“The key to improving our education system isn’t endless diktats from government, but the innovations that come from the ground – from networks of schools and teachers collaborating with one another to drive up standards and improve outcomes for young people. That’s what we mean when we talk about a self-improving, school-led system.”
These words aren’t those of ASCL, though we very much endorse them, but of education secretary Nicky Morgan in a speech last year.
The reason for quoting them here is that they seem so completely at odds with one of the first actions of the new government elected in May – announcing that every pupil will have to sit GCSEs in the five English Baccalaureate (EBacc) subjects.
It is hard to think of a more striking example of a diktat handed down by government. A recent ASCL survey confirmed that the vast majority of school leaders think that the compulsory EBacc does not suit the needs of every pupil and there is no compelling evidence that such a narrow focus is right for the economy.
Surely, in a school-led system professionals are better placed than government to decide which GCSEs to offer their pupils based on their first-hand experience of working in schools.
Nevertheless, the government has introduced a top-down policy which greatly restricts the freedom school leaders have to tailor the curriculum to the individual needs of pupils. The rigid demands of a compulsory EBacc leave less room for innovation from the ground and require that everybody adheres to the same narrow academic focus.
We recognise and respect the fact that the Conservative Party manifesto made a commitment to the EBacc. However, that commitment is framed in a single broad-brush sentence, and contains no detail. Our position is that it would be more deliverable if there was greater flexibility about the choice of subjects and an allowance that it is not suitable for every pupil. This is the argument we will be putting forward during the consultation, which is expected this autumn. Such flexibility would allow students to tailor a broad and balanced curriculum to their particular aptitudes and interests.
All pupils are already expected to sit GCSEs in three of the EBacc subjects – English, maths and science – and we would certainly agree that the full range of EBacc subjects should be available to all young people. What we say, however, is that more choice over the remaining GCSE options would still serve the objectives of EBacc while giving pupils greater room to pursue subjects which interest them.
Religious studies, for example, could be offered as one of the humanities choices alongside geography or history. EBacc also contains no creative option, despite subjects like music, art and drama playing an intrinsic role in British culture and the fact that the creative industries are a major part of the economy.
There is finite space in the timetable and EBacc as it currently stands is likely to squeeze other subjects out of the curriculum. Our concern is that it will reduce the numbers who take important subjects such as design and technology, to the point where is will be simply uneconomic to run these courses.
Headteachers want to be able to offer a curriculum that is broad and varied and which gives young people an education that is rounded, rich and fulfilling. They want to be able to respond to the individual needs of pupils, identifying the subjects which fire their enthusiasm and imagination.
Government should allow them the freedom to innovate on the basis of their experience and expertise. That’s what we mean when we talk about a school-led, self-improving system.
- Brian Lightman is general secretary of the Association of School and College Leaders. Visit www.ascl.org.uk