A Curriculum for All? The effects of recent key stage 4 curriculum, assessment and accountability reforms on English secondary education.

Full text

The effects of recent Key Stage 4 curriculum, assessment
and accountability reforms on English secondary education
Eszter Neumann, Emma Towers, Sharon Gewirtz and Meg Maguire –King’s College London
This report has been commissioned by the National Union of Teachers
A Curriculum
for All?
teachers.org.uk


3
Contents
Executive summary ______________________________________________________________5
Key findings __________________________________________________________________6
GCSE curriculum offer _______________________________________________________6
The new GCSEs_____________________________________________________________6
Progress 8__________________________________________________________________7
Workload and wellbeing ______________________________________________________7
Social justice________________________________________________________________8
Section 1: Introduction ___________________________________________________________9
1.1 GCSE reforms ____________________________________________________________10
1.2 New school accountability measures _______________________________________10
1.2.1 EBacc _______________________________________________________________11
1.2.2 Progress 8 ___________________________________________________________11
1.2.3 The special status of English and Mathematics____________________________12
1.3 The potential impact of the new measures _________________________________12
1.3.1 Creative and vocational subjects ________________________________________12
1.3.2 Low-income and lower-attaining students ________________________________13
1.3.3 Classroom practice ____________________________________________________13
1.4 Research design __________________________________________________________14
1.4.1 Survey _______________________________________________________________14
1.4.2 Case study interviews _________________________________________________16
1.4.3 Research Ethics_______________________________________________________16
Section 2: The GCSE curriculum offer ____________________________________________17
Section 3: Subject hierarchies and resource allocation_____________________________23
3.1 Resource redistribution ___________________________________________________24
3.2 Job insecurity and redundancies ___________________________________________27
Section 4: Options processes: context matters ____________________________________29
Section 5: The new GCSEs ______________________________________________________33
5.1 Impact on classroom practice ______________________________________________34
5.2 Inequalities of access______________________________________________________36
5.3 Concerns about the content of the new GCSEs _____________________________38
5.4 Lack of information and pace of change ____________________________________40
Section 6: The impact of Progress 8 ______________________________________________43
6.1 The positive potential of Progress 8 ________________________________________44
6.2 Concerns about the reliability of Progress 8_________________________________45
6.3 Concerns about the use of Progress 8 to assess teachers’ performance and
determine their pay _______________________________________________________46
6.4 The workload ramifications of Progress 8___________________________________47
Section 7: Workload and wellbeing_______________________________________________51
7.1 Coping with uncertainty___________________________________________________52
7.2 Workload intensification and the pressure to perform _______________________53
7.3 Pupil wellbeing ___________________________________________________________54
Section 8: Conclusions __________________________________________________________57
References _____________________________________________________________________60

A Curriculum for All? The effects of recent Key Stage 4 curriculum, assessment and
accountability reforms on English secondary education

4
The research team
Eszter Neumann
Emma Towers
Sharon Gewirtz
Meg Maguire
King’s College London


5
Executive summary

A Curriculum for All? The effects of recent Key Stage 4 curriculum, assessment and
accountability reforms on English secondary education

6
Executive summary
This report presents the findings of research which has explored how English secondary
schools are responding to the introduction of the recent Key Stage 4 curriculum, assessment
and accountability reforms – in particular, the EBacc, the new GCSEs and Progress 8. The
research has focused on the implications of these reforms for schools’ curricular offerings and
the allocation of resources to different subject areas, for pedagogy and classroom practice and
for social justice. The research was commissioned by the National Union of Teachers and
carried out between April and September 2016 by researchers in the School of Education,
Communication and Society at King’s College London.
The mixed methods research design consisted of a survey of 1800 secondary school members
of the National Union of Teachers and case studies conducted in three secondary schools in
London.
Key findings
GCSE curriculum offer
• The overwhelming majority of teachers participating in the research reported that the
EBacc has led to a narrowing of the Key Stage 4 curriculum offer in their schools, with
75% of the survey respondents reporting that students had a reduced number of GCSE
subjects to choose from in their schools.
• The EBacc, alongside other school accountability measures, in particular the double-
weighting of English and mathematics in the Progress 8 measure, is having a profound
effect on the hierarchy of subjects within schools, with creative, vocational and
technology subject teachers reporting a decrease in examination entry rates, reduced
resources and less time being allocated to their subjects. Teachers of these subjects
also reported experiencing increased job insecurity as a result of the reforms.
• A major concern of teachers is that, with the narrowing of the curriculum, students are
increasingly being forced to take subjects which they are not motivated to study and do
not enjoy. Teachers reported that in some cases this was leading to a deterioration in
students’ behaviour.
• The way in which schools respond to the EBacc is primarily through their options
process. Our case studies show that, depending on their context, schools are positioned
very differently in terms of their room for manoeuvre in designing option blocks, with
schools with a more stable and secure context better able to protect creative and
vocational subjects.
The new GCSEs
• The new GCSEs were characterised by research participants as encompassing a “one
size fits all” approach, which makes it harder for teachers to respond to the diversity of
students’ needs and disadvantages students who are less able to perform well in written
examinations.
• 76% of teachers of English and mathematics (the subjects constituting the first ‘wave’
of the new GCSEs) strongly agreed that their classroom practice has become more

Executive summary

7
focused on examination and test preparation as result of the GCSE reforms.
• The more traditional knowledge-focused approach to both the content and assessment
of the new GCSEs was criticised by some teachers for being uninspiring and
anachronistic (e.g. neglecting the skills that are required for a technological age), and for
placing insufficient emphasis on the practical components of creative subjects.
• Some teachers welcomed aspects of the new specifications and the change in focus
for their subjects, whilst expressing concerns about the pace and scope of change and
lack of information and resources to help teachers grade students’ work and plan lessons
adequately. These factors were felt to compromise the quality of their teaching.
Progress 8
• While teachers’ assessments of the impact of the EBacc and the new GCSEs were
overwhelmingly negative, in their responses to Progress 8 an appreciation of the positive
potential of aspects of the reform was mixed with strong concerns about the reliability
of the Progress 8 measure, and its use in the evaluation of teachers’ performance and
the determination of pay progression awards.
• Those expressing support for Progress 8 welcomed it as a framework which gives equal
value to the progress of all children and which removes the artificial preoccupation with
the C/D borderline produced by the previous accountability focus on the proportion of
students attaining 5 or more A*-C grades at GCSE.
• However, respondents also reported strong concerns and considerable distress about
the reliability of the Key Stage 2 tests, their suitability for use as a baseline measure and
consequently the reliability of the Progress 8 measure itself. 93% of the respondents
agreed with the statement that “Key Stage 2 SATS results do not provide an adequate
basis for tracking student progress across a whole range of secondary subjects”.
Workload and wellbeing
• Many survey respondents commented that their workload has intensified with the
introduction of Progress 8, with a significant majority reporting increased workload
related to 1:1 booster classes (78%), data tracking and data collection (91%) and data
analysis (90%).
• 72% of respondents agreed with the statement that Progress 8 takes time away from
teaching, and comments about the increased workload associated with Progress 8 were
often accompanied by scepticism about the value of this work.
• The reforms have introduced a great deal of uncertainty and confusion for schools
attempting to implement them, which teachers told us has made it difficult to
communicate the changes to students and parents and has undermined their
confidence.
• Teachers’ responses suggest that the combined effects of the reforms have been to
exacerbate the pressures already present in a high-stakes accountability context fuelled
by data-driven policies. Schools with ‘Inadequate’ or ‘Requires improvement’ Ofsted
ratings are especially vulnerable to these pressures.
• Teachers reported that exam pressures and a preoccupation with performance data have
had a negative impact on the mental health of both teachers and students.

A Curriculum for All? The effects of recent Key Stage 4 curriculum, assessment and
accountability reforms on English secondary education

8
• 85% of respondents agreed with the statement that teacher appraisal was becoming
increasingly data-focused in response to Progress 8. Many of the written survey
comments referred to teachers leaving or planning to leave the profession because they
felt unable to cope with the pressures emanating from the greater focus on data and
accountability measures, workload intensification and a sense of reduced classroom
autonomy.
• In some schools, time for pastoral activities is being squeezed by the increased focus
on ‘core’ subjects.
Social justice
• A major concern for teachers was that the steering of students towards EBacc subjects
will increase disengagement and disaffection, and this was felt to be particularly the
case amongst lower-attaining students, and students who are more creatively or
practically inclined.
• Most teachers argued that the new GCSE curricula are less engaging for lower-attaining
students and provide less opportunity to personalise teaching practices in response to
students’ interests and needs.
• The move away from coursework towards assessment by terminal examinations was
seen as demoralising for students who struggle with exams, particularly lower-attaining,
SEND and EAL students. Phrases such as “setting students up to fail” were frequently
used by teachers in this context.
• These students are also more likely to attend schools that are more vulnerable to
financial and accountability pressures and that therefore are less well-placed to protect
the diversity and breadth of their curriculum offer. Some teachers spoke of students
from low-income backgrounds who also attend resource-poor schools as being ‘doubly
disadvantaged’ by the reforms. However, teachers also saw the potential for Progress
8 to direct more resources to the teaching of these students.


