Most of the evidence “was striking in its lack of support for the EBac as it currently stands,” wrote the Education Select Committee
in its report which:
1 Found that the countries which the DfE claimed had “broadly similar arrangements to the EBac were not all directly comparable examples.
2 Expressed concern about the lack of consultation: the top-down prescription was as at odds with Mr Gove's belief that "headteachers and teachers—not politicians and bureaucrats—know best how to run schools.”
3 Believed that announcing which subjects were included in the EBac would prejudice the outcomes of the curriculum review.
4 Found the Department's evidence offered no analysis of the impact that other countries’ EBac-type arrangements had made on disadvantaged students. The Committee was not convinced there was any positive link.
5 Agreed that the EBac performance measure could encourage schools to focus on wealthier students because they tend to do better in EBac subjects. This could provide incentives for schools to divert resources away from poorer pupils.
6 Cited evidence suggesting that the EBac does not differentiate between good and outstanding performance: it was only necessary for pupils to gain grade C.
7 Concluded that the EBac is a simplistic threshold measure likely to mean that schools will devote more resources to borderline C grade students. This would be detrimental to both weaker pupils and high-achievers.
8 Thought that a focus on a fairly narrow range of subjects, demanding considerable curriculum time, could have negative consequences on the uptake of other subjects.
9 Acknowledged that several submissions had suggested that the retrospective introduction was a politically rather than educationally driven move, as it would, in the words of the Catholic Education Service, "allow the Government to show significant 'improvement' in future years".
The Education Select Committee has found the much vaunted EBac to be badly flawed. It is unlikely to achieve what it is supposed to do – raise standards particularly among disadvantaged pupils. Instead, results are likely to cluster on the C threshold. And the Committee found there was insufficient international evidence to support the Government’s view that the EBac would benefit disadvantaged pupils.
As well as making unsubstantiated claims based on deficient data and obscuring what many believe to be the real reason for a retrospective introduction ie producing a low baseline from which the Government can claim considerable progress, the DfE behaved in such a manner during the enquiry that the Committee accused the Department of being guilty of “deliberate obfuscation or a lack of co-ordination”.
The DfE is also burying its collective head in the sand. It has ignored the Committee’s findings