Skip to content

English Baccalaureate – questions outstanding

September 18, 2012

There’s a dangerous tendency among most of my fellow politicians to assume that what’s worked for them can work for everyone else.  With hands on the ministerial levers there is a tempting opportunity to impose your life experience on the rest of society.  In no area of policy is this more true than education.

Successive Education Secretaries, whether they are Conservative, Labour or now Coalition have remembered fondly their own school days and then a quarter century later lament that things aren’t what they used to be.  So we get academies, not comprehensives.  Free schools, not selection.  Rigour, not discovery.  And so on with uniforms, streaming, setting, team sports, houses and phonics.

There’s nothing wrong with politicians applying real life experiences to policy making.  But the trouble is that MPs aren’t typical of the population, ministers even less so.  We all went to school.  But we all succeeded and have ended up in Parliament.   The school system worked for us and that can give a rose tinted view of our educational past.  Michael Gove and I are the same age and have an identical education time line from school through to university graduation.  But the similarity ends there.  I went to Mountain Ash Comprehensive, a large co-ed secondary in a south Wales mining town.  Michael went to Robert Gordon’ College, a private all boys boarding school in Aberdeen.  I was the only boy in the school to get a full set of O’levels at the first attempt and one of a handful to progress to university. Many of my compatriots left with a ‘school leaving certificate’ and no recognised qualifications.  I don’t know enough about standards at Michael’s school but assume the expectation was that the vast majority would get good grades and go to university.  The same assumption would apply to the PM, DPM and the new Schools Minister, all of whom left school in about 1985.  We all sat O’levels, A’levels (and maybe Special papers) and degrees where everything rested on peak performance in a set of exams at the final stage of study.

My point is not so much about me and my political contemporaries. It could be said of any generation of politicians in my lifetime.  Ministers and their civil service advisers tend to come from private schools where academic excellence was the norm and everyone went to university.  Most state schools simply aren’t like that.  Lots of people fail academic exams.  Some children will have parents with no qualifications and they are likely to be on free school meals.  There will be a group with a variety of special educational needs. And in a change from the class of 1985, many children in urban Britain won’t have English as their first language.

The Coalition has already enacted one big education reform that is designed for the realities of 21st century British schools, the pupil premium.  The extra money for each child on free school meals should even up the chances of children from disadvantaged backgrounds.  The children sitting the first E-Bac in 2017 may have had the benefit of six years worth of pupil premium investment.  But even that will not guarantee success for children faced with a one size fits all exam system, if the E-Bac is seen as the gold standard, the only qualification that matters.

There are undoubtedly elements of the current GCSE system that need changing.  The fact that schools in the same city or county can use different exam boards for the same subjects gives room for doubt that valid comparisons are being made in those intensely scrutinised league tables.  One exam board per subject will clear this up.   The modular system makes you wonder how much in depth learning is actually retained over time.  Coursework may be enjoyable and less pressurised than an exam but it gives an advantage to those with parents engaged in their children’s learning. All of this could have been reformed while keeping the GCSE system and a range of vocational courses.

I wonder why the government has decided on a new purely academic qualification.  Why not implement the Tomlinson proposals for a diploma, shamefully dumped by Blair in 2007?  Those proposals for reform were at least well thought through and tried to reconcile demands for academic rigour and vocational achievement.

But the big question is this – why do we still need a national test for 16 year olds?  By the time the E-Bac starts in 2015 (and just for Maths, English and sciences at first) the school leaving age will effectively be 18.  What will be so crucial about the June of the school or college year when someone turns 16?    Not everyone is ready for measurement at the same time.  Some are precocious, probably like most future Education ministers.  Some are late developers. A worthwhile reform would be to allow people to build up different elements of a wide E-Bac diploma between say the ages of 15 and 18.

This is a big moment for a government that wants to see social mobility and a workforce that can compete with the best in the world.  I’m pleased that Liberal Democrats in the coalition have won the argument against a two tier academic exam, a return to O’levels and CSEs.  But I want to be sure that we’re designing a system that recognises achievement by every child in a school with a comprehensive intake.  We must value not just those with finely tuned minds but also those with highly skilled fingers.