9
Section 1
Introduction

A Curriculum for All? The effects of recent Key Stage 4 curriculum, assessment and
accountability reforms on English secondary education

10
1 Introduction
A number of reforms to GCSEs and the Key Stage 4 curriculum have recently been introduced
in England in tandem with reforms to school accountability measures. The stated aims of these
reforms have been to raise the performance of English secondary schools in international
league tables and reduce the number of students leaving school with no qualifications or with
qualifications the Conservative Government has judged to be inferior, thereby improving the
life chances of disadvantaged students (Morgan, 2015).
1.1 GCSE reforms
Changes in the content and requirements of GCSE examinations first introduced in 2015 are
intended to “restore rigour, and bring standards up to match the best around the world” (DfE,
2015a: 8). The key areas of priority are English and mathematics (see section 1.2.3 below) with
schools starting to teach reformed GCSE curricula in English Language, English Literature and
Mathematics for the first time in 2015-16. The first cohort of students taking these new GCSE
courses will be examined in 2017. A second wave of new GCSEs in Biology, Chemistry, Physics,
Computer Science, Languages, Religious Education, Geography, Music and History are being
taught from September 2016 and will be examined in 2018, with a third wave, including
Psychology, Ancient History, Business, Information and Communications Technology and Media
Studies, commencing in 2017. The new qualifications are designed to be “more rigorous”, reduce
what the DfE has referred to as “the constant treadmill of assessment”, and allow “more time
for teaching” (DfE 2016a: 92). The content of the new GCCEs will be “more academically
demanding” (DfE 2016a: 92) and terminal examinations will be taken at the end of two years of
study rather than modules and coursework being used as the default method of assessment.
Tiering is to be used only sparingly, and a new grading system is being introduced with a scale
from 1 to 9 to enable more fine grained distinctions “and greater stretch” (DfE 2016a: 98) at the
top end of the scale (with A/A* being replaced by three grades: 7, 8 and 9).
1.2 New school accountability measures
Alongside these changes in assessment, the accountability measures by which secondary
schools are evaluated have been transformed fundamentally. In 2010 the English Baccalaureate
(EBacc) was introduced as a new school performance measure of the percentage of students
attaining GCSEs (or accredited versions of established iGCSEs) at grade C and above in English,
Mathematics, the sciences, History or Geography and a foreign language. From 2016 the key
(or ‘headline’) accountability measures for secondary schools to be published in the
performance tables will be the percentage of students attaining and entered for the EBacc,
progress across eight qualifications (Progress 8), attainment across these subjects (Attainment
8), and the percentage of students achieving a ‘good pass’ in English and Mathematics (which
will be grade 5 in the new grading system – i.e. a higher level than a C at GCSE). The
percentage of students achieving 5 A*-C grades at GCSE including English and Mathematics
will no longer be used as a performance measure.
1.2.1 EBacc
The introduction of the EBacc in 2010 arose from a number of concerns on the part of the then
Conservative Coalition Government about the quality of the curriculum in secondary schools.
The EBacc was designed to encourage a more traditional and academic curriculum in schools,
deliver a broader and more balanced curriculum with more disadvantaged children taking
subjects deemed to be ‘core’ (i.e. more traditional academic subjects) (DfE, 2015c), improve

SECTION 1: Introduction

11
the standing of English schools compared to their counterparts in higher performing
jurisdictions and enable students to compete more effectively for jobs in the global marketplace
(DfE, 2015a). The EBacc was also a response to concerns about the low take-up of modern
foreign languages in many schools since their removal as a compulsory subject in 2004 (Taylor,
2011, DfE, 2012). In 2015, 39% of English school students were entered for the EBacc.
The DfE (2015a) recently consulted on proposals to make the EBacc the default option for
students in mainstream schools, with the expectation that 90% of students would be entered
for this award. The proportion of students entered for the EBacc in each school will be a
‘headline’ performance measure for schools in 2016 along with EBacc attainment. EBacc entry
and attainment will also be given more emphasis in the Ofsted framework. These changes
echo the stance of the Wolf Review of 14–19 vocational education (Wolf, 2011) which
concluded that existing accountability measures had led to schools encouraging their “lower-
attaining” students to take subjects “with little or no value” so that many young people were
leaving school with “inferior qualifications” (Wolf, 2011:4).
1.2.2 Progress 8
From 2016, Progress 8 is set to be the “headline indicator of school performance determining
the floor standard” (DfE, 2016b:7). Where schools do not show adequate Progress 8 scores,
an Ofsted inspection may be triggered (DfE, 2016b), and conversely schools that perform well
in Progress 8 will normally be given an inspection reprieve during the following year. Progress
8 is therefore arguably the highest stakes of the new performance measures being introduced.
The aim of Progress 8 is to record the progress students make from year 6, at the end of
primary school, to the end of their time in secondary school. In effect Progress 8 is a value-
added measure, which, according to the DfE (2016b:5), “means that pupils’ results are
compared to the actual achievements of other pupils with the same prior attainment”.
Progress 8 is based on the Attainment 8 measure, which is a calculation of an individual
student’s average attainment in their best eight subjects. These subjects must fall into one of
three subject ‘baskets’. ‘Basket 1’: English and Mathematics; ‘basket 2’: three other EBacc
subjects from Sciences, Computer Sciences, Geography, History and Modern Foreign
Languages; and ‘basket 3’: three further qualifications which can be remaining EBacc
qualifications or any other subjects from a prescribed list (DfE, 2015c). If a qualification does
not fall into one of these baskets, it is not counted in the Attainment 8 or Progress 8 measure
(see diagram below – DfE, 2014:3).
For their Progress 8 measure, each student’s Attainment 8 score is divided by 10 (one point for
each subject, with English and Mathematics being double weighted) and then related to their
Key Stage 2 reading and mathematics scores to show progression from Key Stage 2 (year 6).
Progress 8 measure
English
Double-weighted*
Maths
Double-weighted
EBacc qualifications
(sciences, computer science, geography,
history and languages)
‘Open group’
Remaining EBacc qualifications and
other approved qualifications
(GCSEs and other approved academic, arts or vocational
qualifications)
*Higher score or English Language or English Liter ature
double-weighted if a student has taken both qualif ications

A Curriculum for All? The effects of recent Key Stage 4 curriculum, assessment and
accountability reforms on English secondary education

12
Although the accountability measures may result in schools emphasising the importance of
EBacc subjects, students are not currently required to take the full EBacc (DfE, 2015a).
1.2.3 The special status of English and Mathematics
English and Mathematics have been referred to as “the golden core” (Schools Week/OCR
2016: 14) of the new school accountability regime, which has reinforced the special status
these subjects have occupied since 2006 when the 5 A*-C GCSE measure of school
performance was revised to include A*-Cs in English and Mathematics. Not only is one of the
new headline measures devoted entirely to students’ attainment in these subjects (i.e. the
proportion achieving English and Mathematics GCSEs at grade 5, which, as noted in section
1.2, above, is a higher level than the current grade C) but English and Mathematics are also
integral to the other measures. As ‘basket 1’ EBacc subjects they will count towards schools’
percentage of pupils achieving the EBacc; and these subjects are double-weighted within the
Progress 8 and Attainment 8 measures.
1.3 The potential impact of the new measures
A number of commentators have expressed concerns about the impact of the accountability
reforms on the Key Stage 4 curriculum, and, in turn, on students themselves. Among these
are claims that the EBacc will result in the marginalisation and devaluing of creative and
vocational subjects and that it will disadvantage lower-attaining and low-income students.
1.3.1 Creative and vocational subjects
A major area of concern centres on the exclusion of creative and expressive arts subjects such
as Design and Technology, Music and Drama from the EBacc set of subjects (Welch, 2012;
Adams, 2013; Taylor, 2013; Pring, 2013). Those calling for a greater representation of the arts
in the curriculum suggest that a lack of the arts “does our younger generations a disservice”
(Welch, 2015:5), with one commentator arguing that the reforms are an indicator of a “new
philistinism that has overtaken the English education system” (Adams, 2013:2). An online
group, Bacc for the Future, representing campaigners from a variety of sectors, including
creative industries, are arguing for the inclusion of creative subjects in the EBacc to ensure
the equal valuing of these subjects in schools to support a thriving creative economy for the
future (baccforthefuture.com). In response, the DfE has argued that the EBacc has not in fact
“squeezed out wider study”, citing the statistic that the “proportion of pupils in state-funded
schools entering at least one GCSE in an arts subject has increased from 47% in 2010 to 50%
in 2015” (DfE 2016a:93). However, it is not clear which subjects have been included in this
statistic, which contrasts starkly with those produced by the Cultural Learning Alliance showing
a 21% overall decline in arts GCSE entries (Art and Design, Dance, Design and Technology,
Drama, Media/Film/TV Studies, Music and Performing/expressive arts) between 2010 and
2016.1
1An earlier CLA analysis of similar claims made by the DfE found that the DfE figures excluded Design and Technology and
Dance and included AS levels (CLA 2016b). The CLA have also analysed DfE teacher workforce statistics published in July
2015, concluding that “between 2010 and 2014 the number of hours the arts were taught in secondary schools fell by 10%
and the number of arts teachers fell by 11%”. The most marked decline was in Design and Technology which saw a 15%
decline in both hours of teaching and teachers, followed closely by Drama which saw an 8% decline in hours and a 14%
decline in teachers, and Art and Design, with a 9% and 6% decline in hours taught and teachers respectively. The rate of
decline in teaching hours and numbers was also found to be accelerating, “with over a third of the decline since 2010 taking
place between 2013 and 2014” (CLA 2015).

