Most of the evidence “was striking in its lack of support for the EBac as it currently stands,” wrote the
Education Select Committee in its report which:
1 Found that the countries which the DfE claimed had “broadly similar arrangements to the EBac were not all directly comparable examples.
2 Expressed concern about the lack of consultation: the top-down prescription was as at odds with Mr Gove's belief that "headteachers and teachers—not politicians and bureaucrats—know best how to run schools.”
3 Believed that announcing which subjects were included in the EBac would prejudice the outcomes of the curriculum review.
4 Found the Department's evidence offered no analysis of the impact that other countries’ EBac-type arrangements had made on disadvantaged students. The Committee was not convinced there was any positive link.
5 Agreed that the EBac performance measure could encourage schools to focus on wealthier students because they tend to do better in EBac subjects. This could provide incentives for schools to divert resources away from poorer pupils.
6 Cited evidence suggesting that the EBac does not differentiate between good and outstanding performance: it was only necessary for pupils to gain grade C.
7 Concluded that the EBac is a simplistic threshold measure likely to mean that schools will devote more resources to borderline C grade students. This would be detrimental to both weaker pupils and high-achievers.
8 Thought that a focus on a fairly narrow range of subjects, demanding considerable curriculum time, could have negative consequences on the uptake of other subjects.
9 Acknowledged that several submissions had suggested that the retrospective introduction was a politically rather than educationally driven move, as it would, in the words of the Catholic Education Service, "allow the Government to show significant 'improvement' in future years".
The Education Select Committee has found the much vaunted EBac to be badly flawed. It is unlikely to achieve what it is supposed to do – raise standards particularly among disadvantaged pupils. Instead, results are likely to cluster on the C threshold. And the Committee found there was insufficient international evidence to support the Government’s view that the EBac would benefit disadvantaged pupils.
As well as making unsubstantiated claims based on deficient data and obscuring what many believe to be the real reason for a retrospective introduction ie producing a low baseline from which the Government can claim considerable progress, the DfE behaved in such a manner during the enquiry that the Committee accused the Department of being guilty of “deliberate obfuscation or a lack of co-ordination”.
The DfE is also burying its collective head in the sand. It has
ignored the Committee’s findings.
Comments
There's been plenty of evidence suggesting such a process taking place recently.
'now effectively cleared out' rather than 'not effectively cleared out' oops!
Point 6 is contradictory to the announced plans for abolishing modular GCSE examination from September 2012. Whilst EBacc C grades support school tables there will be no second chances for stressed out students.
Point 5 is interesting, why is that wealthier children tend to do these subjects? Should this not be changed? Why should poorer children not pursue ebacc subjects? It this elitism that needs to be challenged.
Global research by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) found that socio-economic background accounts for a large proportion of educational underachievement and has listed ways in which this might be addressed so that disadvantaged children can nevertheless succeed. This is discussed in more depth here:
http://www.localschoolsnetwork.org.uk/2011/07/socio-economic-disadvantag...
http://www.localschoolsnetwork.org.uk/2011/07/disadvantaged-pupils-do-wo...
http://www.pisa.oecd.org/dataoecd/17/26/48165173.pdf
I really have a problem with GCSE ICT being the equivalent of four GCSE's when it is not four times as difficult as say, Maths, German or Physics and when there is not even an examination. It is all course work which is almost impossible to fail.
If we really want to improve education in this country and if we are really serious about learning lessons from our Scandinavian neighbours then we should go for a comprehensive reform of our system and accept that this wiol cost money and that we should be prepared to invest in our children and tomorrows citizens by paying higher taxes. Some of my reforms would include;
a) starting schools at 6 or 7 years of age
b) additional language learning throughout schools life from 6 to 18
c) Revamp of teacher training - higher qualifications
d) headteachers to lead teaching and learning and no function as CEO - not getting involved in HR, empire building, construction and financial management
e) Teacher deployment to be managed centrally by LA so that teachers can be deployed to schools according to need i.e. the best teachers working in the most challenging schools to raise standards
f) free schools, grammar schools, independent schools abolished so that we have just one type of school. All of these excellent teachers in these schools therefore working with all types of children
g) Closer links between schools and industry
h) properly thought out GCSE vocational subjects
i) A non- partisan approach to education - 'unlikely I know but one can only wish'.
j) The teaching profession taking back control of education from the politicians
h) Education for profit to be outlawed - companies should not be allowed to run schools for profit ' after all it is the children who ultimately deliver the outcomes and they do not share in these profits unlike the shareholders. Capita, Serco and co should be removed from education.
These are a few of my thoughts about how I believe education ca be improved in this country.
We still accept this apartheid of curricula where rich kids pursue a different curriculum from their poorer cousins. I do not agree with very much of what Gove promotes but Labour did little to address this apartheid and they failed to introduce any vision in education. Just look at the appointments they made, Balls and Kelly were particularly bad appointments and let's face it, was Balls really interested?
