On 12 December the Lords Education for 11-16 Year Olds Committee found that “urgent change” is needed to the British secondary education system.
Jo Johnson, the chair of the committee for this report, summarised the findings:
“Change to the education system for 11 to 16-year-olds is urgently needed, to address an overloaded curriculum, a disproportionate exam burden and declining opportunities to study creative and technical subjects.”
However the committee’s report has come under fire from critics in the sector for failing to acknowledge “the result of the poor resources of state-funded schools.”
The committee’s report begins by outlining their conclusions on the secondary education system.
The report criticised the current “knowledge-rich” approach employed by Governments since 2010 for “overload[ing]” the curriculum and favouring a “restricted programme of academic learning, delivered through a narrow set of subjects and teaching styles.”
Adding that the system is not adapting to a changing society nor offers opportunities to engage with real-world issues, such as climate change.
They further commented that the system does not deliver on the essential numeracy and literacy skills needed to thrive post-16, outlining how a third of pupils do not pass GCSE maths and English every year.
The report recommended reducing the amount of content in the 11-16 curriculum, as well as introducing more non-exam assessments (including coursework or group projects) to lower the stakes and volume of exams.
Additionally, increasing pupils’ digital skills and ensuring adequate numeracy and literacy qualifications had real-world applications.
The report strongly advised the annexation of the English Baccalaureate (EBacc).
Proposed by the Department for Education in 2011 and in its current form since 2017, the qualification aims to have 90 per cent of GCSE students taking maths, English literature and language, two sciences, history or geography and a foreign language by 2025.
Read More: Concerns raised that A-level overhaul could widen attainment inequality
Although there has been widespread agreement with the committee’s report, many believe that it does not go far enough.
Daniel Kebede, the General Secretary of the National Education Union, agreed with the report that “the current curriculum is not fit for the challenges and realities of our times”.
However, he concludes that “without addressing real terms school funding cuts and tackling the intense workload of staff… the changes needed have little chance of materialising.”
Micheal Young, a Professor of Sociology at University College London, writes that the “Lords are right” but criticised the report for not properly addressing the key problem of educational inequalities.
He states that ignoring this would be to “treat the curriculum in isolation from the inadequate resources of state-funded schools as the main cause of low achievement and disaffection”.
Louis Barson, the Institute of Physics Director of Science, Innovation and Skills, agreed with Young, stating that:
“Curriculum change is certainly overdue, but is only part of the picture – we need to make sure the teachers are there to teach it and that all students get access”.
The government has yet to respond to the report, after the committee requested a comment.
“Sovereign’s Throne, House of Lords” by ukhouseoflords (flickr) is licensed under CC BY 2.0.