SECTION 1: Introduction

13
The EBacc has also been criticised for devaluing vocational education so that higher attaining
students will be less likely to opt for vocational qualifications thereby “altering the mix of the
type of people who opt for vocational qualifications” and further devaluing the status of
vocational qualifications (Cook 2013: 13). This point was taken up by John Cridland, the then
Chief Executive of the Confederation of British Industry (CBI), in a speech at the Education
Festival in 2015 when he argued that there should no longer be the “false choice” between
“academic achievement or vocational skill” but a system which gives “everyone the chance
to succeed” (Cridland, 2015).
1.3.2 Low-income and lower-attaining students
Critics have pointed out that students from low-income households, low-attaining students
and those with special educational needs have been entered for fewer qualifications since the
introduction of the EBacc, thus restricting their subject choices rather than ensuring a broader
curriculum offer (Parameshwaran and Thomson, 2015; Taylor, 2011). Hodgson and Spours’
2015 study suggests that middle-attaining students are also likely to be overlooked by the new
measures because of the reduced provision of vocationally oriented courses and the greater
emphasis on more traditional academic subjects. In November 2015 the Government proposed
ensuring that at least 90% of students are entered for the EBacc, an ambition reiterated more
recently in the 2016 White Paper, Educational Excellence Everywhere (DfE 2016a). This
attempt to increase the numbers of students being entered potentially resolves the problem
highlighted in these earlier studies of low-income and lower-attaining students being excluded.
But it also creates the possibility that some lower-attaining students will be expected to study
subjects “which will place too great a level of demand on them, reducing their likelihood of
success” (NUT, 2016: 2). Furthermore, some of these students may be steered into further
education colleges “as a means to improve league table standings or to focus fewer resources
on the lowest ability pupils” in schools (Cook 2013: 13).
1.3.3 Classroom practice
However, aspects of the proposals have received support from some educators working within
progressive educational traditions. For Smith (2015), for example, the new measures provide
an opportunity for schools to move away from the educationally harmful and iniquitous
practices generated by the previous accountability regime. These practices, which have been
widely documented (e.g. see Gillborn and Youdell, 2000; Stobart, 2008; Mansell, 2007;
Mortimore, 2013), include: a prevalence of formulaic approaches to teaching; the targeting of
resources on students on the C/D borderline and the consequent neglect of lower-attaining
students; the unrealistic and pedagogically damaging expectation that students should make
– and teachers should be able to evidence – progress in every lesson; and the relentless and
persistent focus on continually assessing and tracking students and “teaching to the test” –
conditions which Smith suggests are inimical to teaching that supports the acquisition of deep
knowledge and higher order cognitive skills (Smith, 2015).
The raft of new reforms in secondary schools, including the new headline measures of EBacc
entry and attainment, Attainment 8, and Progress 8, means that schools will have to adjust
their teaching and learning practices to comply with the new rules and regulations
(Parameshwaran and Thomson, 2015). Smith (2015), writing specifically about the English
curriculum, suggests that the new regime has the potential to lead to a richer and more
effective pedagogic approach characterised by open-ended exploration and dialogue (rather
than the whole class teacher-directed methods that currently dominate) that is focused on

A Curriculum for All? The effects of recent Key Stage 4 curriculum, assessment and
accountability reforms on English secondary education

14
deepening understanding and developing higher order response and analysis skills in ways that
can benefit students of all abilities including lower-attaining students. Smith argues that, done
well and within mixed-attainment settings, this more dialogic approach can work well with
students with special and complex needs. However, the success of such an approach, whether
in English or other subjects, is dependent on the wider context of governance, management
and accountability permitting the development of a different approach and on teachers having
the opportunity to develop the skills required to teach in this way.
In the light of serious concerns about the potential effects of the recent Key Stage 4 reforms,
the NUT commissioned a team of researchers from King’s College London to investigate their
early effects in English secondary schools with a particular focus on the perceptions and
experiences of teachers currently charged with enacting the reforms. This document reports
on the findings of this investigation.
1.4 Research design
The research relies on a mixed methods approach comprising a survey of secondary school
NUT members and case studies of three secondary schools. Three pilot interviews with head
teachers from schools with contrasting intakes guided the research team in developing the
survey questionnaire and the interview schedules for the case studies. Our survey provides a
national picture of the effects of the reforms. The case studies enabled the research team to
explore some of the themes emerging from the survey in greater depth.
1.4.1 Survey
The survey, distributed to NUT English secondary school members between 23 April and 18
May 2016 via the NUT email database, was completed by 1800 teachers. Questions focused
on GCSE curricular offerings, pedagogic approaches, data management, systems of grouping
students, the allocation of resources for the teaching of different groups of students and
teachers’ perceptions of students’ experiences of schooling in the context of the new reforms.
There were six open-ended questions to which respondents were invited to provide free text
responses. These comments are identified in the report as ‘W’ (written).
The survey questions were piloted with a range of secondary school teachers in different roles
and levels of seniority. The Bristol Online Survey service www.onlinesurveys.ac.uk
administered the survey and the results were processed and analysed using the SPSS Statistics
package.
There was a 0.4 percentage point difference between the gender composition of the sample
and the NUT English secondary school membership as a whole. In terms of school types, the
maximum difference between the sample and the total population of NUT English secondary
school members was 0.7 of a percentage point. This suggests that the sample is broadly
representative of the NUT English secondary school membership in terms of gender and school
type.


15
Table 1. Gender and school type of sample population compared to overall NUT English
secondary school membership
Although we did not aim for a representative sample of teachers from the English education
system as a whole, it is worth noting that, with regard to Ofsted evaluations of secondary
schools, the sample is slightly skewed towards schools rated as ‘Good’ and ‘Requires
improvement’, and that schools rated as ‘Outstanding’ and ‘Inadequate’ are slightly under-
represented in our sample.
Table 2. Ofsted rating for schools of sample population compared to general population
of English Schools
The majority of the respondents were in middle-managerial roles (43.1%) or classroom teachers
(56.2%). Deputy heads and head teachers, who are underrepresented in the NUT membership,
represented only 0.7% of the sample.
Respondents primarily taught the following subjects: science (13%), mathematics (10%),
English language (10%) and modern foreign languages (9%) as their main subject at Key Stage
3. At Key Stage 4, respondents primarily taught English (14%), mathematics (11%), modern
foreign languages (9%) and the sciences (altogether 16%). In terms of Key Stage 4 subject
‘baskets’, 25% of the respondents primarily taught English or mathematics, 52% taught ‘basket
2’ subjects and 21% taught non-EBacc ‘basket 3’ subjects.
With regards to teaching experience, respondents have an average of 12.9 years of teaching
experience, and the mode is 10 years. Overall, the teaching experience of the respondents
ranges between one and 43 years.
Sample NUT membership
Sample/population 1,800 68,833
Gender (female) 64.6% 65%
School type Academy converter 60.7% 60%
Academy sponsored
Community, foundation
and voluntary aided
36.1% 36.7%
Free schools 0.8% 1.1%
Ofsted Sample England (2013/2014)
Outstanding 19.8% 21%
Good 53.8% 49%
Requires improvement 20.7% 23%
Inadequate 5.7% 6%
SECTION 1: Introduction