As educationalists we need to eschew partisanship and attempt to be objective about how we improve the lot of all of children. How do we for instance enable more children from poor backgrounds to study at Russell Group universities? Would an ebacc type of curriculum enhance or hinder their chances? Or are we saying that it will always and only be the children from affluent backgrounds who will be able to attend these universities?
As a teacher working in schools in tough areas I have grappled extensively with the issues involved in social mobility. It is essential to understand and work with the realities schools face as they attempt to compensate for strong negative cohort effects and the impoverished intellectual home environments of many children.
I found the joint effects of excellence cluster funding (which gave intervention funding to ensure that high quality top sets remained in school where they would be diluted by providing for them to be small if necessary) and aim higher (which provided intervention funding to expose children from challenging backgrounds to the benefits of higher education from a young age) extremely supportive to the work I did as a teacher in trying to raise student aspirations.
Please could you explain your criticism of these initiatives and why this government's proposals will be more effective?
Ways in which education can be improved for all children are regularly discussed on this site - a trawl through "Views" will verify this. In particular, see threads about what countries which perform well in international tests are doing. These countries are often moving in the opposite direction to the way England is going (remember, Gove's "reforms" only take place in England).
On a similar vein, the value added by secondary modern schools in deprived areas should be considered for lower fees and admission arrangements into universities.
I am also concerned about this school of thought that children are either 'academic' or 'vocational' whereas I think we all have the capacity to be both.
Finally Rebecca, I have never voted conservative and never will that is not to say that I disagree with everything they propose but I can never support a party that views mass unemployment as a form of worthwhile collateral damage and a prty that has cabinet members involved in tax avoidance on a massive scale not to mention its approach to tuition fees
The most successful primary schools in tough areas recognise that students are lacking much of that context and deliberately create a curriculum which provides the experiences before the abstractions are made and the concrete knowledge taught.
We used to teach secondary maths in ways which also understood this reality and were considered to be international best practice, but these were wiped out by the National Curriculum and Ofsted (do feel free to ask if you would like me to explain this in detail).
Students aged 14-16 are difficult to teach and motivate if they are forced into subjects they do not want to study David. Many become far more motivated and engaged with school when they feel able to choose subject they believe are relevant to them and when the subjects they have chosen help them to connect with role models and build future images of themselves they feel are worthwhile.
Many students choose to study heath and social care, leisure and tourism, business, design technology or another vocational subject as one of their GCSEs. Many also really like RE as it gives them a chance to reflect on their experience of life and society holistically. As a maths teacher I see the benefits of my students being happy, motivated, engaged and inspired in their other subjects.
I don't students as being 'academic' or 'vocational' (this is only one of their choices) and I don't see why you do? - although of course the Ebacc will clearly demark them as such. But I do clearly see the realities of students who hate languages being forced to study them instead of a being able to choos subject they want to study and feel is relevant to them.
Janet, sorry for a basic question point 6, but can you confirm lack of differentiation is for league tables only, that students will receive grades for each subject?
Pupils will still be graded A*-C. However, as a performance measure for schools only the number of pupils who pass all the EBac subjects will be recorded, probably as a percentage. If a school, say, gets 50% of its pupils through EBac, there's no way of knowing how many of the 50% just scraped a C or how many gained the top grades. That was what concerned the Select Committee - that measuring EBac pass rate in this way failed to differentiate between A* and C candidates. This in turn led the Committee to be worried that schools would concentrate more resources on getting as many pupils over the C threshold which would be to the detriment of both high-flying pupils and weak ones.
The Select Committee found no evidence that the Government had considered the questions above which suggests it's a half-baked idea foisted on schools with little thought about the implications.
You raise important points on certification (as well as performance measures). Obviously students will continue to be graded A*-C but subject grades should still be presented in such a way as to be meaningful for future prospects and effort. As a comparison, Access to HE certificates were going to be introduced to include subject specific grades i.e., pass, merit or distinction rather than a standard specification.
Some context here - everyone likes the IBacc but its too expensive for state educaiton so Wales came up with a Welsh bacc which was a wrap around qualification for flexible component parts. The Ebacc thinking was along the lines of the equivalent of 2A2s, at least one mathematical AS, perhaps at least one AS which involved writing, perhaps a language at AS, an EPQ and some life experience.
No-one was expecting an Ebacc which was GCSE standard.
All primary schools having reading tutors - to ensure that all children are reading at age related levels
An extensive drive to recruit and train good quality Maths teachers - this is where we could look at our Eastern European neighbours and maybe learn something.
Careful monitoring of procurement practices re;ICT equipment - to ensure that there is real value for money
A long term strategy to recruit and train high qualiy STEM teachers
It seems to have worked exceptionally well from my point of view - how would you change it?
