Can the English Baccalaureate act as an educational equaliser?

ABSTRACT

Ensuring equal access to a broad and balanced curriculum for all students is a key component of a socially just education system. Yet in England, the freedom that 16-year-old students have to choose the GCSE subjects they study has created divisions in the pathways taken by students from different backgrounds. In 2010, a new accountability measure, the English Baccalaureate (EBacc), was introduced to encourage more disadvantaged students to study the ‘core academic’ GCSE subjects. This paper investigates the success of this initiative by analysing the relationship between free school meal (FSM) eligibility, studying the EBacc subjects and GCSE attainment. The findings are used to illustrate the complexities of balancing equal access to academic subjects against fair access to future opportunities, which often depend on good grades, when trying to deliver social justice in an education system that has an entrenched attainment gap.

KEYWORDS:

• GCSE attainment
• English Baccalaureate
• social justice
• free school meals

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

Notes

1. In 2011, a review of vocational education in England found that too many students were studying GCSE-equivalent qualifications that had little or no market value and thus were of no benefit to students (Wolf, 2011).

2. Australia has a long history of differentiating curriculum provision based on the perception that educational needs differ across student groups. More recently, that has morphed into a more subtle form of differentiation, whereby families’ school choices create the segregation (Hayes, 2012).

3. Some IGCSE and AS levels are also eligible.

4. English Literature and English Language.

5. Either double science, core + additional science, or three single sciences (from a choice of biology, chemistry, physics and computer science, two of which students must pass at grade C or above).

6. The subject-based qualifications offered to post-16 students during Key Stage 5. The results of which can be used to gain entry to higher education or employment.

7. In 2019 this list was replaced by a website advising students on the most appropriate A-level choices for specific university courses (Russell Group, 2019).

8. The new EBacc entry targets – 75% of students in state-funded mainstream schools should be studying the EBacc by 2022 and 90% by 2025 (DfE, 2017aa) – will in time move the EBacc beyond ‘cold knowledge’, aimed at informing students of the benefits of academic subjects, towards a more formal insistence that students study these subjects at GCSE.

9. Until 2017, GCSE performance was graded on an eight-point scale ranging from A* to G; it was then replaced by a nine-point numerical grading system (Ofqual, 2017). The equivalent of a grade C the new grading system is a grade 4. However, the desire to raise educational standards may see it become a grade 5 (DfE, 2017bb) – the equivalent of a high grade C/low grade B on the A* to G scale.

10. The focus is placed on eligibility rather than take-up because the latter can be affected by factors such as dietary requirements.

11. Under current rules, if parents receive one or more of eight forms of financial support from the government, their children may be entitled to receive free school meals (https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/266,587/free-school-meals-and-poverty.pdf).

12. These are based on English, mathematics and science assessments sat at age 11. Students without KS2 data were not included in the multilevel models. Average KS2 scores were calculated for students who sat all three KS2 tests (between 86% and 88% of each academic year). Match rates were equivalent for FSM and non-FSM students, however, the sample under-represented students who did not enter the EBacc. The potential impact of this on the model coefficients is considered in the discussion section.

13. The percentage of students who sat fewer than three GCSEs was as follows: 2010, 3.6%; 2011, 4.2%; 2012, 3.5%; 2013, 4%; and 2014, 3.4%.

14. Male acted as the reference category.

15. 2010 acted as the reference category.

16. Non-FSM acted as the reference category.

17. Non-EBacc acted as the reference category.

18. Comprehensive school acted as the reference category. Free schools, which were attended by 2,349 students, were excluded since they did not exist in the dataset until 2012.

19. Students who had high average KS2 scores but low average GCSE scores (i.e. low value-added rate) had large negative residuals, whereas students with low average KS2 scores and high average GCSE scores (i.e. high value-added rate) had large positive residuals. Thus, the final model over-predicts the average GCSE scores of students with low value-added rates and under-predicts the average GCSE scores of students with high value-added rates.

20. Since students with missing KS2 data were excluded our sample under-represented students who did not enter the EBacc. If those students had been included the association between the EBacc and average GCSE score may have been slightly smaller (if those students performed well at GCSE) or larger (if those students performed poorly at GCSE).

21. If students with fewer than three GCSEs had been included in the non-EBacc group, these differences may have been smaller – for instance, if the average GCSE scores of the non-EBacc group were inflated because students with good grades in very few GCSE subjects would have high average GCSE scores. However, such scores would not necessarily be representative of their attainment, hence the exclusion of students with fewer than three GCSEs.

22. They must still do English, mathematics and science.

23. It is impossible to know what grades these students might have achieved in other subject combinations.

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Emma Armitage

Emma Armitage is a Lead researcher in the Research and Development team at AQA.

Caroline Lau

Caroline Lau is an Analyst and Developer in the Research and Development team at AQA.