A Curriculum for All? The effects of recent Key Stage 4 curriculum, assessment and
accountability reforms on English secondary education

16
1.4.2 Case study interviews
To complement the survey data, case studies of three contrasting non-selective, coeducational
and non-denominational schools in London were carried out in order to generate more fine-
grained qualitative data.
The case study schools, identified in this report by their pseudonyms, Ashfield, Maple Way
and Oak Park, were selected to represent a diverse sample in terms of social class and ethnic
makeup, size of intake, school type, and accountability pressures.
Table 3. Case study schools
10-12 semi-structured interviews were conducted in each of the case study schools with a
purposive sample consisting of members of the senior leadership team, classroom teachers,
SENDCOs and union representatives. The interviews were designed to elicit participants’
insights about how the reforms are being enacted in the schools and about their impact on
school practices and student experiences. The case studies enabled an in-depth exploration of
institutional strategies and practices in a way that is sensitive to the contextual aspects of
institutional responses (such as position in the league tables and the nature of student intakes)
and sensitive to the difficulties of separating out the effects of different policy initiatives that
have to be simultaneously negotiated. While the survey responses allow us to gain a general
understanding of how English secondary schools have been impacted by the reforms, the
interview excerpts are necessarily limited in this respect.
The interviews were transcribed and coded both manually and using NVivo qualitative data
analysis software. Comments used in the report are identified as ‘I’ (interview data).
1.4.3 Research Ethics
The research was conducted in accordance with the ethical guidelines of the British Education
Research Association and King’s College London. Participants were granted anonymity and
pseudonyms have been used in the reporting of the findings to conceal the identity of schools
and participants.
Ashfield School
Academy –
Converter Mainstream
Maple Way School
Voluntary-Aided
School
Oak Park School
Community School
Size 1,880 pupils 687 pupils 974 pupils
Ofsted grade Outstanding Good Requires
improvement
GCSE results 2015
Students achieving
A*-C grades
including English
and Mathematics
71% 47% 56%
Pupils registered
for FSM
10.8% 32% 33.6%
Pupils registered as
SEND (2014-2015)
1.9% 5.7% 12.6%
% of pupils achieving
EBacc qualification
30% 2% 37%

Section 2
The GCSE curriculum offer

17

A Curriculum for All? The effects of recent Key Stage 4 curriculum, assessment and
accountability reforms on English secondary education

18
2 The GCSE curriculum offer
In this section we report on teachers’ perceptions of the impact of the EBacc on GCSE
curricular offerings, with a particular focus on the availability and take up of creative and
vocational subjects. We also explore teachers’ perspectives on how changes in curricular
offerings are affecting students’ experiences of learning in different subject areas and students’
sense of educational direction and motivation.
The overwhelming majority of the 1800 teachers responding to our survey reported that the
EBacc has led to a narrowing of the Key Stage 4 curriculum offer in their schools. 75% of the
survey respondents reported that students had a reduced number of GCSE subjects to choose
from in their schools, with only 4% agreeing that the reforms will ensure a broader and more
balanced curriculum than before.
Figure 1. Students have a reduced number of GCSE subjects to choose from
Figure 2. The reforms will ensure a broader and more balanced curriculum than before
In an open-ended survey question respondents were asked to report on which, if any, subjects
had been removed and/or added to the curriculum offer. Creative subjects, in particular
performing arts subjects (drama, music, dance and performing arts), DT and vocational subjects
were those most likely to be reported as having been removed from the curriculum. Amongst
BTECs, respondents specifically identified Applied Science, Child Development, Food
Technology/Catering, Graphics, Health and Social Care, Resistant Materials, Construction,
Engineering, Hair and Beauty, Travel and Tourism, and Leisure and Tourism as having been
removed from the curriculum. Respondents indicated that religious education (RE) was often
removed or relegated to being an option and thus taught in reduced time. A smaller number
of respondents reported the removal of media, ICT, psychology and business from the
curriculum offer in their schools.
Computer science and modern foreign languages (MFL) were the subjects most frequently
reported as having been added to the curriculum offer in their schools, with some respondents

SECTION 2: The GCSE curriculum offer

19
reporting that a choice of MFL and/or a choice of humanities had become compulsory in their
schools.
We found a significant correlation between the Ofsted rating of the schools and how their
curriculum offer had changed, with teachers working in schools categorised as ‘Inadequate’
or ‘Requires improvement’ more likely to report that students had a reduced number of GCSEs
to choose from.
Respondents were also asked to comment on changes to examination entry rates in their
school between 2012 and 2015. Respondents teaching non-EBacc subjects were the most
likely to report a decrease in the examination entry rates for their subjects. While 72% of
English and mathematics teachers reported that the examination entry rates had not changed
in their subjects, 61% of non-EBacc teachers reported decreases. The picture for science,
computer science, geography, history and languages was more mixed with 31% reporting
increases and 20% reporting decreases.
A decrease in examination entry rates in their schools was reported in creative subjects by
82% of the respondents, in vocational subjects by 84% of the respondents and in technology
by 75% of the respondents. Exam entry rates had increased in both geography and history
according to 69% of respondents and in modern foreign languages according to 59% of
respondents.
The survey included an open-ended question inviting further comments on the impact of the
EBacc on respondents’ schools. The overwhelming majority of the 463 teachers responding
to this question addressed the negative effects of the reform, with only three expressing hopes
for positive impact. Typical comments included:
“Creative subjects are being sidelined and devalued.” (W: Art and design teacher
in a standalone academy with a ‘Good’ Ofsted rating)
“t is narrowing the curriculum and making vocational subjects seem less
important.” (W: Head of Year and design and technology teacher in a local authority
school with a ‘Good’ Ofsted rating)
“A lot of the art subjects were cut because they were time tabled against other
art subjects so students could only choose one. More subjects are being dropped
entirely this year, e.g. graphics and textiles.” (W: Art and design teacher in a multi-
academy trust school with a ‘Requires Improvement’ Ofsted rating)
“D&T does not matter any more.” (W: Head of department of design and
technology in a chain academy with a ‘Requires Improvement’ rating)
“It’s stifling the education system. … Do they not see how academic design is,
how it creates balanced individuals who are organised, innovative individuals?”
(W: Head of department of design and technology in a local authority school with
a ‘Good’ Ofsted rating)
Some of the survey respondents suggested that the creative subjects were losing some of
their most talented students to more traditionally academic EBacc subjects:
“Excellent candidates for artistic subjects have been actively discouraged from
taking Arts courses and told to do triple science and EBacc instead.” (W: Head of
Year and music teacher in a multi-academy trust school with a ‘Good’ Ofsted rating)
“Harder to get higher ability musicians to consider GCSE as an option.” (W: Music
teacher in a multi-academy trust school with a ‘Good’ Ofsted rating)

A Curriculum for All? The effects of recent Key Stage 4 curriculum, assessment and
accountability reforms on English secondary education

20
Comments about the narrowing of the curriculum were often linked to the claim that students
were now being forced to take subjects which they may not be motivated to study:
“It’s forced students who struggle with academic subjects to pick academic
subjects that they don’t enjoy. It causes them to lose confidence in their ability
which causes their self esteem to plummet. It’s horribly unfair as it’s putting square
pegs in round holes.” (W: Head of humanities department and history teacher in a
local authority school with a ‘Requires improvement’ Ofsted rating)
“Students are pressured into the EBacc with the result that they are now taking
subjects that they ‘dislike least’. This has led to demotivated pupils and more
behavioural issues for subjects like history and geography.” (W: Head of department
and history teacher in a standalone academy with an ‘Outstanding’ Ofsted rating)
“Far more pressure on pupils [who] are pushed into choosing subjects for EBacc
but cannot cope academically causing more problems with failure and
behaviour/dysfunctionality.” (W: Union rep and science teacher in a standalone
academy with a ‘Good’ Ofsted rating)
“Behaviour worsened amongst children who are forced into EBacc.” (W: Head of
key stage and history teacher in a multi-academy trust school with an ‘Inadequate’
Ofsted rating)
“Students [are] forced to take EBacc subjects despite lack of desire and/or
aptitude.” (Union rep and history teacher in a free school with a ‘Good’ Ofsted rating)
“We have ended up with students who were made to take a language as they
were on a particular path regardless of their prior achievement and attitude towards
the subject. Therefore, we have ended up with demotivated/disruptive students.”
(W: Head of key stage and MFL teacher in a local authority school with a ‘Requires
improvement’ Ofsted rating)
These concerns were echoed in the case study interviews, in which a number of teachers
suggested that the narrowing of the option choices coupled with the higher expectations
associated with the new GCSE grading structure was likely to lead to disengagement amongst
all students, with the lower achieving students disengaged from learning the most. For
example, a drama teacher at Ashfield commented:
“I think maybe students that are at high risk of underachieving are getting
disengaged with the school, if they are not able to take curriculum options that
will engage them in school and really home into their passions, I think they are
going to find it increasingly difficult to stay with subjects and to achieve what the
government feels is an acceptable grade.” (I: Drama teacher, Ashfield School,
standalone academy, ‘Outstanding’ Ofsted rating)
A senior teacher in the same school argued that the EBacc fails to recognise the value of
creative careers as well as the progress made in creative subjects:
“So it’s not that these students study art, drama and music and don’t progress.
They study art, music and drama and they progress the art, music and drama and
things at degree-level or post-18 study. So it’s still a perfectly useful route to them
and we don’t want the school measure affecting the interests of the child. The
interests of the child have to come first.” (I: Senior leader, Ashfield School,
standalone academy, ‘Outstanding’ Ofsted rating)

