The English Baccalaureate Certificate

[davieG]

Merc

GCSE exams are to be replaced by a qualification known as the English Baccalaureate Certificate (EBacc), the education secretary Michael Gove has announced.

In what onlookers are calling the biggest shakeup of the exam system for English secondary schools in a generation, GCSEs, which were introduced in 1986, are to be scrapped.

In their place will be a qualification based on performance at the end of a two-year course rather than on pupils' results in modules, and with fewer resits permitted.

But what is the EBacc, and what will the changes mean? Find out with our simple guide.

The key changes

The changes, which are subject to a consultation, include:

No more modules: As it stands, secondary school pupils sit part of the syllabus in chunks, known as modules. This aspect of the examinations will be scrapped, and pupils will instead sit all their exams at the end of the course.

Gove maintains modules encourage "bite-size learning and spoon-feeding", and that the single exam will mean pupils are "tested transparently on what they and they alone can do at the end of years of deep learning".

Tough exams at the end of study will, Gove maintains, end "grade inflation and dumbing down".

Fewer resits: Some maintain the GCSE has been diluted by the ability to repeatedly retake modules. In a bid to tackle this, under the EBacc pupils will be banned from resitting individual unit exams.

Less coursework: Under the changes, coursework will be reduced to a minimum. But, the Guardian reports, the government insists the changes will not signal the death knell for all coursework in practical subjects such as music, art or design and technology, or oral tests in languages.

The end of grades?: According to the Guardian, “traditional grades of A* to C are likely give way to numeric marks or even percentages.

“Gove is highly critical of the way around a third of pupils are awarded A to A* GCSE grades. He is keener on numeric grades that could see around 10% of pupils awarded the top grade 1.”

Spelling and grammar: Pupils will be marked on the accuracy of their spelling, punctuation and grammar and their use of specialist terms, the BBC reports.

One subject, one board: As it stands, all three major exam boards in England currently offer GCSEs.

However, the Government plans to stop exam boards competing for business by making exams increasingly achievable. Consequently, there will be only one exam board for each subject.

They will have to bid for five-year contracts to run individual subjects exclusively.

Gove will have the final say in choosing the new exam boards after a recommendation from Ofqual,the Guardian reports.

The end of league tables: The reforms will also mark the demise of GCSE league tables, the Guardian reports.

When will the changes come into force?

From the autumn of 2015 pupils will be taught for the new EBacc in English, maths and science, according to the Guardian. These will cover seven papers: English language, English literature, maths pure and applied (with an additional maths option), chemistry, physics and biology.

The new exam will be sat for the first time in these subjects in the summer of 2017. There will be no coursework in English and maths, as modules are scrapped.

There will be some coursework in science to factor in the significance of laboratory work.

From 2016, pupils will be taught for the new EBacc in history, geography and languages. Pupils will sit the exams in the summer of 2018.

There will be no coursework for history. Field trips in geography will continue to form part of the examination process, and there will be flexibility on oral exams for languages.

Gove hopes exam boards will ditch GCSEs in other subjects once the new system is fully established.

Who will be affected?

The Daily Telegraph reports all 16-year-olds will be expected to take the English Baccalaureate subjects of English, maths, science, one humanities subject and one language.

Those who struggle to pass exams at 16 will have another change to take them at 17 or 18.

What does this mean for the last pupils sitting GCSEs?

Chris Keates, general secretary of the teachers' union NASUWT, said young people taking GCSEs over the next two years had been "told publicly that the exams for which they are working on are discredited and worthless".

The Guardian reports: “Gove told MPs that there would be an ‘enhanced’ system for pupils who struggle with the new exams.

“But he confirmed that many would leave school without qualifications. ‘We expect that everyone who now sits a GCSE should sit this new qualification.

‘But of course there will be some students who will find it difficult to sit these exams, just as there are students who do not sit GCSEs today.

‘We will make special, indeed enhanced, provision, for these students with their schools required to produce a detailed record of their achievement in each curriculum area at 16, which will help them make progress subsequently – and we anticipate some will secure EBacc certificates at the age of 17 or 18.’”

What are the potential pitfalls?

A ‘two-tier system’: Christine Blower, general secretary of the National Union of Teachers, said: "What is being proposed here is blatantly a two-tier system.

“Pupils who do not gain EBaccs will receive a record of achievement which will most certainly be seen to be of far less worth by employers and colleges."

