2 Introduction of the EBac
Rationale for the EBac
11. Three main purposes have been given by the
Government as rationale for the EBac's creation: to have a positive
impact on social mobility and the closing of the achievement gap
between richer and poorer students, to act as a new performance
measure, and to ensure a core, academic curriculum offer for all
students. We will discuss these purposes, and others, in subsequent
chapters. The Department published an Addendum to its Statement
of Intent concerning the EBac,[17]
and announced the EBac in the Schools White Paper;[18]
however, some of its reasoning is to be found in Ministerial speeches
and other announcements, and we acknowledge that this has contributed
to a certain degree of confusion among schools and the wider public
as to the purpose of the EBac.
12. Whilst the EBac is not a complete curriculum,
nor even a compulsory subset of subjects, the concept of the EBac
does make explicit for the first time in England the proposition
that, even going beyond English and Maths, and within subjects
that can be broadly described as 'academic', some subjects have
a higher average worth than others. Can this be justified?
13. The Committee was presented with very little
evidence on any differential 'value' (in either a narrow economic
sense or a broader sense) of various subjects to the individual
student. But, looking at what external evidence is available,
it does appear that some subjects do have a higher perceived value
than others, and that those subjects approximately equate to the
set of subjects included in the EBac. That external evidence includes:
- the Russell Group's 2011 publication Informed
Choices, which lists those A-level subjects viewed as 'facilitating'
entry to Russell Group universities, and which is discussed in
further depth in Chapter 3;[19]
- a similar list of 'non-preferred subjects' published
by the London School of Economics; that list features exclusively
subjects not included in the EBac;[20]
- the Department for Education's July 2011 report
on the Youth Cohort Study, which shows that 19% of young people
who had achieved good passes in all of the exams of the EBac were
not in Higher Education, versus 32% of the larger group who had
got five or more GCSEs (or equivalents) at grade C or above (including
English and mathematics);[21]
- public perceptions of various subjects' worth;
as demonstrated through the YouGov poll quoted in the previous
chapter, the subjects included in the EBac were seen by those
polled as more important to count towards schools' league table
positions.
14. We were pleased to hear the Minister of State
for Schools say that the EBac is "not an accountability measure",[22]
although it is clearly being viewed as such by many; at the same
time he said that is was a "measure to give information to
parents"[23] but
without a target figure being set for the number of students achieving
the award.[24]
Creation and consultation
15. Many submissions were concerned about the
lack of consultation undertaken in relation to the EBac's introduction.
The Association of School and College Leaders (ASCL) told us that
it had "rarely received such a high level of communication
from members expressing concern and dismay about a government
initiative", and that those members, while expressing different
views on the detail of the EBac, were "united in expressing
their anger about its hasty introduction without any consultation".[25]
Other bodies have agreed with the ASCL's view; the Association
of Teachers and Lecturers, for example, emphasised that "consultation
with the education profession ... would have ensured a more accurate
understanding of the existing educational offer, including in
relation to raising standards and educational attainment".[26]
16. Asked in a Parliamentary Question what consultation
had been undertaken "prior to introducing the English Baccalaureate
into performance tables",[27]
the Minister of State for Schools suggested that the measure itself
was introduced without consultation, but that schools were invited
"to submit their comments by the end of the year".[28]
However, this invitation appears to have been solely the letter
from the Secretary of State to headteachers, on 24 November
2010, which gave just over two weeks for recipients to offer their
"initial thoughts and reactions" on the White Paper,
and which made no specific reference to the EBac.[29]
On the other hand, the Minister of State explained to the Committee
that it was made "very clear before the election that we
were concerned about perverse incentives in the league tables"
and that, if the accountability measure of five or more GCSEs
were to be changed "there would be much more consultation."[30]
17. The Secretary of State has explained that
the EBac's manner of introduction means that the first year's
results "manifestly can't have been gamed".[31]
However, a top-down, non-consultative methodology could nonetheless
be seen as at odds with the Secretary's of State's clearly-articulated
belief that "headteachers and teachersnot politicians
and bureaucratsknow best how to run schools."[32]
18. We acknowledge the Secretary
of State's rationale for the retrospective introduction of the
EBac. However, we also recognise the tension between the lack
of consultation concerning the EBac's introduction, and the Government's
aspiration to afford greater autonomy and respect to the education
profession. Consultation with teachers, as well as the further
and higher education sectors and employers, might have avoided
a number of the concerns which are now being raised, and may have
secured support for the EBac rather than generating the mainly
negative response which our inquiry has seen. In future, the Government
should aim to give appropriate notice of, and undertake consultation
with key stakeholders and the wider public on, any new performance
or curriculum measures.
