Can school compel a child to choose EBacc GCSE subjects?

[TwigTheWonderKid]

If they can accommodate a child's preferred GCSE options within the existing timetable and the child is adamant they do not wish to study a MFL can the school make them simply because their policy is for as many students as possible to be entered for the EBacc?

As a point of information, studying Re to year 11 is compulsory in all state schools.

Be that as it may but one of my DC is currently in Y12. They dropped RE at the end of Y9 (regular state school) and never studied it again (bar once a year FGM type workshops). So its evidently not compulsory.

DC's school get around the compulsory RE by asking parents whose DC don't take it at GCSE to sign a form officially withdrawing their child from religious education.

Red So does the other school in our town (or at least it used to). They have a place all there on the options form, so no effort needed.

Ebacc is stupid. Subjects should either be compulsory or not. I'm an MFL teacher who now teaches mostly primary MFL. I agree it's very hit-and-miss in many primary schools, but quite apart from the lack of proper MFL teaching in primary, I fail to see how you can really give kids a grounding in a language for secondary school unless all primary schools and all year 7s do the same language!

There are (and always have been) many problems with the way in which MFL is examined, and therefore taught. I can understand why there are kids who find it difficult and don't want to do it, but then again there is no shortage of kids who loathe maths and don't want to do it.

We have to decide as a nation that we actually think it's important for our young people to learn a foreign language and either make it compulsory. Or, decide "What the point - everyone speaks English" and make it an option. Not attempt to pressure schools via judging them on Ebacc.

Which components of the Ebacc do you think are “stupid”?

It's not that I think that any of the subjects are stupid. I don't think it's a sensible way to judge schools. As pointed out in the letter linked above, and various articles in the TES and elsewhere, Ebacc is narrowing the curriculum and causing a big drop in the uptake of creative subjects. If subjects are considered vital (e.g. maths, English), they should be compulsory. Otherwise they should be optional. There shouldn't be a half-way house where schools feel pressured into forcing students to take certain groups of subjects in order to look good in the league tables.

The league tables are not judged on Ebacc and that’s why schools don’t care about it. Even grammar schools don’t have 100% Ebacc take up. Ofsted don’t appear to make judgements on it. So there is far more incentive to get DC to get a high grade in tiddlywinks and jettison an EBacc subject they find hard. It’s also a behaviour problem where DC don’t engage with the subject too.

But before the Ebacc was introduced, the main topic of conversation when it came to secondary schools were all the “mickey mouse” qualifications they were offering. The much derided “hair and beauty” for example. Sport. Hospitality. We’ve got rid of all of those , which were actually a stepping stone into work for lots of kids and replaced them with “solid academic subjects” and now that’s no good either!

When I picked my options it was 2x English, Double Science, a MFL, a technology (Inc Art), a humanity plus two more. That way everyone ended up with a little bit of everything and you weren't massively narrowing your choices at 15

Creative and vocational subjects should not be considered 'mickey mouse' subjects. Students should be allowed to take subjects appropriate to their academic ability and interests.

“When I picked my options it was 2x English, Double Science, a MFL, a technology (Inc Art), a humanity plus two more.“
No maths?

When I picked my options (back in 1986!) I had to do 2 x English and 1 x Maths, and then had to do one science and one language. Then I had a free choice of 3 subjects.

DS had to do 2 x English, 1 x Maths and 2 or 3 x science and also had a free choice of 3 subjects. The ebacc isn't compulsory in his school but he chose Spanish, history and geography so ended up doing it. There was ample opportunity to do arts subjects in his school. But I still think a MFL should be compulsory over two or three options going on science. One science is enough to offer a balanced curriculum.

In fact I wonder if English lit should be compulsory.

You could say you must do English lang, Maths, a science, a language and a humanity (and then options depending on school and timetabling). English lit could potentially go into the humanities pot as an option. Does it need to be compulsory? Or could there be a combined English GCSE like there is A level to free up options and timetabling?

@BertrandRussell yes, stupid me. Maths and 1 optional extra

Unfortunately one science is not enough for scientists. That is, of course, where the push is. 3 sciences are a broad education.

I think it does suit some students to do vocational qualifications. They should be catered for as well as the more academic students.

There is also a debate about who is suited for each pathway. It has not helped that many of the vocational schools have been useless. I do not believe they are "micky mouse" subjects but there is a problem if bright DC opt for them and they should have aimed higher. MY DN was being pushed that way by her DF. She is an 8-9 grade student and achieved mostly these levels in GCSEs but parents can be very biased towards vocational skills and do not see the bigger picture. Fortunately others thought differently.

For example, it is very common for people wanting to be Engineers to think they do not need good GCSEs and A levels for example and that BTEc can replace GCSEs. It simply is not the case and we need well educated people as well as practical ones. In fact some need to do both as well as manage companies!

I'm not at all convinced the gcse reforms, let alone artificial targets like EBacc are at all a good idea.
Pre reforms, DD was able to do 12 so could do an ebacc set (inc 3 sci, 2 English), plus comp sci, electronic products and drama and further maths. Breadth and depth in the areas she preferred. As much STEM as her heart and brain desired plus drama for the joy of it.

If she'd been unable to do 12 then she wouldn't have been allowed to drop the two which were of least interest and use to her (eng lit and German).

Nobody needs 12 GSCEs!

Need, no - but in the pre-reform days who could do them happily and get more breadth.

How many is enough? Especially if some beyond the core of maths, science and English language are mandatory in some schools. Back in the day my school only let us do 8 o-levels and it was really hard to decide what to drop, I'd have liked to continue history and art.

The worst thing they did was drop single science, I'd love that to come back.
You don't need to pass the GCSE to go onto A levels so it's wrong to include it for those only taking 8 GCSE's. That's two gone on a subject some really struggle with