According to the Guardian, “traditional grades of A* to C are likely give way to numeric marks or even percentages.

“Recording the percentage pass mark will allow universities to distinguish between top candidates, but it could penalise students for the slightest variation.”

But Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg insists the new system will not be two-tier. "There are many people who think that if you want to make the system more rigorous, you have to leave some behind, but I disagree,” he said.

“I think you can have greater rigour in the exam system, that's a good thing, but also ensure we can cater for all children, the same way the present exam does."

‘Disillusioned’ students: The Daily Telegraph reports teachers are “worried that those sitting GCSEs now will be disillusioned.”

'Knee-jerk reaction' : Some teachers in the West fear the move is a reaction to the view of some people that examinations are getting easier.

'A backward step' : Education leaders in Bristol fear the move is a retrograde step.

‘Girls will suffer’: The Telegraph also says: “Teachers are concerned that girls will suffer most as they traditionally do better at coursework”.

Meanwhile shadow education secretary Stephen Twigg told MPs in response to Mr Gove's announcement in the Commons: "The best system does involve coursework and project work.

“Surely our system should value skills as well as knowledge?"

A 'return to the 80s': Twigg also told MPs that ditching coursework was "totally out of date".

"The education leaving age is rising to 18,” he said. “We need to face the challenges of the 21st century.

"But I simply don't accept that we achieve that by returning to a system abolished as out of date in the 1980s.

"Instead, we need a system that promotes rigour and breadth, and prepares young people for the challenges of the modern economy."

‘Simplistic’ plans: Martin Johnson of the ATL teachers' union warned the BBC: "The plans for GCSE replacements are hugely simplistic and fail to recognise the complexity of learning and teaching."

The end of a balanced curriculum?: Chris Keates, head of the Nasuwt teachers' union, told the BBC: "The government will have to work hard to ensure that these reforms are not the final nail in the coffin for the provision of a broad and balanced curriculum."

[davieG]

It's all very well those in control chopping and changing these things but I hope they realise what the consequences mean at job level.

I know I personally suffered with them messing about with the ONC/HNC when I was studying, they did away with them and where replaced by Technician 1 to 5 certificates, this was later abandon and the ONC/HNC returned. The problem is a I get lumbered with a Tech 5 certificate that hardly anyone knew what it was and job applications always required ONC/HNC I'm convinced it prevented me getting interviews.

It's annoying when you have to continually justify and prove WTF a Technician 5 is?

[MooseBreath]

Stinks of someone making changes in order to justify their pay packet. Get rid of the card shuffling parasite middle men, and invest the money saved in real tangible improvements to facilities/training etc

[Fox in the North]

Still a just memory test at the end of the year.

[MrSpaM]

It's all very well those in control chopping and changing these things but I hope they realise what the consequences mean at job level.

I know I personally suffered with them messing about with the ONC/HNC when I was studying, they did away with them and where replaced by Technician 1 to 5 certificates, this was later abandon and the ONC/HNC returned. The problem is a I get lumbered with a Tech 5 certificate that hardly anyone knew what it was and job applications always required ONC/HNC I'm convinced it prevented me getting interviews.

It's annoying when you have to continually justify and prove WTF a Technician 5 is?

I can see what your trying to say, problem is there isnt a single job out there that cares about gcse grades, the only thing they are used for now days is trying to get enough 'points' to get into your chosen university.

[davieG]

I can see what your trying to say, problem is there isnt a single job out there that cares about gcse grades, the only thing they are used for now days is trying to get enough 'points' to get into your chosen university.

That's not true I spent the last 20 years recruiting apprentices and that totally relied on GCSE grades in fact you couldn't even apply if you hadn't got 5 including Maths & English grade C or above.

Approx 50% of school leavers don't go to University

[MrSpaM]

That's not true I spent the last 20 years recruiting apprentices and that totally relied on GCSE grades in fact you couldn't even apply if you hadn't got 5 including Maths & English grade C or above.

Approx 50% of school leavers don't go to University

Thats why I said job and not apprenticeship

[Charl91]

I can see what your trying to say, problem is there isnt a single job out there that cares about gcse grades, the only thing they are used for now days is trying to get enough 'points' to get into your chosen university.

Teachers have to have C's or above in English, Maths and Science.

There, I just named a single job

[davieG]

Thats why I said job and not apprenticeship

An apprenticeship is a job, organisations don't spend money training apprentices without knowing they are going to need them and they are mostly highly valued by those organisations because without them they would flounder. It's training 'on the job'. It's simply a way to control and monitor the development of recruitments into some very complex roles.

