Lord Johnson of Marylebone
Main Page: Lord Johnson of Marylebone (Conservative - Life peer)Education for 11 to 16 Year-olds (Committee Report)
Lord Johnson of Marylebone Excerpts
Lord Johnson of Marylebone
That this House takes note of the Report from the Education for 11 to 16-year olds Committee Requires improvement: urgent change for 11–16 education (Session 2023–24, HL Paper 17).
Lord Johnson of Marylebone (Con)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to introduce this debate on the report from the Education for 11-16 Year Olds Committee. At the outset, I declare my interests as on the register and say what a pleasure it has been chairing the committee. I particularly thank the members of the committee for their hard work and commitment, in particular my good noble friend Lord Baker, who proposed the inquiry and was such a formidable force in all its evidence sessions. I do not think I will ever forget his cross-examination of former Minister Nick Gibb, for example. I also recognise the staff who worked so hard on behalf of the committee under the direction of our clerk, Eleanor Clements, and I want to mention the others who supported our work, including operations officers Mark Gladwell and Maherban Lidher, policy analysts Babak Sharples and David Stoker and media officer Alec Brand, all ably supported by our special adviser Tom Richmond.
This inquiry was established in response to a growing sense that the present 11 to 16 system of education in England has been moving in the wrong direction. We were not the first to have this concern. Many predecessor bodies and reports have come to the same conclusion, including the Times Education Commission, the Tony Blair Institute for Global Change, the Heads’ Conference and others. All have called for radical reform within this phase of education in order to ensure that future skills demands can be met.
In examining the 11 to 16 system, the committee assessed a number of proposals for significant change as well as potential measures that could be delivered in the shorter term. We took evidence from school leaders and academics as well as from representatives of exam boards, teaching unions and subject associations, and we held round-table sessions with teachers and pupils. Much of the evidence we heard reaffirmed the conclusions and recommendations from the other bodies I mentioned, which have considered this subject in great detail over recent years.
The witnesses we spoke to over the course of our cross-party, year-long inquiry described how education in this phase prioritised a restricted programme of academic learning delivered through a narrow set of subjects and teaching styles. This is primarily the result of reforms introduced since 2010 that have unabashedly emphasised knowledge acquisition and academic rigour. We heard consistently that this approach does not equip young people with the knowledge, skills and behaviours that they need to progress to the next phase of their education and to flourish in the future. The committee urged the Government, and now urges the new Government, to change course.
I turn first to the curriculum. The 11 to 16 curriculum in its current shape has been forged by the focus, as I said, on knowledge-rich approaches. We heard that it places too great an emphasis on teaching and learning individual facts, on memorisation and on regurgitation, rather than on developing pupils’ understanding and deep feel for the underpinning concepts. This is particularly true for key stage 4. Following reforms in 2015, which increased the size of GCSE curricula, we heard from many of our witnesses that there is now “complete content overload”. Several of the pupils and teachers we spoke to described teachers as being unable to take questions during a lesson because there is so much material for them to get through prior to exam season. Our report called for the overall content load, particularly of GCSEs, to be significantly reduced.
We received the Government’s response to our report in February and it was disappointing, to say the least. There has of course been a change of government since, as I mentioned, and I hope that we will see greater appetite from the new team to drive forward the change needed. Responding to our recommendations, the previous Government stated that they did not consider GCSE subject content
“to be excessive or in need of fundamental review”.
They argued that the academic standards expected under the current arrangements were “in line with” those of
“countries with high-performing education systems”.
Supporting all pupils to achieve the highest standards they can is a crucial aim and England’s improved positions in the latest PISA rankings is to be welcomed, yet our young people must also be offered the chance to experience more practical, applied forms of learning. Witnesses argued that the current overcrowded curriculum provides few opportunities for this. Our talent pipeline also depends on secondary pupils being supported and inspired to pursue the full range of options in the next phase of their education, including technical qualifications and apprenticeships. Enabling our young people to begin to explore creative and technical learning in this phase is therefore vital. Yet we heard that there has been a dramatic decline in the number of pupils taking design and technology at GCSE, the main technical qualification at key stage 4.
Last week the Government launched a review of both the curriculum and assessment. This is much needed, and I particularly welcome the Government’s ambition to ensure that
“every young person gets the opportunity to develop creative, digital, and speaking and listening skills”.
As the Government note, these are “particularly prized by employers”.