Plus removing exam boards from the private sector. How do these exam boards currently increase market share? They will not be telling schools that their exams are more challenging, that's for sure.
Did Nick Gibb mislead the Education Select Committee, or has he just changed his mind?
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201011/cmhansrd/cm111108/hall...
Ebacc students will continue to receive subject grades as for A Levels but there will be no ebacc certification. Lack of differentiation A*-C, and the C threshold, as above.
meant to write 'Ebacc students will continue to receive subject grades as for GCSEs'. No matter. Will this mean no GCSE certification - no record of achievment, except for a slip of paper?
The whole thing is a mess and the victims are the pupils.
The Government intends the EBacc to become one of the main measures of achievement for schools in the future." (Pearson 2011)
http://www.edexcel.com/quals/ebacc/Pages/default.aspx
When the Education Select Committee studied the international evidence cited by the government to uphold the above claim, the Committee found that the evidence was not comparable. It appears, then, that the Government is basing its EBac "reform" on a report published in late 2009 which it took at face value.
http://www.edexcel.com/quals/ebacc/Pages/policy-watch.aspx
Here's Bronowski on the theme of of this kind of human behaviour.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0jl2w3xYFHQ
As things stand, Ebac arrangements will make little or no difference to students in secondary modern schools with no sixth forms. Conversely, C grade provides even more latitude for those coached into grammar school.
So the rise in pupils taking separate sciences began before the present Government came to power.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-11074117
http://www.jcq.org.uk/attachments/published/1589/GCSE%20RESULTS.pdf
It is all well and good saying that 90% of schools should offer triple science but as always the devil is in the details. How many children within each of these schools will be actually be doing triple science? Once again there is the risk of elitism as we all know that in the main triple science will only be offered to the 'top' students. It is just a shame that triple science is not offered to all students.
You are absolutely right Janet and shame on Gove for trying to take the credit. You don't even need 3 sciences for the E bacc so I've no idea what he is on about.
I'll need your help on this one, jimc. I found a video on line which I think was broadcast at the Conservative conference. It listed individual subjects and said the increased uptake of these was due to government policy, presumably the EBac. Now I can't find it although I've googled several times. If you could track it down and post the link I'd be grateful. In the meantime, I'll do the same if I eventually find it.
Time for a Reality Check?
Jacob Bronowski should make us think about the implications of Galton’s obsession with his own academic failure, the dogma which has led to collective deafness of suffering, the suffering of children. The eugenics movement that gave rise to Burt’s notion of educational aptitude and the creation of the 11-plus has also led to the imposition of a final solution. Indeed, a fine line exists between positive and negative discrimination.
Children develop at different rates, as individuals, they may have needs which aren’t easy to identify. If needs go unidentified, reasonable adjustments cannot be made. Thus, a test of ability becomes one of disability. The underrepresentation of children on FSM or with SEN in grammar schools does not chime with equality.
http://www.localschoolsnetwork.org.uk/2011/05/access-to-grammar-schools-...
The first is they way in which the methods of weighing and measuring are defined by Ofsted in contravention of their legal oblications - more information here and in subsequent posts:
http://mathseducationandallthat.blogspot.com/2011/08/ofsted-part-2-journ...
The second aspect of my work involves analysing emerging ICT systems and seeing how they can be developed and used to support the appropriate use of weighing and measuring - in ways which promote diversity and personal skills alongside core techniques and vocabulary and which lead to low stakes formative and summative assessment which will hopefully replace SATs.
Rebecca - thank you for your insight into Ofsted’s assessment of school performance (I will read the Regulator’s Compliance Code). It would appear that schools suffer similar injustices to children taking the 11+, lack of context and subjectivity for the former and cultural bias for the latter. Both are intrinsically linked. For example, the primary curriculum is warped by 11+ ‘familiarisation’, children who do not pass feel deflated and see little point in year 6 SATs. Primary school ratings can then take a dive and poor performance may be passed to attendance – to parents - with no reference to authorisation - all to keep the right side of the line. The effects to academic self-esteem, to progress, at transfer to secondary school are anyone’s guess - an area for further research.
I do believe that we should expose young people to as many experiences as possible and taking them out of their comfort zones whether this be emotional, geographical or social. Aim Higher has been very successful in this endeavour and long may this continue.
In terms of student choice as long as students are making informed choices that's Ok with me, I worry when students make ill-informed choices, for example choosing health and social care on the belief that it will provide a route into the health profession or GCSE Law being a the route into the law profession or GSE/A level media being the route into media. These are exciting and interesting subjects but they are not the main routes or even the relevant routes in the aforementioned professions.
I am enjoying this civil exchange of opinions and perspectives.
Relevance in educations is a biggie - that should keep us going for a while - as you can see here David.... https://www.ncetm.org.uk/community/thread/56000
Add new comment