The timing of the EBac's introduction
19. A full review of the National Curriculum
was trailed in the White Paper[33]
and announced on 20 January 2011;[34]
the Wolf Review, which made significant recommendations concerning
curriculum and qualifications, was published in March 2011; and
the process of reforming the education accountability system,
including changes to Ofsted's inspection regime, was underway
by the time the EBac was introduced. Evidence submitted to our
inquiry expressed some concerns about how well the EBac was aligned
with these other reforms; for example, the CBI's Susan Anderson
argued that the "debate needs to take place as part of the
curriculum review",[35]
while the Association of Teachers and Lecturers said:
We believe that any considerations of the choice
of subjects included in the EBac in fact prejudices the outcomes
of the curriculum review and precludes the latter from being an
independent and open-minded re-evaluation. We are very disappointed
with what is either a deliberate obfuscation or a lack of co-ordination
within the Department for Education.[36]
20. We welcome the recently-launched
review of the National Curriculum. We hope this will lead to a
considered, coherent rethinking of the curriculum allowing full
consultation with, and input from the teaching profession, parents,
employers, colleges and universities. We understand the Government's
wish to introduce reform with all speed, but regret the launch
of the EBac before the curriculum review was completed. Any measure
which examines schools' performance in particular subjects would
be better introduced once the curriculum itself has been defined
and finalised.
The EBac's name
21. Evidence submitted to this inquiry has raised
some concerns about the naming of the EBac, which is potentially
misleading. Universities UK wrote to us that:
It is not a true Baccalaureate but a collection of
existing subjects and as such could give rise to misconceptions
both in the UK and abroad. In the UK we have Welsh, Scottish,
European and International Baccalaureates being taught at Level
3 which are qualifications and, as such, form part of the higher
education admissions requirements. The English Baccalaureate,
however, is at Level 2 and is only an award and generally not
a requirement by universities.[37]
This, some universities feel, "could be confusing
for potential applicants".[38]
The Association of School and College Leaders, in its written
evidence, argues that the EBac "is not a baccalaureate as
understood internationally", not least because a true baccalaureate
usually assesses "achievement in both knowledge and skills"
in practical as well as academic fields. [39]
Furthermore, the word 'baccalaureate' in modern usage implies
a qualification in itself, which the EBaca combination
of a performance measure and a certificatedoes not seem
to us to be.[40] As Philip
Parkin, General Secretary of the union Voice, has written
[The EBac's] name suggests that it is an actual programme
of study like the challenging International Baccalaureate. Instead,
if you've got some GCSEs, you will get another piece of paper
to wrap the certificates in no extra work involved.[41]
22. We do not believe the EBac
the hybrid of a certificate and a performance measure, named after
a qualificationis appropriately labelled: it is not a baccalaureate,
and as it stands the name can therefore be misleading to parents,
professionals and pupils. The Government should assess the extent
to which the name might cause confusion: a concern, like some
others, which consultation before the EBac's introduction could
have identified.
17 See Appendix 1 Back
18
See The Importance of Teaching - The Schools White Paper 2010,
pp. 44-45 Back
19
Informed Choices can be read online at http://russellgroup.ac.uk/uploads/InformedChoicesupdated_2.pdf Back
20
The LSE's list, and fuller admissions guidance, can be viewed
at http://www2.lse.ac.uk/study/undergraduate/howToApply/lseEntryRequirements.aspx Back
21
The study, published on 7 July 2011, is available at http://www.education.gov.uk/rsgateway/DB/SBU/b001014/b01-2011.pdf;
the statistics quoted are on page 16 Back
22
Q 85 Back
23
Q 86 Back
24
Q 88 Back
25
Ev w195 Back
26
Ev w213 Back
27
HC Deb 4 April 2011 col 703W Back
28
Ibid. Back
29
The letter can be seen on the Department for Education website,
at http://media.education.gov.uk/assets/files/pdf/m/michael%20goves%20letter%20to%20headteachers%20and%20chairs%20of%20governors%20on%20the%20schools%20white%20paper%20%20%2024%20november%202010.pdf
Back
30
Q 98 Back
31
Speech by the Secretary of State for Education to the Education
World Forum, 11 January 2011, available at http://www.education.gov.uk/inthenews/speeches/a0072274/michael-gove-to-the-education-world-forum Back
32
Ibid. Back
33
See The Importance of Teaching - The Schools White Paper 2010,
p. 41 Back
34
See http://www.education.gov.uk/schools/teachingandlearning/curriculum/a0073149/national-curriculum-review-launched Back
35
Q 79 Back
36
Ev w215 Back
37
Ev 41 Back
38
Ibid. Back
39
Ev w196; see also Ev w310 (1994 Group) Back
40
The word 'baccalaureate' has its roots in the Latin word baccalaureus,
meaning an advanced student. Nowadays, the word is most familiar
to educators in the 'International Baccalaureate' concept. The
IB is "(a qualification awarded for satisfactory performance
in) a set of examinations intended to qualify successful candidates
for higher education in any of several countries." (The New
Shorter Oxford English Dictionary, 1993 edition) On that definition,
the EBac is batting zero for two: it is not a qualification in
its own right, and - being at age 16 rather than 18 - does not
automatically make successful candidates eligible for higher education
without further study. Back
41
Writing in a letter to The Times Educational Supplement,
28 January 2011 Back
|