“Students are pressured into the EBacc with the result that they are now taking subjects that they ‘dislike least’. This has led to demotivated pupils and more behavioural issues.”
This comment from a head of department and history teacher in an Ofsted-outstanding academy is indicative of those found in a damning report into the impact that the government’s curriculum reforms – particularly the EBacc – are having in schools.
The King’s College London report – A Curriculum For All? – focuses on research involving 1,800 teachers and in-depth school case studies looking at the effects of key stage 4 curriculum, assessment and accountability reforms, including the introduction and prioritisation of the English Baccalaureate (EBacc) measure.
Commissioned by the National Union of Teachers (NUT), the report finds serious concerns among teachers about the “dramatic narrowing” of the curriculum led by the EBacc and the “excessive pressure” of exams taking its toll on students.
The EBacc was introduced in 2010 and the performance measure shows the proportion of pupils in a school being entered for (and achieving an A* to C grade in) GCSEs in English, mathematics, science, history or geography, and a foreign language. Since its introduction, the proportion of students being entered for the full suite of EBacc subjects has increased year-on-year to almost 40 per cent in 2016 (of which 24.5 per cent achieved the requisite grades).
The King’s College report comes as the government is proposing to require that 90 per cent of pupils currently in year 8 in England take the full suite of EBacc GCSEs. A consultation on this closed in January and we are still waiting for the official Department for Education response.
However, in the report, 75 per cent of teachers said that the EBacc had narrowed the key stage 4 curriculum on offer in their schools while 84 per cent said that the reforms had entrenched an exam culture that was “undermining students’ mental health and wellbeing”.
It also contains claims that talented students are being counselled away from taking arts subjects and towards EBacc options.
Meanwhile, many teachers said that the new, more knowledge-based GCSE curriculum was uninspiring, with
77 per cent believing that it is not suitable for low attaining students.
The report states: “A major concern for teachers was that the steering of students towards EBacc subjects will increase disengagement and disaffection, particularly among lower attaining students. A number of teachers also expressed the concern that creatively talented students were being steered away from creative subjects towards more traditionally academic subjects.”
One science teacher in an academy told researchers: “(There is) far more pressure on pupils who are pushed into choosing subjects for the EBacc but cannot cope academically causing more problems with failure and behaviour/dysfunctionality.”
Another history teacher said: “Students are forced to take EBacc subjects despite lack of desire and/or aptitude.”
And a languages teacher added: “We have ended up with students who were made to take a language as they were on a particular path regardless of their prior achievement and attitude towards the subject. Therefore, we have ended up with demotivated/disruptive students.”
Among those commenting in the report were a number of teachers who are being made redundant because of the EBacc. One PSHE and citizenship teacher said: “I am being made redundant because we will only be teaching EBacc subjects at key stages 3 and 4 from now on.” Another computer science teacher reported redundancies across his school’s creative subjects.
Kevin Courtney, NUT general secretary, said: “The government should take this report seriously. It uncovers significant problems with the EBacc and shows the profession does not support the attempt to steer all students towards a narrow range of subjects.
“The demands of EBacc are driving creative and vocational subjects out of the curriculum and are harming students’ motivation, engagement and appetite for learning. The government still has not published the results of its consultation on implementing the EBacc. It is high time it did.
“It is essential that we develop a system in which the achievements of all students can be recognised and in which students’ individual strengths and interests can be used as catalysts for supporting good progress and positive life chances. The government could and should learn important and constructive lessons from the thousands of secondary teachers speaking up in this report.’”
Elsewhere in the report, more than 90 per cent of the teachers also said that their workload had increased notably as a result of data collection for the new Progress 8 accountability regime.
From 2016, Progress 8 is to be the headline indicator of school performance and will determine the floor standard. Progress 8 is based on students’ attainment across eight subjects – English, maths, three EBacc subjects, and three others. It records the progress pupils make between their key stage 2 SATs through to GCSE and judges this against the progress they were expected to make based on the results of other pupils with similar prior attainment.
Mr Courtney added: “The report finds that classrooms have become even more focused on exam and test preparation, especially in the subjects that are most heavily weighed in the Progress 8 basket.
“Secondary teachers are adamant that the key stage 2 SATs are not a reliable benchmark from which to measure pupils’ progress through to age 16. The government must engage with this valid concern, which runs to the heart of the reliability of their primary and secondary-school accountability system.”