[MrSpaM]

An apprenticeship is a job, organisations don't spend money training apprentices without knowing they are going to need them and they are mostly highly valued by those organisations because without them they would flounder. It's training 'on the job'. It's simply a way to control and monitor the development of recruitments into some very complex roles.

I just dont get how you can call something you get paid below minimum wage for a job tbh and this is where part of the problem is, people earn more sitting on their arses smoking fags all day watching jeremy kyle.

I actually feel thing like apprenticeships are the way to go tbh, but colleges ought to be doing a better job of identifying people this would be suited to earlier. I cant count the amount of people I know who would be doing much better now if people were offered practical training instead of taking all these exams and then just dropping out because they didn’t get the 'correct' grades.

Say if somebody is identified as a person who is a computer whizz at 14-15, these people ought to be given the option to drop things like foreign languages and history in favour of a more focused IT course, with decent work experience.

[breadandcheese]

If you're looking to make the exam more rigorous, it's probably fairer to bring in a new system, rather than bring in grade deflation, so that you're not unfairly penalising somebody for taking the exam a few years later. As this years GCSE English students will tell you, they were marked more stringently than previous years, yet their CV's and application forms will not show this, so they're at a disadvantage against somebody with the same GCSE grade sat a year or two earlier.

[Nick]

Still a just memory test at the end of the year.

This.

Exams test information re-call and not applied or critical synthesis or deeper rooted comprehension. (They may do given the right approach)

Students in my opinion should be able to choose the summative assessment that best suits their learning style/needs and examinations should be varied in their methodology and be diverse enough to allow the student to demonstrate applied/critical thinking to their field of study.

[Captain...]

What I agree with, is one exam body per subject, it is crazy that people are judged on the same grade despite sitting different exams.

What I disagree with is the idea that only 10% can get the top grade, that is stupid, how can you compare like with like, year on year when you could get an A in one year and a B the next with the same result.

I like what they do in Spanish universities for Doctors, basically everyone sits the same exam/exams, then they get a mark, but they also get a national ranking.

This really allows people to show how good they are, eg getting an A, but can also show you were top in the year of the entire country, whereas over here someone can scrape an A or a first and nobody would know that they are actually 20% worse than some other candidates.

The other point is how are you supposed to measure year on year improvements, or declines, if every year 10% get an A.

If we look at things like literacy and numeracy, we are aiming to get the basic levels to 100% in the UK, but following Gove's logic, the bottom 20% would still be illiterate even if they could read and write perfectly well, just not as well as everyone else, what everybody else would see as a success, under Gove it would be a failure.

As for 1 exam vs Modules, it is much of a muchness, neither are particularly accurate, what I would propose is individually marked modules and coursework that make up a small % say 10-20% of the overall mark, enough to encourage students to focus through the year and need to be passed, but an end of course exam covering all aspects of the course worth 80-90%.

Just one exam will lead to cramming, in the same why modules lead to bite-size learning.

I'm happy to see the back of league tables too.

[Fox in the North]

Yeah I agree with a lot that's been said on here.

As a language student I am constantly tested throughout the year via speaking, writing and listening exams and coursework presentations, therefore I'm consistently on my toes the whole year.

I think that is the best way because during my GCSEs, year 10 was a complete doss as they were just mocks; for me it was a fun year but a waste of a year. Did fine in the end and got 7As and 2Bs, but still think I had it easy.

[davieG]

I just dont get how you can call something you get paid below minimum wage for a job tbh and this is where part of the problem is, people earn more sitting on their arses smoking fags all day watching jeremy kyle.

I actually feel thing like apprenticeships are the way to go tbh, but colleges ought to be doing a better job of identifying people this would be suited to earlier. I cant count the amount of people I know who would be doing much better now if people were offered practical training instead of taking all these exams and then just dropping out because they didn’t get the 'correct' grades.

Say if somebody is identified as a person who is a computer whizz at 14-15, these people ought to be given the option to drop things like foreign languages and history in favour of a more focused IT course, with decent work experience.

This is another area where government interference has watered down the meaning and status of apprenticeships, I've seen some of them where they involve 1 or 2 years on the job training and frankly and with due respect they maybe ok for hairdressing but i'm talking 'proper ' apprenticeships which last for 4/5 years and involve day release.

