However, the education system in England continues to rely heavily on passive forms of learning focused on direct instruction and memorisation. Taken together, the current curriculum, mode of assessment and inspection regime drive schools to overemphasise knowledge, and to instil this via a narrow set of methods and subjects.
Of course, pupils still need a good grounding in knowledge. But to flourish in increasingly digital workplaces, they also need more space to develop attributes such as critical thinking, creativity, communication and collaborative problem-solving (which experts dub the “4Cs”).
Instead, by doubling down on a narrow core of traditional, knowledge-heavy subjects and designing accountability measures around these, the government has missed a prime opportunity to heed these changes. This was the wrong turn at the wrong time.
Yes, the government can point to some positive outcomes on its watch, at least when measured in more conventional terms. For example, the UK has remained relatively well placed in the OECD’s Programme for International Student Attainment (PISA) rankings of educational achievement. But PISA tests were always prone to being too narrow and, given the changing nature of employers’ skills needs, they are on their own increasingly unsuited to educational realities. Moreover, our apparently good performance masks huge domestic inequalities, as well as the fact that we have been treading water while our competitors have surged ahead in key areas.
The OECD has now developed sophisticated measurement tools to test more complex skills, which means it is increasingly possible to focus on what matters most rather than what is measurable. Meanwhile, some of the world’s top education performers are busy innovating and adapting their approaches to learning.
All the while in England, current incentives restrict schools’ leeway to focus on other valuable subjects and skills, instead encouraging rote learning. This extends to academies, laying bare the tension between the government’s purported goal of greater school autonomy and its narrow view of school success. As a result, the formidable potential that exists in the academies model remains largely suppressed.
This is driving our educational performance in the wrong direction. Schools have significantly trimmed what they teach and the subjects pupils are taking are drawn increasingly from a small range of traditional academic subjects dubbed the “English Baccalaureate”, or the “EBacc”. By crowding out non-EBacc subjects, the government’s reforms damage learning and stifle efforts to improve social mobility.
High-stakes exams at the end of courses now dominate assessment, which promotes teaching to the test and narrow pedagogies. More than half of schools are starting GCSEs early, further squeezing what pupils learn.
Amplifying the impact of these reforms is the other pillar of the accountability system – the school-inspection regime. Widespread fear of Ofsted because of the system’s high-stakes nature, as well as its apparent use of the national curriculum as a benchmark, further restricts innovation among schools, particularly in areas of greater deprivation.
Policymakers should urgently correct course. Addressing these issues and overhauling the system will be challenging and will require a radical but sequential approach to change. This is not about a return to the misguided ideologies of the 1970s. Instead, at the core of a reformed system should be a revised curriculum, more sophisticated modes of assessment and a new, rigorous accountability framework that is better attuned to the things that matter most. By pairing this with a comprehensive edtech strategy, we can personalise learning so that pupils grasp the basics much more quickly. This combination of reforms would free up time and introduce the right incentives for a focus on developing more complex skills. That would be a system fit for purpose in an age of profound transformation.
Everyone from employers’ organisations to the numerous experts consulted for the Times Education Commission are calling loudly for action. Some leading private schools are already responding to market pressures by adapting their teaching along the lines we propose in this report. Others are bound to follow, and it is vital that state schools are not left behind. It is time for a rethink. What we need is a bold reform programme. It should take place in three phases, beginning with the most immediately deliverable:
Recommended Reforms
Pupil Assessment and School Performance
Phase One: Scrap the EBacc and retain Progress 8 as a performance measure but make it more flexible to accommodate other valuable, non-EBacc GCSEs.
Phase Two: Introduce elements of the “4Cs” (collaboration, communication, critical thinking and creativity) as an accountability measure for schools, based on current and emerging OECD tests. In time, further develop this measure by incorporating a value-added component.
Phase Three: Replace the current system of assessment, including GCSEs and A-Levels, with a new qualification at 18 that would draw on and refine the principles that underpin the International Baccalaureate and would include multiple, rigorous forms of continuous assessment between 16 and 18. Meanwhile, retain a series of low-stakes assessments for pupils at the end of secondary schooling – at 16 – to help inform pupil choice and hold schools to account.
School Inspection
Phase One: Change Ofsted’s strategy and approach to focus on safeguarding (including safe classrooms free from bullying and other forms of harm) and quality of school management instead of pedagogy and the curriculum. Replace the grading system – where already 86 per cent of schools are now good or outstanding – with a detailed one-page summary of strengths and weaknesses, identifying what they are so that parents can see a more effective analysis of school performance. Retain a pass/fail assessment for schools which require urgent remedial measures.
Phase Two: Establish a national digital infrastructure for education, starting with a student-owned learner ID and digital profile. Nominate a designated data body for the school sector and develop a peer benchmarking data tool for schools to contextualise performance.
Phase Three: Empower Ofsted to play the “critical friend” role by using data to contextualise and target interventions and establishing peer-to-peer expert groups to help resolve intractable issues.
Curriculum
Phase One: Establish an expert commission to reform the national curriculum and base it on minimum proficiencies for numeracy, literacy, science and, with time, digital skills, building on international best practice.
Phase Two: Introduce a statutory requirement for all schools, including academies, to follow the core of a newly reformed national curriculum (numeracy, literacy, science and digital skills).
Phase Three: Introduce more stability into the curriculum to prevent its content lurching between ideological idiosyncrasies. This can be done by charging the design of the national curriculum to a non-political and statutorily independent body to update it as new evidence of best practice emerges.
Implementing the system we propose will make schools answerable for their performance, while allowing them to focus on foundational learning and innovate in pursuit of more complex competencies and skills. Underpinned by a strong and flexible data infrastructure, it would change the relationship between schools and parents, giving the latter a chance to hold schools accountable for whatever matters the most to them – rather than just narrow metrics – and make more informed decisions about their children’s education.