SECTION 2: The GCSE curriculum offer

21
In summary, the majority of the teachers surveyed reported that, in response to the EBacc,
their schools had narrowed the range of subject choices available for students, with 75%
reporting that students had a reduced number of GCSE subjects to choose from in their
schools. A major concern for teachers was that the steering of students towards EBacc
subjects will increase disengagement and disaffection, particularly amongst lower-attaining
students. A number of teachers also expressed the concern that creatively talented students
were being steered away from creative subjects towards more traditionally academic subjects.

A Curriculum for All? The effects of recent Key Stage 4 curriculum, assessment and
accountability reforms on English secondary education

22


23
Section 3
Subject hierarchies and
resource allocation

A Curriculum for All? The effects of recent Key Stage 4 curriculum, assessment and
accountability reforms on English secondary education

24
3 Subject hierarchies and resource allocation
EBacc, combined with the other new headline accountability measures, reinforces the special
status of the more traditional academic subjects and especially English and mathematics (see
section 1.2.3, above). As one interviewee put it:
“By definition if you say these subjects are in the EBacc then you are putting a ring fence
around that as hallowed ground.” (I: Science teacher, Oak Park, local authority school, ‘Requires
improvement’ Ofsted rating)
This is having a profound effect on the hierarchy of subjects within schools, reinforcing some
existing hierarchies and extending and introducing new ways in which hierarchies are
embedded. This is manifested in the reduction in the availability of creative and vocational
subjects as GCSE option choices in many schools (as discussed in section 2.1, above). It is
also manifested in a redistribution of resources to subjects deemed to be ‘core’ and reduced
job security for teachers of ‘non-core’ subjects.
3.1 Resource redistribution
Survey respondents reported a significant redistribution in the allocation of resources to
subjects, with more lesson time allocated to ‘core’ subjects and more students withdrawn
from ‘non-core’ classes for additional 1:1 catch up provision and exam preparation in ‘core’
subjects.
Figure 3. More students are withdrawn from class for 1:1 catch-up provision
Figure 3. More students are withdrawn from class for exam preparation in ‘core’ subjects
Survey respondents reported that creative and vocational subjects were the most severely
impacted by a withdrawal of resources, but that citizenship, PSHE, RE, some other humanities
subjects and technology were negatively impacted as well. ‘Basket 1’ subjects (i.e. English
and mathematics) were reported to be gaining resources as a result of the reforms, and this is
also the case to a lesser extent for ‘basket 2’ subjects (geography, science, computer science,
history and languages). For example, 67% of ‘basket 1’ teachers reported that their teaching

SECTION 3: Subject hierarchies and resource allocation

25
hours have increased, compared to 45% of ‘basket 2’ and 42% of non-EBacc ‘basket 3’
teachers. The shift in resources from arts to ‘core’ subjects was graphically illustrated by one
survey respondent who reported that in their school:
“Dedicated classrooms for drama, media and music have been turned into science
rooms ([with] sinks, gas taps, etc. added and sound engineer rooms removed).”
(Head of mathematics department in a local authority school with a ‘Good’ Ofsted
rating)
There was a significant correlation between the Key Stage 4 subjects of the respondents and
their responses to the statement that “more higher attaining students are being entered for
GCSE exams in my subject”. The majority (53%) of those teaching non-EBacc ‘basket 3’
subjects “disagreed a lot” with this statement whilst for teachers of ‘basket 1’ and ‘basket 2’
subjects the disagreement rate was around 20%.
Similarly, there was a significant correlation between the Key Stage 4 subjects of the
respondents and whether they reported that their subject had “lost a significant number of
students”. 72% of non-EBacc teachers agreed with this statement. In contrast, not surprisingly,
only 3% of English and mathematics teachers agreed with this statement.
Whilst our case study schools each responded to the new accountability measures in their
own ways and according to their distinctive ethos and individual and situated contexts (see
section 4, below), all of the non-EBacc teachers we interviewed reported experiencing some
degree of marginalisation, whether reflected in loss of curriculum time, or reductions in uptake,
resourcing and staffing of their subjects or increased pressure to ‘sell’ their subjects in the
option choice process:
“The performing arts has been eroded … [The time] has gone into the core
subjects, which on the one hand you can understand because [of] the way the
schools are judged, the way – certainly with Progress 8 – the school is accountable
for making progress.” (I: Arts and music teacher, Maple Way, voluntary-aided
school with a ‘Good’ Ofsted rating)
“We really do have to sometimes convince the parents that it’s not a throwaway
subject, that it’s not regarded any less by universities or by college, and we show
them the amount of science involved.” (I: PE teacher, Maple Way)
“You can’t offer a broad curriculum like you used to be able to because, for
example, maths needs more time now … so you’re cutting hours from other
subjects.” (I: Senior leader, Maple Way)
“You know if you don’t recruit and someone leaves they won’t be replaced. If you
don’t recruit possibly you’re going to be eased out the door.” (I: Arts teacher, Oak
Park, local authority school, ‘Requires improvement’ Ofsted rating)
In contrast English and mathematics teachers reported that either the EBacc has not affected
their subjects, or that it has strengthened their importance because of the special status of
these subjects in the new headline accountability measures and the more demanding content
of the new GCSEs:
“It hasn’t really impacted that much. I think because maths is a core subject,
students haven’t had a choice with that, it’s always been a measure.” (I:
Mathematics teacher, Ashfield, standalone academy, ‘Outstanding’ Ofsted rating)

A Curriculum for All? The effects of recent Key Stage 4 curriculum, assessment and
accountability reforms on English secondary education

26
“So for a subject like English, which is compulsory, the EBacc hasn’t really had
any impact on us.” (I: English teacher, Oak Park, local authority, ‘Requires
improvement’ Ofsted rating)
“Key stage 4 in [maths] there’s just a much bigger curriculum now that they have
to follow, so they have more curriculum time. So that’s a massive change ... I mean
it’s partly reflective of where maths is in our school, we do need to improve the
progress of our students, but it is also reflective of the new GCSE and how much
more content there is to cover.” (I: Mathematics teacher, Oak Park)
“Our curriculum time has been increased because we’ve been seen as a priority
over other subjects.” (I: English teacher, Maple Way, voluntary aided, with a ‘Good’
Ofsted rating)
Survey respondents’ comments also revealed that increased curriculum time for English and
mathematics has impacted negatively on ‘basket 2’ and non-EBacc ‘basket 3’ subjects:
“Over time, all arts subjects have been cut in curriculum time and teachers. Art
was the last to fall this year, reducing from 3 hours a fortnight at KS3 to 2 hours
and [from] 11 hours a fortnight to 10 at KS4.” (W: Head of the arts department in
a local authority school with a ‘Good’ Ofsted rating)
“The introduction of the EBacc has seen our SLT reduce curriculum time below
the required rate for subjects such as PE and technology.” (W: Citizenship teacher
in a local authority school with a ‘Requires improvement’ Ofsted rating)
“There has been an increase in additional revision-style off-timetable days in the
core subjects which has reduced contact time for other subject staff.” (W: PE and
drama teacher in a standalone academy with a ‘Good’ Ofsted rating)
A member of the senior leadership team at Maple Way reported that the ‘core’ subjects are
also increasingly taking precedence even over pastoral activities that have, in the past, held a
powerful place in the school curriculum and in its ethos:
“It used to be a lot of the time that the tutor could spend … speaking with their
tutees and getting to know them and build up a relationship. Now we have
sessions where students will go out and might do some extra English, might do
some extra maths, extra science, so rather than actually having a pastoral session
you’ve got the pressure of the curriculum coming into the pastoral side and taking
away from it.” (I: SLT, Maple Way, voluntary aided, with a ‘Good’ Ofsted rating)
A decrease in the time allocated to pastoral activities, and in some cases a loss of pastoral
posts, was commented on by survey respondents as well:
“The pastoral, health and wellbeing of students has taken a back seat to teaching
and learning.” (W: Head of year and design and technology teacher in a standalone
academy with a ‘Good’ Ofsted rating)
“Faculty heads and assistant heads have been removed and replaced with lower-
paid department heads. The pastoral team is being disbanded.” (W: Art and design
teacher in a standalone academy with a ‘Good’ Ofsted rating)
“Restructuring tutor groups and the staffing with it, redundancies of non-teaching
heads of year.” (W: Biology teacher in a standalone academy with a ‘Good’ Ofsted
rating)

