Labour is to scrap the English Baccalaureate (EBacc) after concerns that the narrow list of recommended subject choices in schools is not helping pupils increase their chances of attending top universities.

The proposal was a central recommendation of a broad review of the country’s curriculum and assessment published on 5 November, which the Westminster government said is central to the prime minister’s target of getting two-thirds of young people into higher-level learning by the age of 25.

Introduced just months into the Conservative-Liberal Democrat coalition in 2010, ranks schools based on the proportion of pupils gaining passes in five key GCSE subjects: mathematics, English, two sciences and a modern language.

It was intended to ensure that students pursue a broad range of academic subjects up to age 16, to reverse the trend of falling GCSE entries in history, geography and modern foreign languages, and was seen as the best route towards the A levels that high-tariff universities value more highly.

̽����Ƶ

The review, led by Becky Francis, former director of UCL’s Institute of Education (IOE), says that although “well-intentioned” and not without some success, the Russell Group never intended “facilitating subjects” such as those in the EBacc to be the “only subjects pupils should consider”.

It highlights that the Russell Group stopped publishing a list of facilitating subjects when it launched a new online tool in 2019 to show students the relationship between subject choices at A level and university degrees.

̽����Ƶ

Citing , the review says research shows that studying a portfolio of academic subjects aids access to university and that achieving the EBacc correlates with a student applying to and attending university.

“However, the evidence does not suggest that taking the EBacc combination of subjects increases the likelihood that students attend Russell Group universities.”

The review panel, which included Nic Beech, vice-chancellor of the University of Salford, and Jo-Anne Baird, director of the Oxford University Centre for Educational Assessment, also found that the EBacc had failed to significantly increase the proportion of students taking languages and had constrained subject choice.

Some have expressed concern that the EBacc has been detrimental to the arts, and also denied future scientists the opportunity to be creative at school.

The review does recommend retaining the “bucket” of choices to measure the academic breadth of schools via its Progression 8 measure.

Authors of the review, which also includes plans to build financial literacy, tackle misinformation among children and reduce exam workload at GCSE level, said it reflected a “considered approach of ‘evolution not revolution’” overall.

̽����Ƶ

But Nick Hillman, director of the Higher Education Policy Institute, said that abolishing the EBacc, rather than reforming it, makes the proposals appear to be a more “destructive type of revolution”.

Hillman, a former Conservative adviser, said the EBacc is an accountability tool that serves a real purpose and was introduced to help those with “less social capital” access the qualifications that carry more weight than others.

̽����Ƶ

“There are serious problems at Key Stage 4 – for example, in the boring nature of the English curriculum and the catastrophic decline in language learning as well as limited access to creative subjects.

“But abolishing the EBacc will do nothing to fix some of these challenges while making others of them worse.”

Francis said the review was an opportunity to bring the curriculum, which was last updated more than a decade ago, up to date, and will extend high standards to all young people irrespective of background.

“My hope is that the recommendations contained in this report will take us a step closer towards ensuring that every young person has access to an excellent education by building a world-class curriculum and assessment system for all.”

Salford’s Beech told ̽����Ƶ that he felt the review had affirmed “academic, technical and vocational pathways which give learners choices, not the cliff-edge variety, but ones which mean they can adapt their routes into employment or higher education as they progress”.

“Making sure those pathways work well for all learners, regardless of background, is fundamental to our ecosystem and is fundamental to the purpose of the review,” he added.

̽����Ƶ

patrick.jack@timeshighereducation.com