The ones I've been involved with in mechanical, electrical and construction engineering do not pay minimum wages in fact they paid very good rates based on the rates for skilled engineers and part of the same grading scheme.

They've studied ONC/HNC depending on their qualifications GCSEs or A Levels on day release and many of them have been further sponsored on part-time/sandwich degree courses. Now it may have taken them a 2/3 extra years to get their degrees but they've ended up with high level degrees and no debts.

With the right organisation and the correct attitude to hard work it's a fantastic way of making your way in the world and the organisation ends up with a very well grounded, experienced engineer ready and prepared for Senior Engineering roles - I'd thoroughly recommend it.

As an ex-engineer and Senior Manager it was the most rewarding aspect of my career and being in new product develop it was an interesting career anyway.

[ADK]

I think on paper this sounds like a decent idea, the only problem is that Gove comes across as a useless incompetant prat when it comes to understanding education and state education in particular.

I didn't think GCSE's used modules, they didn't when i took them and i'm only 24. AS/A2's use them as do most universities. I'm not against module based learning and resits, i don't like the idea that your whole future should depend on one long exam at the end of 2 years as i have underperformed in several exams over the years and fortunately this never cost me a place on a course but it could have done and it is not a fair system.

[Jon the Hat]

Some of the comments in there sum up the problem:

“Pupils who do not gain EBaccs will receive a record of achievement which will most certainly be seen to be of far less worth by employers and colleges."

Yes. People are not all the same, and the objective is not to be to get everyone a pass.

“Teachers are concerned that girls will suffer most as they traditionally do better at courseworkâ€.

So boys are suffering now? Have we not heard for years that Girls do better than boys?

“Recording the percentage pass mark will allow universities to distinguish between top candidates, but it could penalise students for the slightest variation.â€

Or reward them presumably, fairly, for getting a better grade.

Jesus. Every proposal is always met by negative shit from the soundbyte community of vested interests. Makes it almost impossible to assess whether the idea is actually any good.

My gut feeling is that standards have slipped, and you need a change to bring them up again. Sometimes the change itself provides a rigour which slips over time.

[Captain...]

Yes. People are not all the same, and the objective is not to be to get everyone a pass.

Yes it is, that is exactly the point of education, to get everyone up to the required level of education, i.e. a pass.

You don't teach a class with the objective of 10% to fail, you teach it to get everyone to pass.

[Jon the Hat]

Yes it is, that is exactly the point of education, to get everyone up to the required level of education, i.e. a pass.

You don't teach a class with the objective of 10% to fail, you teach it to get everyone to pass.

So you find the lowest level of intelligence n the class and set an exam they can pass? That is insane. Not everyone should be able to pass an exam. Otherwise what is the point? This is not a feel good excercise.

[Trav Le Bleu]

Yes it is, that is exactly the point of education, to get everyone up to the required level of education, i.e. a pass.

You don't teach a class with the objective of 10% to fail, you teach it to get everyone to pass.

Whilst I would agree that is the ideal, it's my feeling that instead of getting everyone up to scratch, the scratch line has been lowered to make it more accessible. Statistics (and I know, lies and damned lies, etc) have been trotted out to show that UK standards have slipped internationally (or other nations have surpassed us at best). There is in general, not just in education, a zeitgeist that not only is it unacceptable to fail, it is also unacceptable to fail someone. The word "criticism" has taken on a negative connotation and any offering of criticism is spurned or derided.

Not everyone can be good at everything, but everyone is good at something. To my mind that is one of the jobs of an education system. If the system can't find a child's strengths and weaknesses after 13+ years of schooling, then it is failing. As it stands, 99% of kids come out sparkling in all subjects, which just papers over the cracks*.

*That's hyperbole by the way, don't ask me to provide facts and figues to support my statement - they don't exist.

[Guest MattP]

So you find the lowest level of intelligence n the class and set an exam they can pass? That is insane. Not everyone should be able to pass an exam. Otherwise what is the point? This is not a feel good excercise.

This.

Any sort of exam set should have some who completely excel, some who do well, some who pass and some who fail.

Surely this is common sense? Not everyone is a genius, no point making people think they are.

[Captain...]

So you find the lowest level of intelligence n the class and set an exam they can pass? That is insane. Not everyone should be able to pass an exam. Otherwise what is the point? This is not a feel good excercise.

No you don't do that, and that is not what I said.