 

9 Comments leave one →
  1. September 18, 2012 5:40 pm

    Hi Stephen, I’m pleased to say that the Welsh Bac. worked really well for my own daughter. Her A levels were disrupted seriously while I was critically ill in 2010. Her college were extremely helpful and encouraged her to take the course alongside her A levels which resulted in more UKAS points than she needed to follow her chosen studies and ultimately a career in nursing. I hope the English Bac. can be as helpful to pupils as the Welsh one is🙂

  2. David Etches permalink
    September 19, 2012 11:53 am

    Hi Stephen
    A well thought through blog. As the school leaving age will be 18 why all the fuss about exams at 16. The previous Tory Education Secretary Kenneth Baker makes the point particularly well. At 14 and 15 it must be pretty clear to teachers that different students have different talents. A conference between the student, her carers / parents and the professionals should be able to produce a personalised education programme through to age 18 with enough flexibility built in to change course if necessary. As you say, the Tomlinson Report provides the ideal blueprint for an overarching Diploma. There was wide support for Tomilinson and not taking it up was a disaster by Blair. There’s room within Tomlinson for academic rigour aka EBacc, A Levels etc and vocational courses. Why not take it off the shelf, dust it down and have a real debate in Parliament which is not, as you say, completely informed by the life experience of few privileged individuals

  3. nigel permalink
    September 20, 2012 9:19 am

    Everybody knows these exam changes will not work and are likely to disengage even more young people with consequent effects on the quality of of society.
    The question is, Stephen, how long will the Lib Dems support a Tory led government which is consistently making mistakes, failing to consult those on the ground, in this case the teachers and who do it all following some blind belief in elitism and privatisation. Unless your party develops a much harder line with the Tories you will go down with them at the next election.

  4. November 15, 2012 2:27 pm

    Stephen, You are right to highlight the different educational pathways enjoyed by many of your Coalition colleagues and most of us will share concerns that current thinking and a reversion to old structures and systems is not the way forward.
    Ed Milliband is right to point out that the majority of young people do not go to HE. Has Government really grasped the strong case to further social mobility presented in the Milburn Report and the reality around tuition fees, low level IAG provision and the cutting of Aimhigher programmes———-as a charity Ablaze is working in disadvantaged areas where the impact of recent policy is worrying—-many bright students are now not considering HE—-enlightened businesses with direct entry schemes can be helpful.
    Having supported Mike Tomlinson and shared thinking with Lord Dearing we have lost opportunities—-at least the Welsh Bac is relevant.
    Pupil Premium Funding is sound but schools must be held accountable for its use—–a role for OFSTED?
    Business involvement through volunteering is strong in Bristol but the Big Society expects charities to fill gaps left by LA cuts—–who funds our efforts?

    • November 16, 2012 10:19 am

      Thanks Roger, all good points. There is a danger of lack of joined up thinking between BIS and DfE. Vince Cable is pushing through huge expansion of apprenticeships and talking of importance of skilled workforce for high end manufacturing and design. Gove gives impression of being more concerned with the academic route( and often with Oxbridge as desired destination, when we have 100 universities). They need to work on parity of esteem…

      • November 19, 2012 11:15 am

        Stephen
        Perhaps ministers and those in BIS & DFE should carefully read today’s CBI Report ?

  5. February 7, 2013 10:46 am

    >A worthwhile reform would be to allow people to build up different elements of a wide E-Bac diploma between say the ages of 15 and 18.

    I like that idea.

    Thanks for this

  6. February 7, 2013 10:55 am

    Can I make another suggestion?

    Humanities and Social Sciences – 13-14 years ago when I was taking GCSEs, the way they were taught seemed really pointless and boring to me. I am very well aware now that they’re not boring or pointless subjects at all, but the way they were taught in the GCSE syllabus then was so cautious to avoid any controversy or any topic they might be accused of bias if they tried to discuss that it also avoided anything interesting.

    Can I suggest that the underlying essential beneficial function of education in the the humanities and social sciences is to make the future electorate more competent to participate in democracy than the present and past electorates. Education is an essential factor in maintaining and developing a genuine democracy, not just elections or voting. If the electorate don’t know their arse from their elbow historically, economically or in terms of political science, then they’re too susceptible to rhetoric, ‘dog-whistle’ politics and tedious, apathy-inducing party-political pantomiming.

    Languages, Sciences and Maths are the most important practically for the individual, but Humanities, Social Sciences and Arts are most important for educating children to become fully competent and active participants in democratic society.

Trackbacks

  1. What You Can Get Away With (Nick Barlow's blog) » Blog Archive » Worth reading 66: Geoff Hurst takes an arrow to the eye

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: