The evidence points overwhelmingly to the conclusion that the Ebac will do more harm than good
Girls are doing better than boys at 16, yesterday's GCSE results confirmed, at least in subjects such as English and history. This diverting question has prompted a wealth of academic examination, but no exhaustive research is needed to know that adolescent boys are less given to swotting than their sisters, and are perhaps less good at essays. There is no serious gender gap in maths and sciences. And of course any lingering gap is swiftly reversed the moment formal education is done.
Gender does shape life chances, but it is social class that is really hard to escape, especially at school, and most obviously where poor white children are concerned. This government, like the last, claims tackling it is a priority. Michael Gove pins hopes on his English baccalaureate, a set of core subjects including maths, English, sciences, and either history or geography. There are persuasive arguments in its favour. Unfortunately, the drawbacks are bigger. As the schools minister Nick Gibb said yesterday, all children should have the chance to study the subjects that good universities and employers want. Choices about GCSEs made at 14 really can shape the rest of your life. But – as MPs on the Conservative-controlled Commons education committee warned last month – the evidence points overwhelmingly to the uncomfortable conclusion that the Ebac will do more harm than good. One reason is that, like all measurements, the mere fact of counting it can distort the outcome. In this case, the MPs were concerned that the numbers game would lead to a focus on the marginal at the expense of those with the potential to do very well, and – worse – those who would struggle to pass.
Look at what earlier targets for "five good passes" achieved. In 2004, a quarter of students on free school meals sat the Ebac subjects. Last year it was less than one in 10. Of course the A*–C pass rate soared. The results looked great. But in fact children from disadvantaged backgrounds were simply getting a worse deal.
As the MPs point out, the government has yet to address these unintended consequences: no surprise in a proposal that was introduced without consultation, retrospectively and with no clear guidance about its status. The MPs' second anxiety was that trying to shoehorn students into a narrow range of courses risked more, not less, disengagement – and more, not fewer, young people out of education, employment or training. Mr Gove is right that too many students are excluded from top universities by choices made years earlier. But along with contentious reforms to careers advice and radical restructuring of the post-16 maintenance allowance, it looks less and less as if he has the right answers.
--
Source: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/aug/25/gcse-ebac-drawbacks
~
Manage subscription | Powered by rssforward.com
0 comments:
Post a Comment