The English Baccalaureate is attracting more comments from ASCL members than any other aspect of the White Paper. Most of these relate to the creation of a new ‘retrospective performance indicator’ which in January 2011 will judge schools against a measure they had no inkling of until very recently and have had no opportunity to work towards. There is already strong evidence that this performance indicator has begun to drive the curriculum in exactly the way previous ones have done. Although the coalition has criticised this kind of target culture it is now going down exactly the same route.
School leaders therefore have the choice of responding in one of two ways: Some are saying that, in an age of autonomy, it is up to them to decide how to shape their curriculum. They highlight the tension between the promised new freedoms and this very specific level of prescription albeit through the accountability system rather than regulation. These school leaders will consider the English Bac on its merits, decide whether or not to implement it and, if so, to which cohort. If they decide against it they will be confident to allow their schools to be judged against other performance indicators. Others feel they have no option other than to change their options columns straight away in order to offer this to students. Many of these are national challenge schools which have already tasted the consequences of ‘floor targets’ and the public naming and shaming that accompanied the last set. You can understand why. As there will not have been an opportunity to make such changes in the context of a structured review of their curriculum this will simply be a reaction to the new performance indicator.
Views about the merits of the Bac as a curriculum model vary. Many ASCL members would support the idea of a basic and rounded academic curriculum and therefore believe that it is a worthwhile measure for at least some of their students. Levelling the playing field of opportunity for students from deprived backgrounds to give them a chance to gain qualifications which will enable them to access the best universities is certainly a worthy aim. Many strongly support the idea of encouraging modern foreign languages and few disagree with the aim of aiming to gain GCSEs in English , Maths and Science for as many as possible. Few believe that the inclusion of Biblical Hebrew, Ancient Greek and Latin as a part of this certificate instead of a Modern Language makes any sense at all.
Many others (and I suspect a majority) are deeply concerned about the effects of this on the rest of the curriculum, the arts, the other humanities, technological subjects and PE. There is considerable anger and consternation that RS is not included as a humanity. Nearly all are horrified at the silence of the White Paper on any aspect of practical learning and employability skills. They feel that there is a real risk of narrowing the curriculum for the most able and possibly quite a few others. There are also serious staffing implications in terms of existing staff who will no longer have the opportunity to teach their specialism to GCSE and in terms of teacher supply if there is a sudden demand for teachers of the English Bac subjects.
Whatever the ‘Bac’ is it is not a Baccalaureate in the true sense. As the DfE statement of intent admits it is not even a qualification. I am far from convinced that ad hoc changes to performance tables are the best way to implement a 21st century curriculum which is fit to raise our standing in the international stakes.