If you are teaching Key stage one reading, or whatever it is called now, you aim to get every child in the class to the level of being able to read at that level, it is not an impossible level for all children to achieve, but some may not be able to achieve it, but that is the objective of the class. If they all achieve that level then it is great. success is not determined by others failures.

Whilst I would agree that is the ideal, it's my feeling that instead of getting everyone up to scratch, the scratch line has been lowered to make it more accessible. Statistics (and I know, lies and damned lies, etc) have been trotted out to show that UK standards have slipped internationally (or other nations have surpassed us at best). There is in general, not just in education, a zeitgeist that not only is it unacceptable to fail, it is also unacceptable to fail someone. The word "criticism" has taken on a negative connotation and any offering of criticism is spurned or derided.

Not everyone can be good at everything, but everyone is good at something. To my mind that is one of the jobs of an education system. If the system can't find a child's strengths and weaknesses after 13+ years of schooling, then it is failing. As it stands, 99% of kids come out sparkling in all subjects, which just papers over the cracks*.

*That's hyperbole by the way, don't ask me to provide facts and figues to support my statement - they don't exist.

That is quite possibly true, and I am not saying everyone should pass every course, but the aim of the course should be to get everyone to pass, and penalise them for achieving that is nonsense. By all means raise the pass level, or increase the difficulty of the course, but don't have pre-determined level of how many will pass and fail, that is ridiculous.

This.

Any sort of exam set should have some who completely excel, some who do well, some who pass and some who fail.

Surely this is common sense? Not everyone is a genius, no point making people think they are.

Why? Why should some people have to fail to make an exam valid?

Lets simplify it to a Maths exam with 100 questions, because maths is simpler to get a right or wrong answer, this to prove a basic level in arithmetic.

Everyone who takes the exam one year gets 90-100%, same questions every year, same difficulty, no cheating, are you seriously saying that those that got 90% should fail, even though they have clearly proved they have mastered the basics of maths?

I am not saying everyone should pass every exam, this is not about making people feel better or smarter, it is about a fair representation of the ability of the candidate that can be measured year on year.

[Happy Fox]

Pre GCSEs years are the key for me the testing environment isn't very rigorous so when pupils make the step up from the age of 14-15 they struggle generally.

[Jon the Hat]

No you don't do that, and that is not what I said.

If you are teaching Key stage one reading, or whatever it is called now, you aim to get every child in the class to the level of being able to read at that level, it is not an impossible level for all children to achieve, but some may not be able to achieve it, but that is the objective of the class. If they all achieve that level then it is great. success is not determined by others failures.

That is quite possibly true, and I am not saying everyone should pass every course, but the aim of the course should be to get everyone to pass, and penalise them for achieving that is nonsense. By all means raise the pass level, or increase the difficulty of the course, but don't have pre-determined level of how many will pass and fail, that is ridiculous.

Why? Why should some people have to fail to make an exam valid?

Lets simplify it to a Maths exam with 100 questions, because maths is simpler to get a right or wrong answer, this to prove a basic level in arithmetic.

Everyone who takes the exam one year gets 90-100%, same questions every year, same difficulty, no cheating, are you seriously saying that those that got 90% should fail, even though they have clearly proved they have mastered the basics of maths?

I am not saying everyone should pass every exam, this is not about making people feel better or smarter, it is about a fair representation of the ability of the candidate that can be measured year on year.

I am not saying teachers should not, or do not aim to get every child to the highest standard possible, just that the job of the examination system is to set a standard that they are measured against, not to set a standard that everyone can pass. My original comment was aimed at the exam system rather than the education system.

[Captain...]

I am not saying teachers should not, or do not aim to get every child to the highest standard possible, just that the job of the examination system is to set a standard that they are measured against, not to set a standard that everyone can pass. My original comment was aimed at the exam system rather than the education system.

But everyone should be able to pass basic reading writing and literacy skills, that should be the aim of the government to get 100% of the population to be able to read, write and count, and not raise the bar every time we look like achieving that.

This is my point, you have different levels of exams to measure people's abilities, but if 100% of the people surpass the requirements on the course it doesn't make it invalid, it just means that they studied and learnt what was required of them.

Take the driving test for example, if everyone started passing it first time should it be made harder?

Likewise exams shouldn't be made easier because not enough people pass them, all I'm saying is whether you pass or fail should not depend on the level of everyone else taking the exam, only that you are capable to the standard required.