is some sort of pointless exercise rather than being a valuable skill to have. I wish id been able to start a language earlier than year 7 and be taught how to he fluent. The whole 'everyone will speak English so what's the point' attitude is quite sad when in other countries learning 2 languages is quite the norm.

I agree with betrand about people complaining about hard/soft subjects though. There's never a way to please everyone.

I think in terms of a broader education, the MFL is the most important. I know they don’t seem to learn much- but as at least a nod to stopping the growing insularity of the country?

The main problem with MFL is the lack of teachers and therefore lack of actual skills gained and knowledge gained.

As comeaway says it's not 5 subjects though it's 8 (science counts as 3 and english 2). My son's school only do 9 GCSE's so it only leaves him one option. he wants to do computers as a career so he needs to do that which means if he wants to do EBacc he can't do art/drama/music/PE which he also enjoys.

So we've decided to ditch German and do music instead. Yes MFL is a life skill but so is playing the piano. School are not happy as he should get good grades but I think it's a reasonable choice and arguably giving him a broader education than ebacc would. I would agree with making it MFL or an art and that would suit ds (and his school!)

“As comeaway says it's not 5 subjects though it's 8 (science counts as 3 and english 2)”
It’s 5. Only one science is required.

thanks for all your great insights into this debate - it feels that EBacc subjects do cover a broad academic field but its applicability depends on individual talents/ other options available/ timetabling etc - it sounds as though universities at this time are open to EBacc or not - so confusing!!!

Most GCSE subjects are not making a young person fluent or employable in that subject. You might take RS, Geography and History and English literature - what is the end game with them after GCSE if you don’t take them at A level? Ditto the sciences. GCSEs are about breadth. They are not about narrowing down.

If you want to do Philosophy and Ethics at university you need 3 A levels. Not just RE. History would also be excellent prep. You might not even need RS. Far too many people think GCSEs are the beginning of a specialism. They are not. They keep doors open for A level. You can do a whole host of A levels without a GCSE in it. However, by and large, most students don’t take the EBacc subjects at A Level without the GCSE first.

Lastly, the majority of children study 3 sciences but the award is 2 GCSEs. Many schools will offer 2 or 3 choices in addition to EBacc.

The Oxford admissions might not look at the EBacc but I bet the vast majority of successful applicants have it. They do presumably check on English and Maths so that’s part of it!

To me it means a narrow education with a lack of arts and a narrow view of humanities

The whole point is that it is anything but narrow. It stops someone doing all humanities, or all sciences.

My 18 year old Ds did not take a MFL so did not achieve an EBacc for his school, his gcse results were great though.

My 14 year old is at a different school which is compulsory EBacc. He has actually dropped his language gcse as he is currently being assessed for asd and was getting very stressed doing it. He has now dropped from 11 gcses to 10.

For us it has always been about our children being focused and engaged but not unduly stressed doing their gcses and for them not studying a MFL was the right way to go.

It’s 5. Only one science is required.

2 sciences are required to meet the requirements of the “science” bucket.

The ebacc includes 2 Englishes, at least 2 sciences, a humanity, a language and maths, so 7 all together.

www.gov.uk/government/publications/english-baccalaureate-ebacc/english-baccalaureate-ebacc

Most students study 10 or 11 GCSEs, allowing them a choice of 3 or 4 further options in addition to the Ebacc, where they can opt for arts, or RS, or an extra language, and extra science or anything else they choose.

An education that includes Ebacc will be better balanced. Some students particular capabilities mean that they will be better off not doing Ebacc, but for the vast majority Ebacc will give a broad and balanced programme of study.

I can't understand why this is so contentious? Surely its obvious that the most balanced education covers a range of subjects from across the subject areas. In an ideal world, I think an art should be included as well (so one of Art, Drama, Music) as I think this would add further balance.

But 7 broadly spread directed options and 3/4 totally free choice seems fine to me.

If a child doesn't have the capabilities and aptitudes to meet the Ebacc requirements, I don't think they should be forced to, but for it to be a standard that most students aim to achieve can only be a good thing, surely?

Most students are only studying 9, possibly 10 GCSE’s in total.

I don't 'get' the objection to an mfl.
it's important for brain development and health later in life.

green Our MFL teaching is so woeful in primary when a child's mind would be most able to pick up a language, so kids start secondary on the back foot compared with other countries. To me that is the biggest issue.

Can you cite a source for MFLs being important for health in later life?

I literally know no one who studies less than 10? Definitely not a thing in our area - state or private, it's 10 or 11 (tends to be 11 with triple science, 10 combined science, taking away an extra free choice, granted).

But even if it was 9, there's 2 free choices. That is plenty for people to pick their specialist/preferred curricular areas. (so extra languages for the linguists, two arts subjects for those with skills in that area, RS if you want an extra humanity etc).

Of course children who are not capable should not be forced, but if your child is capable, why would you want to narrow their education at such an early age? A broad, balanced education should be something to be encouraged.