Image: tungphoto / FreeDigitalPhotos.net

Right about now, many thousands of teenfolk will be hopping/ skipping/ stumbling their way to pick up GCSE results.  Let the ‘media frenzy’ begin (photo of attractive girls in skimpy clothing celebrating 5 trillion A* grades each: check/ in-depth examination as to whether 2011’s results mean the cuts are now starting to bite: check/ turgid columns asking whether it’s not all a lot easier than in days of yore, i.e. 1995: check).

One phrase we will be hearing more of is the English Bac (or baccalaureate, if we’re being swanky) and very often students’ parents ask me to explain this, so here is my attempt so to do!

Schools in England are now being measured according to how many pupils achieve grades A*-C in five core subjects – maths, English, two science qualifications, a foreign language and either history or geography.  This benchmark differs significantly from the previous league table measure (grades A* – C in maths, English and any three other subjects).

There has been some controversy over the move towards an ‘English Baccalaureate’:

• It clearly refocuses attention on more academic subjects, ignoring creative and practical  subjects such as Art and Design, Food Technology and Drama. 
• Religious Studies teachers have expressed concern at the inclusion of geography and history rather than a broad humanities category.
• The measures were announced only a year ago, putting at a disadvantage the many schools who had dropped Modern Foreign Languages at Key Stage 4.

Does the English Baccalaureate represent an unacceptable moving of the goalposts? 
I think not: it is certainly the case that all good schools should offer all of the subjects embraced by the English Bac to all students at Key Stage 4.  It has been demoralising to see the dismantling of Modern Foreign Languages provision at GCSE level, but on the other hand, it would be a shame to see a return to compulsory GCSE languages because those of us who were there at the time know it didn’t really work.

Should the government include practical and creative subjects in the league tables?
Absolutely; the French Baccalaureate, on which this version is nominatively modelled,  includes Sport, Music, Art and so on and it is essential to celebrate the achievements of all young people, not just those who are academically gifted.  The French system covers a far broader range of subjects which are then weighted according to one of three streams (general, professional, technological).  Surely a broader base would allow for a greater chance of benchmarked success for a greater number of students? 
One of the greatest challenges facing our society in the next couple of decades is the predicted obesity epidemic, so it seems crazy to  exclude subjects such as PE and Food Technology.  Of course these subjects are still available at GCSE level in most schools, but by excluding them from the league tables, the government is giving the impression that these are not valuable skills; a foolish move in the run up to the 2012 Olympics.

What is the reason for the Science bias?
This question is purely rhetorical: I have no idea why the government thinks all young people need TWO Science GCSEs in order to be classed successful.  Perhaps they imagine a future economy which depends almost exclusively on measuring stuff in test tubes and heating it up to see what colour it turns; putting objects in a bath to see which ones sink first or knowing how to spell (and probably colour in a diagram about) photosynthesis.  I’m being flippant, but although I can understand why one Science GCSE is considered important, I think two is too many. 

So whilst it is encouraging to see Modern Foreign Languages and (some) humanites subjects being valued once more, it is a shame that this has been done at the expense of other subjects.  The government needs to move towards an inclusive system of measuring that embraces all subjects.  In short, some effort has been made but we could do so much better.