| Email
exchanges You are here: NASACRE > Email exchange |
 |
 |
|
ORIGINAL MAIL FROM THE CHAIR Dear Maureen Woodward, Thank you for sending your universal response to my email which explains the Government's position on the importance of RE and its protected status as a statutory subject in itself. I appreciate that this is genuine good-will from the Government, but still maintain that, unless this is both unequivocally stated and carefully monitored, without RE in the Ebacc, many schools will focus on those subjects on which they will be judged at the expense of all others. I do believe, however, that your general response has not addressed the two specific key points that I raised re the challenges this will raise for headteachers who wish to give RE due status and provide quality entitlement to their students. I have copied these points below: 'This may well present Headteachers with the problem of how they ensure that they keep to the statutory provision for RE at Key Stage 4 whilst also giving their pupils the best chance of gaining the necessary GCSEs to qualify for the EBacc. At the moment, many, if not most, secondary schools ensure that pupils at KS4 have their entitlement to RE by entering them for a Short Course GCSE, which contributes to the school’s overall performance. The question arises, then, if RE is not part of the EBacc, how will schools comfortably ensure that their pupils get their entitlement? It will also potentially give Headteachers the additional problem of existing staff imbalance in meeting the time-tabling requirements of the proposal.' I would very much like a response to this as I know that many headteachers share these concerns regarding the place of RE and that many leaders of RE are now, already, experiencing headteachers who are telling them that RE wil no longer be an option at GCSE on the basis of the current Ebacc. If this goes unresolved, we risk losing very good RE and possibly having non-specialists having to teach Geography and History, if not at KS4 then at KS3. All subjects and many pupils will suffer. I would appreciate knowing what the Government advice and position are in relation to these specific issues.
Best wishes, REPLY Dear Mr Moore Thank you for your further email of 18 January, addressed to my colleague Maureen Woodward, about the English Baccalaureate. On this occasion I have been asked to reply and I apologise for the delay in doing so. To answer your specific queries: regarding short courses - achievement in the short course will continue to be recognised within other performance tables measures, as will achievement in the full GCSE. The primary measure of school accountability remains the proportion of students achieving 5 GCSE’s, grades A*-C, not the English Baccalaureate. The statutory requirement to teach religious education (RE) does not extend to pupils having to take the short course, so it will be up to schools to decide how best to focus the teaching of RE. To answer your second query - our goal is to increase the opportunities for all students; however we acknowledge that it will take time to adjust the curriculum and teaching to deliver the English Baccalaureate subjects. Ministers have deliberately not set targets for the English Baccalareate in acknowledgement of this, however this does not mean we should not begin the process of opening up greater opportunities. Thank you for taking the time to share your concerns with the Department.
Yours sincerely |
|
|
|