On accountability, I hope that the upcoming review will take note of the committee’s finding that the current system is overfocused on academic pathways. A key driver of this, of course, is the English baccalaureate, or EBacc. The EBacc comprises a set of traditionally academic GCSE subjects defined by the Department for Education. It is not in itself, however, a qualification for pupils; rather, it is a performance measure through which schools are held to account. The Government have set an ambition that 90% of 14 to 16 year-olds in state-funded schools should be studying the EBacc subjects by 2025. We heard compelling evidence that this has led to a deprioritisation of creative, artistic and technical subjects, particularly when school budgets are stretched, as they are. According to GCSE entry data, take-up of music has fallen by 35% and of drama by 40% since the introduction of the EBacc in 2010.
The EBacc’s composition is based on the facilitating subjects—a now-retracted classification formerly put forward by the Russell group. It is therefore geared to the requirements of high-tariff university entrance. Yet around three in five 18 year-olds in the United Kingdom do not go to university. One head teacher described the narrow diet of academic study promoted by the EBacc as “a deadly experience” for those who would be better suited to a different combination of subjects. The committee therefore urged the Government to abandon the EBacc immediately. We argued that the remaining 11 to 16 school performance measures should then be reviewed. They must give schools more flexibility to offer the qualifications that would best serve their pupils, including creative, technical and vocational subjects, and not give undue emphasis to the university route. Responding to the report, the Government simply told us:
“We have no plans to abandon or amend the EBacc or our ambition for high levels of take-up”.
The Labour Party has, however, previously suggested that the key stage 4 school performance metrics should be adapted to recognise
“the value of creativity in young people’s education”
and to promote the take-up of creative and vocational subjects. I would be grateful if the Minister could expand on this proposal and set out how these changes might be implemented.
Finally, I turn to assessment. We heard that many pupils in this phase undergo more than 30 hours of assessment during GCSE exam season. This follows a shift away from the use of coursework or other forms of non-exam assessment in recent years. Our report determined that there is a need for some kind of formal assessment at 16, given the number of pupils who change institutions when they progress to the next phase of their education. We also noted credible concerns that non-exam assessment can lead to less reliable grades. The committee concluded, however, that the current emphasis on end-of-course exam-based testing places a “disproportionate” burden on pupils.
Intense exam pressure is also experienced by teachers and schools, since GCSE results underpin the majority of school performance measures for the 11 to 16 phase. We therefore supported proposals from the Times Education Commission and others to move towards a slimmed-down form of assessment at 16, with externally validated testing used across a smaller set of subjects.
On assessment reform, the previous Government restated their position that linear exam-based testing is
“the best and fairest way to ensure children learn and retain knowledge”.
The new Government have committed to
“consider the right balance of assessment methods whilst protecting the important role of examinations”
as part of their expert-led review. Could the Minister confirm that this review will take account of the many recent reports that have called for a less onerous model of assessment at 16? Given that all young people in England must now remain in education or training until the age of the 18, the case for change seems clear.
To conclude, the committee received overwhelming evidence that the current 11 to 16 system is failing to provide a genuinely broad and balanced education and to adequately prepare the next generation. I strongly encourage the new Government to carefully consider our recommendations and take swift action to bring about the changes needed. I beg to move.
Lord Johnson of Marylebone (Con)
My Lords, I am delighted our report has been the source of so much agreement and near-consensus this morning. As the noble Lord, Lord Addington, observed, this was not a big surprise, given the weight of evidence that we had in front of us. It has been a very rich debate and I want to briefly point to a couple of highlights.
One of the main ones for me was the noble Baroness, Lady Blower, I believe, recalling the delightful and revealing origins of the English baccalaureate with that funny story from Sam Freedman’s book. There were also the reflections of the noble Baroness, Lady Morris, on the evolution/ revolution trade off and her gentle admonishment that, while there was much that was good in the report, it was not nearly bold enough. That felt like a school report and we are happy to have had it.
Many noble Lords and noble friends made excellent points about the importance of getting this right to drive growth and productivity in the years ahead. Finally, I much enjoyed the call from the noble Lord, Lord Knight, for a more joyful 11 to 16 phase. That has to be a really important ambition for the new Government.
In response to the former Minister, my noble friend Lady Barran, and her lonely defence of the status quo, I would simply say that resting the Government’s case for the defence, a case for inaction, on some limited progress in the Pisa rankings over recent years just will not cut it. Pisa is a very partial measure of the success of an education system. When you look at England’s absolute scores in recent years in key subjects, they have been going backwards—albeit, I admit, by less than the scores of some other countries, hence the rise in our relative performance. It is also worth pointing out that there is nothing in our committee’s recommendations that would reduce the emphasis on English and maths.
Finally, I thank the Minister and congratulate her on taking her new role in DCMS and on her thoughtful and engaging responses to the committee’s report. It is very encouraging to hear that the Minister feels that it will be relevant to the new review just announced by the government. I am sure everybody on the committee welcomes, as they have today, the announcement of that review and will be working hard to support it on a cross-party basis.