SECTION 3: Subject hierarchies and resource allocation

27
3.2 Job insecurity and redundancies
There was a strong correlation between the respondents’ subject baskets and their views on
their job security. 77% of non-EBacc ‘basket 3’ teachers ‘disagreed a lot’ with the statement
that the reforms have increased their job security, whilst only 32% of ‘basket 2’ teachers and
21% of ‘basket 1’ teachers ‘disagreed a lot’ with this statement. Survey respondents used the
opportunity provided by the free-text comment spaces to elaborate on the impact of the
reforms on job security in their schools within a wider context of cuts to school budgets. Many
reported that their schools had made, or were threatening, redundancies as a result of the
financial pressures they were facing, particularly of non-EBacc ‘basket 3’ teachers and support
staff, or that they were not replacing staff in these areas; and a number of comments referred
to teachers of ‘non-core’ subjects increasingly being asked to teach subjects outside of their
specialism:
“We are in the process of making seven staff redundant.” (W: Design and
technology teacher in a standalone academy with an ‘Outstanding’ Ofsted rating)
“Change of focus for some staff combined with redundancies in staff, admin and
teaching assistants.” (W: Head of Year and PE teacher in a standalone academy
with a ‘Good’ Ofsted rating)
“Threats of redundancy if we cannot teach a second subject. The arts are being
stripped away from options choices and many teachers are left with their full time
timetables slashed in half. Many fear for their jobs at present.” (W: Head of
department and design and technology teacher in a standalone academy with a
‘Good’ Ofsted rating)
“It will … result in job losses (currently under review). Teachers are being
redeployed between subjects to meet needs – PE teachers teaching English and
geography, for example, and technology teachers teaching art or Ethics, Philosophy
and Religion.” (W: English teacher in a local authority school with an ‘Inadequate’
Ofsted rating)
“The arts are being slowly pushed out and staff are being asked to teach … non-
specialist subjects or support EBacc subjects on 1:1 teaching.” (W: Head of
department and dance teacher in a local authority school with a ‘Good’ Ofsted
rating)
“I am being made redundant because we will only be teaching EBacc subjects at
KS 3 & 4 from now on.” (W: Head of department, PSHE and citizenship studies
teacher in a local authority school with a ‘Requires Improvement’ Ofsted rating)
“Redundancies have been made. Teachers in creative subjects have not been
replaced.” (W: Head of department, ICT and computer science in a local authority
school, Ofsted rating not specified)
“Redundancies to teachers working in creative subjects, increased recruitment of
core subject teachers.” (W: Science teacher in a local authority school with a ‘Good’
Ofsted rating)
“We have just had a round of redundancies due to financial shortages. The
subjects that have lost teaching time are Art, Design and Technology, Music,
Drama and RE. The art department has gone from 3 to 2 members of staff.” (W:
Art and design teacher in a local authority school with a ‘Good’ Ofsted rating)

A Curriculum for All? The effects of recent Key Stage 4 curriculum, assessment and
accountability reforms on English secondary education

28
“A lot of staff have been made redundant due to more English and maths and
science lessons per week.” (W: Head of department and humanities and sociology
teacher in a local authority school with a ‘Good’ Ofsted Rating)
In summary, the EBacc, alongside other school accountability measures, is reinforcing the
marginalisation of creative, vocational and technology subjects, with teachers of these subjects
reporting a decrease in examination entry rates, reduced resources and less time being
allocated to their subjects. These teachers also reported experiencing increased job insecurity
as a result of the reforms. In some schools the time allocated for pastoral activities is also
being reduced by the increased focus on ‘core’ subjects.


29
Section 4
Options processes:
context matters

A Curriculum for All? The effects of recent Key Stage 4 curriculum, assessment and
accountability reforms on English secondary education

30
Some of the survey respondents made positive comments about school leaders and their
attempts to protect staff and students, as they saw it, from the full force of the reforms:
“As a school we’ve ignored the EBacc as a measure, it’s not suitable for a good
minority of our students.” (W: Head of year and mathematics teacher in a multi-
academy trust school with a ‘Good’ Ofsted rating)
“As a school we’ve made a conscious decision to not let the reforms impact on
how we teach. Options in year 9 have not changed so no subjects are at risk.” (W:
History teacher in a multi-academy trust school with a ‘Requires improvement’
Ofsted rating)
“I have been pleased with my school’s response to the EBacc – they have not
changed their offering and in fact have made languages non-compulsory in
response to students’ needs and wants. They have not allowed themselves to be
cowed by the government’s demands that students are limited to certain subjects.”
(W: MFL teacher in a multi-academy trust school with a ‘Good’ Ofsted rating)
In the case study interviews we were able to explore in more detail how contextual factors
such as school intakes and resources impacted on school leaders’ freedom of manoeuvre to
protect creative and vocational subjects in the new accountability landscape. The way in which
the schools respond to the EBacc is primarily through their options process. Our case studies
show that, depending on their context, schools are positioned very differently in terms of their
room for manoeuvre in designing option blocks.
Ashfield School is an oversubscribed larger than average school which is rated by Ofsted as
‘Outstanding’ and performs well in the results league tables, with students entering the school
with attainment significantly above the national average. The school is well-resourced and
staffed with a secure and stable leadership team. All of this enables the leadership to
implement changes gradually and apply a “wait and see” approach of ‘adapting’ to change
(history and politics teacher, Ashfield) even in the current, rapidly changing policy environment.
As a consequence, Ashfield has been able to maintain a flexible approach to its option block
process and to ensure that every student has an opportunity to take an arts subject:
“We’ve always had a very open option process at Year 9 in that we never put
subjects into blocks for students to choose between. They have complete free
choice across all of our subjects that we offer.” (I: Senior Leader, Ashfield)
Ashfield was the only one of our case study schools which had not increased curriculum time
for English and mathematics because, as a mathematics teacher explained:
“If we increased our time [for English and maths] then we had to remove some
of the options across other subjects and we felt that, as a school, we wanted to
still offer more choice.” (I: Mathematics teacher, Ashfield School)
However, the same teacher did acknowledge that this policy is results-dependent and could
potentially change in the future:
“I think if our maths results drop significantly then there’ll be a strong argument
for increasing the number of lessons for maths and perhaps English.” (I:
Mathematics teacher, Ashfield)
Whilst Maple Way, rated as ‘Good’ in its last Ofsted inspection and ‘Outstanding’ in the
behaviour and safety of its pupils, also aspires to provide a “flexible offer”, options are
constrained by the small size of the school:

