The Manchester Bacc.
Blog 7 May 21st. We welcome Andy Burnham's challenge to the current curriculum and qualification orthodoxy. But will it result in more hierarchical division? Plus news of Reclaiming Education Event.
The Manchester BACC: Opening up more educational opportunities or closing them down?
John Bolt, ex SEA General Secretary and current officer, considers the arguments and the practical obstacles to implementing it.
This announcement from the Greater Manchester Combined Authority represents the first attempt in England by a regional authority to challenge the DfE monopoly over curriculum planning and qualifications. There is little detail yet about what is proposed and any new framework will have to make use of DfE approved qualifications. So how different it will really be remains to be seen.
There is one clear positive in the Manchester proposals as far as we can see them. Broadening the curriculum offer at 14 is long overdue. The downgrading of the arts and technical subjects in favour of the EBacc has long been identified as a retrograde step. The primacy given to the limited suite of academic subjects is old fashioned and represents a limited and blinkered approach to what should be the final years of a broad general education.
It's true to say that young people who want to choose apprenticeships or employment rather than university have not been well served. They are stuck with the EBacc because the curriculum is driven by what are thought to be the needs of the university bound. Even if students manage to take a non EBacc programme, the message is that this represents a failure and other subjects are basically second best. So, certainly, we need change.
But there is much to be concerned about in what is being proposed. Most obviously there is the suggestion that young people at 14 will be divided into two distinct and separate pathways, one headed to higher education and the other to employment. It seems that the level of specialisation in the latter would be extreme. With a core limited to English, math and ICT, even science would not apparently be an entitlement.
The 14 to 16 phase should be about exploring as many opportunities and possible directions as possible. It should not involve closing down possible futures. Moreover, we all know what will happen – just as in the 11+ there will be one pathway for the privileged and the fortunate and another for the rest. No prizes for guessing who will be on which pathway.
Moreover, this simplistic approach betrays a failure to understand how students currently access post-school opportunities. Very many young people take technical and vocational courses post 16 and then go on to higher education. The same is intended to be true of T levels. And not every A level student goes on to university. As a society we need our highest achievers to see technical and creative subjects – and indeed careers – as equally valuable and rewarding.
Essentially, we don’t need two Baccs. We need one which contains within it the whole range of appropriate qualifications. All students should have access to the full range of academic, creative and technical courses. They should be able to combine academic, creative and technical courses and the baccalaureate qualification should give equal weight to all types of courses.
Balance will be essential both because young people need to have experience of a wide range of activities but also because 14+ choices should not close down the option of changing direction. Nor should we assume that everyone knows at 14 what they will want at 16, 18 or 21 - delaying decisions is ok! How much specialisation is appropriate at 14 will be a matter for debate but there should be an initial presumption in favour breadth and flexibility.
There are also some practical problems in delivering change which does not fit with the government’s approach – however unsatisfactory that approach may be. Most obviously, any engagement with this scheme by schools can only be voluntary. Past evidence suggests there will be schools who make it a badge of quality to only offer the academic route. Then there is Ofsted. The inspection framework is clear that the government is expecting the great majority to follow an EBacc programme. It goes on to say that:
“(EBacc take up) is an important factor in understanding a school’s level of ambition for its pupils. It is, therefore, important that inspectors understand what schools are doing to prepare for this and they should take those preparations into consideration when evaluating the intent of the school’s curriculum.”
Has anyone asked Ofsted how they will respond to a school that is deliberately promoting an alternative to EBacc?
One further cautionary note is around T Levels. They are, as yet, unproven. Whether they can generate the employer input required is not known. While there may be wide opportunities in a conurbation like Manchester, choices elsewhere will be more restricted. And above all, they are narrow in their very specific vocational focus so will not be appropriate for many who are not ready to make that kind of life choice. The applied general (BTEC) route is proven and will work for many. In the longer term, a reform of England’s whole post 16 curriculum, which is an international outlier in its narrowness, is long overdue.
In conclusion then, Manchester is right to challenge the domination of the 14 to 16 curriculum by an EBacc designed only to meet the needs of those heading for a particular kind of academic future. But the approach chosen is one that would paradoxically, by forcing young people into choices too early, deny opportunities to many and would risk deepening socio-economic divisions rather than challenging them. It should not be a blueprint for how a future Labour government should reform our broken system.
Reclaiming Education
Part of a series of socialist policy seminars from the Socialist Campaign Group of MPs, Momentum and the Labour Assembly Against Austerity
We need radical change in our education system to reverse the damage done by over a decade of Tory cuts and underinvestment.
Join the discussion on building a program for education that tackles marketisation, privatisation, creeping centralised control and the chronic strain on our educators from early years through to higher education.
FEATURING:
• Daniel Kebede, National Education Union's next General Secretary
• James Whiting, General Secretary of the Socialist Educational Association
• Nabeela Mowlana, Chair of Young Labour
• Ian Mearns MP and member of the Education Select Committee
• Christine Blower, Member of the House of Lords and former General Secretary of the National Union of Teachers
A well-funded education service, accessible to all and not just the privileged few, has a key role to play as part of a programme to redistribute wealth, rejuvenate public services and tackle discrimination. Come along to discuss how we build it .
The online seminar takes place at 7PM, Tuesday May 23rd - book your place and stay tuned for speaker announcements and more info!
Part of a series of online socialist policy seminars. Organised by the Socialist Campaign Group of Labour MPs in partnership with the Labour Assembly Against Austerity & Momentum
Featured image: Pay Up! Save Our Schools banner on the national day of action on March 15th, 2023. Photo credit: NEU/Twitter
Share with friends
Share on FacebookShare on Facebook MessengerShare on LinkedinShare on TwitterShare by Email
About the organiser
Organised by