Curriculum offer influenced by White Paper - a few questions?

Hi,
I am interested to know if anyone has changed the options/curriculum offer available to pupils based on the White Paper, possibly from Y7 upwards from Sept 2011.
For example, are schools/academies now ensuring most/all pupils receive humanities and a language for option choices in Y10?
1) Does this mean their will be a 'Humanities' option consisting of only History and Geography, and a 'Language' option? (restricting overall choice to pupils)
2) How do other subjects feel now that their subjects are marginalised? (technologies, music, art etc...) They will end up competing for the remaining option places available and will certainly not increase take up compared to previous years.
3) Are schools taking the 'English Bacc' seriously? Or do you think schools and academies will continue to look at the existing measure for 35% English/Maths/(and I thought Science in future?)
Thanks, interested in your opinions and whether you are overhauling your curricula.

 

We have recently finalised our KS4 offer to launch with Y9 next week. We considered the Eng Bacc thingy but have not changed our options package as a result (made other, unrelated, changes). atm we're not taking it too seriously, and we currently get about double the national average as it happens.
If you do decide to skew the options as you describe can you staff it? We couldn't, and I dare say most schools can't. So are we expected to sack, for example, drama teachers to employ more MFL staff? Ridiculous situation imo.

 

Sensible approach.

 

A "sensible approach" if you get twice the national average. But what happens when the national average shoots up and you get left behind because 30% is not good enough? Do you carry on "not taking it too seriously"? I wonder whether the schools that got less than 10% are adopting this approach.

 

If you check my post I say "atm we're not taking it too seriously" (atm stands for at the moment!).
Our stance (atm) is to see how this new yardstick plays out with parents etc before making what would really be (imo) a reactionary and retrograde change to our KS4 offer to bring it into line with a 1970s grammar school. I'm not convinced this is the best way to prepare our students for life in the 21st century.

 

Sorry, my post was not meant to be overtly critical of the approach any school is adopting. Individual schools will shape their response in light of their context. I was merely quoting to show the parts of the two prior posts to which I was refering.
As far as parents' response is concerned I can tell you what our experience was last Wednesday when we ran our options evening. As curriculum deputy I gave the three talks about the options package and how to fill in the form. The overwhelming feeling of the parents (or at least those that attended the evening), even before all the press coverage, seemed to be if this is the new measure of success then my kid is going to take it. History and geography staff tell me the vast majority of parents asked which they should take not whether they should take one.

 

No offence taken! And I'm sorry if my response was a little terse.
Interesting about the parents' take on it. We have our options evening next week so I'll feed back on how our parents perceive this new 'qualification'.

 

Do you think that some schools will continue to highlight their 5 A*-C score including Maths and English and play down the importance of the Ebacc? Not in league tables I mean but on websites and to prospective parents etc.?