SECTION 4: Options processes: context matters

31
“…what [the option blocks] do is they give students the opportunity to follow the
EBacc if they wish … so it’s a very flexible offer but we are … a very, very small
school so we can’t offer significant flexibility.” (I: Senior leader, Maple Way)
The senior leadership team (SLT) at Maple Way, which serves a predominantly socio-
economically disadvantaged community, also wants to ensure its students should not be
further disadvantaged by being discouraged from taking more EBacc subjects:
“I have asked the member of staff who leads [our] options [process] to go back to
students and recommend the EBacc more strongly.” (I: Senior leader, Maple Way)
However, at the same time, the SLT is keen for students to be able to access a broad curriculum
and, in order to protect creative subjects at risk of being dropped from the curriculum, it is
considering a two-week timetable:
“If you go to a two week timetable then everybody can have an offer less
frequently so you could keep textiles but they would only have it once every two
weeks instead of once a week, so it offers a degree of flexibility.” (I: Senior leader,
Maple Way)
Ultimately though the changes in the coming year will likely be determined by financial and
infrastructural constraints beyond the school’s control.
“It will be determined by the fact that my budget is reduced and we might be
moving to two sites and I might ... not be able to offer a broad range of DT for
example.” (I: Senior leader, Maple Way)
Constraints imposed by budgetary pressures was also a strong theme in the open-ended
survey responses, with teachers of subjects deemed to be ‘non-core’ identified as most at risk
of redundancy or non-replacement in cases where reductions to school budgets were being
addressed via staffing cuts (see section 3.2).
In Oak Park School, assessed by Ofsted as ‘Requires improvement’, experiencing high head
teacher turnover, extreme financial pressures and redundancies due to falling roles, the SLT
made a conscious decision to postpone dealing with the implementation of the new
accountability measures until the following year. As one interviewee put it: “I think this year
has been about other things”. Nevertheless, the effect of EBacc on subject hierarchies is felt
implicitly:
“It has effects which may be not necessarily explicit, but, you know, again
unconscious changes, and unconscious emphasis on particular subjects. Whether
you like it or not, if it’s more important you are going to spend more time at parents
evening talking about these subjects. So, where do we make the cuts? Who are
we going to put the money into recruiting? … The non-EBacc subject heads of
department, what does it feel like for them? Do they get equal billing at
options evenings? ... They’ll notice those things.” (I: Science teacher and NUT rep,
Oak Park)
The general message we received in all the schools from the teachers we interviewed was
that the schools are making determined attempts to protect their non-EBacc subjects and
provide as broad a curriculum as possible, and none of the case study schools were requiring
students to take the full EBacc – although, where it was felt appropriate, they were encouraging
them to do so:

A Curriculum for All? The effects of recent Key Stage 4 curriculum, assessment and
accountability reforms on English secondary education

32
“I’ve been pleasantly surprised by the approach of the SLT ... At my last school
most students were forced into EBacc ... Here, although there’s been very much
that encouragement, there’s a vocational route, the timetable has been written so
you can choose a vocational route and ... still do your English, Maths, Science, and
a couple of other subjects. There hasn’t been anyone forced into language, you
know, very much an encouragement.” (I: Senior Leader, Oak Park)
‘We are trying to encourage more children who are able to take a language under
Humanities, so we are not stating categorically that every child has to do the EBacc
choice of subjects … because we know that if students are corralled into
something that they don’t want to do, that actually everybody loses. We’re trying
not to put that sort of pressure on.’ (I: Senior Leader, Ashfield)
Nevertheless, across all three school contexts, the non-EBacc teachers appeared to ‘speak the
same language’ in terms of the impact that the EBacc is having or will have on their subjects
in the future. Although it is still early days in terms of the new headline accountability measures
kicking in, there was a sense of inevitability from the teachers interviewed that these would
continue to impact on subject hierarchies in the ways described in Section 3, above. For
example, an SLT member at Maple Way explained that the “reality is that the school is judged
on its EBacc measure” so the school will eventually have to fall in line.

SECTION 4: Impact of accountability measures on school leaders and teachers

33
Section 5
The new GCSEs

A Curriculum for All? The effects of recent Key Stage 4 curriculum, assessment and
accountability reforms on English secondary education

34
5 The new GCSEs
In this section we report on teachers’ perspectives on the impact of the new GCSE curricula
and assessment requirements on their classroom practice and their perspectives on how
students have experienced or are likely to experience the new courses.
5.1 Impact on classroom practice
The survey was administered in the Spring of 2016 when English and mathematics teachers
had been teaching the new GCSE content for almost a year. More than three-quarters (76%)
of these teachers strongly agreed that their classroom practice has become more focused on
examination and test preparation as a result of the new GCSE specifications.
Figure 5. Classroom practice has become more focused on exam and test preparation
(English and mathematics teachers)
Numerous written replies further explicated these concerns:
“Teaching has changed at KS3. Everything is now targeted towards GCSE… No
differentiation now allowed in exams so low-ability students achieving very poor
results. Self esteem suffering. Everything geared towards tests.” (W: English
teacher in a multi-academy trust school rated ‘Outstanding’ by Ofsted)
“The sheer level of fear about accountability and the difficulty of the new GCSEs
and of terminal assessments have meant the ENTIRE curriculum (from Y7) has
been reduced to replicated GCSE-style assessment. Kids are doing far more
testing. The curriculum has narrowed. Forms of assessment have become
narrowed. Teaching is becoming more a form of ‘transmission’. It is depressing.
Kids feel fatigued and stressed. I feel bored and demotivated.” (W: English teacher
in multi-academy trust school with a ‘Requires Improvement’ Ofsted rating)
“It has led me to consider leaving the profession. I did not come into teaching to
teach students solely how to memorise facts for an exam.” (W: Head of English
department in a standalone academy with a ‘Good’ Ofsted rating)
The responses of teachers of other subjects revealed similar levels of concerns, with 87% of
these teachers agreeing with the statement that classroom practice will become more focused
on exam and test preparation in their subjects.
Only a small minority of English and mathematics teachers (12%) agreed that the new
assessments had encouraged them to teach in more innovative and creative ways, with a
slightly higher percentage of other teachers (15%) anticipating that this would be the case in
their subjects:

SECTION 5: The new GCSEs

35
“The adjustments to the curriculum have resulted in much narrower, much less
creative teaching. Moreover, 100% exam terrifies the pupils in all brackets as they
have no safety net, particularly those pupils who cannot demonstrate their skills
in exam conditions.” (W: English teacher in a local authority school with ‘Good’
Ofsted rating)
“I became a teacher to encourage creativity, promote independent learning and
develop problem-solving skills. To teach students to think for themselves in new
and exciting ways NOT JUST EXAM FACTORY FODDER – strictly learning answers
does not teach people to think!!” (W: Drama teacher in multi-academy trust with
an ‘Outstanding’ Ofsted rating)
“We are merely becoming an exam production unit and we are losing the breadth
and depth of knowledge that we ought to be giving students. Also, we seem to
be driven by the need to get rid of any in-depth, exciting and innovative teaching
and now are solely focused on the PowerPoint-driven lesson with reliance on
textbook materials which I feel is a real step backwards and is a result of the
changes which have taken place recently.” (W: Geography teacher in a multi-
academy trust school with a ‘Good’ Ofsted rating)
Only 10% of English and mathematics teachers responding to the survey agreed with the
statement that teaching had become more interactive and student-centred, with the same
percentage of other teachers anticipating this would be the case in their subjects. In their
written responses teachers explained that the increase in the volume of content that needed
to be covered did not allow for more interactive and student-centred approaches:
“There is too much content to get through and I cannot teach for mastery with so
little time.” (W: Mathematics teacher in a local authority school with a ‘Good’
Ofsted rating)
“We are fighting the temptation to teach in a dry rote fashion for the test but it is
difficult because there is a lot to cover. The curriculum is also likely to be narrowed
all the way through school with an overemphasis on grammar and accuracy instead
of creativity.” (W: English teacher in local authority school with an ‘Outstanding’
Ofsted rating)
“The content is much greater and it will be a race to cover it all in the time available.
Content will need to be skimmed rather than investigated in depth as at present.
This will undoubtedly lead to weaker understanding and students less able to cope
at A Level.” (W: Head of history department in a multi-academy trust school with
a ‘Good’ Ofsted rating)
“So much content will force cursory coverage of issues in order to get through
the course.” (W: Religious Education teacher in multi-academy trust with an
‘Outstanding’ Ofsted rating)
Some teachers welcomed the move away from coursework and controlled assessment (with
MFL teachers, in particular, arguing that controlled assessment had stifled the development
of spontaneous communication skills). However, others saw coursework as an opportunity for
creative and personalised learning, and argued that the combination of the new emphasis on
terminal examinations and the rapid introduction of the new curricula are prompting a more
formulaic approach to classroom practice:

A Curriculum for All? The effects of recent Key Stage 4 curriculum, assessment and
accountability reforms on English secondary education

36
“I have an ongoing concern … that we’re sometimes impacting the creative side
of the curriculum because of the increasing focus on examination for them. We
always comment when we get our new Year 7s … how lively and creative they
are. ... Unfortunately in English, the excitement and the kind of lively atmosphere
is, that’s the one that sometimes is being squashed because we have to get to
this end product...” (I: English teacher, Ashfield, standalone academy, with an
‘Outstanding’ Ofsted rating)
“Students with creative ability and the ability to sequentially develop designs and
engineering concepts will have a reduced chance of gaining higher grades
compared to their academic peers. It is often said ‘work smart, not hard’. This
presumes that hard working students shouldn’t be rewarded for their endeavours.
Many previously hard working pupils will now be at a disadvantage due to
coursework assessed units now holding a lower percentage grade towards final
marks. Some children are simply not exam sitting material, but are no less able or
talented. In fact, they can often outperform their academic peers practically.”
(W: Head of design and technology department in a local authority school with a
‘Good’ Ofsted rating)
5.2 Inequalities of access
77% of survey respondents strongly agreed with the statement that the new GCSE curriculum
will be less suitable for low-attaining students. In both the written responses and interviews
lower-attaining, SEND, EAL and low-income students were all identified as less well placed to
access the new curriculum. Phrases such as “setting students up to fail” were frequently used
in this context:
“Comes at a massive detriment to low attaining students. The teaching style will
be more teacher-led and grammar based. Will also depend on their ability in
English/home language in order to succeed. Overall pass mark across the
department will definitely decrease due to lower ability students not being able to
access the curriculum as easily. Only advantage is losing … ‘controlled
assessment’ .... Teaching will be more restrictive and less creative/innovative.”
(W: Newly qualified MFL teacher in a local authority school with a ‘Good’ Ofsted
rating)
“[Students from low-income families] are at a disadvantage, a significant
disadvantage, with some of those exams which require you to understand, for
example, what going on holiday to France actually means.” (I: MFL teacher, Oak
Park, local authority school with a ‘Requires improvement’ Ofsted rating)
“The un-tiered system is isolating lower-attaining students. Differentiation is such
an important factor within teaching. Why is it then seen as acceptable to change
from inclusive teaching to assessment which sets some pupils up to fail who
would in other circumstances succeed?” (W: newly qualified English teacher in a
multi-academy trust school with a ‘Requires improvement’ Ofsted rating)
“The SEND students and low attaining students are struggling severely with the
new English GCSE. Staff feel as though they are setting them up to fail.” (W:
English teacher in a multi-academy trust school with an ‘Outstanding’ Ofsted rating)

SECTION 5: The new GCSEs

37
“More students are having to study English Literature as well as English Language.
This is stressful for students with literacy difficulties/SEN and EAL. We have
students in Year 10 who are new to English and in tears because they are
struggling with Shakespeare and other literature.” (W: SENCO in a standalone
academy with a ‘Good’ Ofsted rating)
“The new English Language exams are an absolute disaster, especially for lower-
attaining students. The tasks and texts are inaccessible … Speaking and listening
(arguably the most important skill in the ‘real world’ for the majority of students)
has been relegated to a mere box-ticking exercise, which merely alienates
students because of the way it has to be administered. There have been too many
factors introduced to increase the difficulty level (set texts, loss of controlled
assessment, longer exams, closed book conditions). … I feel extremely angry that
what should be an enjoyable subject at this level is becoming dry and exam-
centric.” (W: English teacher in a standalone academy with a ‘Good’ Ofsted rating)
“The students with better literacy skills will find [the mathematics exam] easier to
access, because they’ll be finding it easier to break problems down … so they’ll
just understand the questions better, whereas I think that we might find that some
of our students will get a bit lost in the paper, and it will be harder for them to
understand what [they] need to do.” (I: Mathematics teacher, Oak Park, local
authority school with a ‘Requires improvement’ Ofsted rating)
“I was told by a salesperson from AQA that if students don’t have a reading age
of 15, they are unable to read the inserts and questions in the new exam. We have
very few students who are reading at this level.’ (W: Head of key stage and English
teacher in a local authority school with a ‘Good’ Ofsted rating)
Respondents referred in particular to the emphasis on exams and the detrimental impact they
believed this would have on many students, particularly low attaining students. A number of
respondents used the term ‘exam factory’ to describe the current situation of their schools:
“I now work in an exam factory in which my low ability students are being set up
to fail.” (W: English teacher in a multi-academy trust school with an ‘Outstanding’
Ofsted rating)
“No differentiation now allowed in exams so low ability students achieving very
poor results. Self esteem suffering. Everything geared towards tests.” (W: Head
of English department, in a multi-academy trust school with an ‘Outstanding’
Ofsted rating)
“Children seem demotivated at times by knowing how hard these exams are.’ (W:
English teacher and union rep in a local authority school with a ‘Good’ Ofsted rating)
“Higher academic demand on lower-attainers already shows them to be
overwhelmed and demotivated.” (W: Deputy head of science department and
union rep in a local authority school with a ‘Good’ Ofsted rating)
“We are encouraged to welcome and work with children who have a vast range
of special needs and this is great, but we are setting them up to fail when it comes
to the new GCSE. … We nurture and support our most vulnerable children,
gradually gaining their trust and making then feel positive and enabled. At the end
of this, we let them down by making then sit hours and hours of examinations
that are way beyond their capabilities.” (W: English teacher and union rep in a multi-
academy trust school with a ‘Good’ Ofsted rating)

A Curriculum for All? The effects of recent Key Stage 4 curriculum, assessment and
accountability reforms on English secondary education

38
“We have stopped offering science GCSEs to [our] lowest attaining students as
they would not be able to access [the] exams at all.” (W: Science teacher in a multi-
academy trust school with a ‘Good’ Ofsted rating)
“Tougher exams severely disadvantage inner city students no matter what the
quality of provision they get.” (W: Head of science department in a multi-academy
trust school with a ‘Good’ Ofsted rating)
“It will create a big gap between low and high achievers. Low achievers will not
benefit at all leading to a bigger gap in society between the rich and poor. Low-
income students will be at more risk of not performing and getting good jobs.”
(W: Computing and business teacher at a local authority school with a ‘Good’
Ofsted rating)
“There’s been a real agenda around making BTECs more rigorous and BTECs
moving to an exam-based system, and that’s been to their detriment because the
reason those students are put into technical qualifications is that they may have
technical skills, they may have really good practical skills ... So it’s very difficult to
find a course for those students on which they’re going to be successful.” (I:
Senior leader, Ashfield, standalone academy, ‘Outstanding’ Ofsted rating)
Another concern expressed by a number of respondents related to the impact of the new
GCSEs on students from low-income backgrounds who also attend resource-poor schools,
thus resulting in a ‘double disadvantage’. For example, one teacher argued that the new
Physical Education GCSE was tailored to the circumstances of private education institutions
with more extensive resources to hand:
“We have no facilities in this school – there are no fields, no football pitches, no
grass, we don’t get to go offsite. So it really, really does impact.” (I: PE teacher,
Maple Way, voluntary-aided school, ‘Good’ Ofsted rating)
And a Design and Technology teacher commented:
“We are losing hundreds of thousands of pounds each year which impacts directly
upon the school experience of all pupils but especially disadvantaged and special
needs pupils”. (W: Design and technology teacher in a multi-academy trust school
with an ‘Outstanding’ Ofsted rating)
5.3 Concerns about the content of the new GCSEs
The more traditional knowledge-focused approach to both the content and assessment of the
new GCSEs was criticised by a number of teachers, not only for making the content more
difficult for students to access, but also in some cases for being anachronistic and uninspiring:
“I absolutely hate teaching the new GCSEs. They are inappropriate for today’s
students. Boring, dull, lifeless. I am lecturing rather than teaching. Pupils are
switched off literature and the life has been ripped out of the subject I used to
love teaching.” (W: English teacher in a local authority school with a ‘Good’ Ofsted
rating)

SECTION 5: The new GCSEs

39
“Monocultural GCSE English curriculum for students living in a global and multi-
cultural society doesn’t make sense.” (W: English teacher and union rep in a multi-
academy trust school with a ‘Good’ Ofsted rating)
“I am dismayed at the new GCSEs in MFL. My O level French in the seventies
was more relevant and forward-looking.” (W: MFL teacher in a standalone
academy with a ‘Good’ Ofsted rating)
“The new curriculum is focused almost entirely on knowledge. In the age of
Google I cannot, for the life of me, understand why we would want to reduce the
amount of evaluation that is required.” (W: Head of RE in a multi-academy trust
school with a ‘Good’ Ofsted rating)
“What is the purpose of pushing students to learn mathematics in a way that does
not represent the 21st century technological age? There are many topics in the
curriculum that are irrelevant to a modern mathematics curriculum .... Students
should be allowed to take in textbooks etc. to the exam and be examined by using
… the tools they have, just as you would in a job situation. We are still assessing
in the dark ages and the way our government leaders were taught. It is not going
to generate a cohort of energised young people looking forward to the next stages
of their lives.” (W: Assistant headteacher and head of mathematics department in
a local authority school with a ‘Good’ Ofsted rating)
“The 1950s Grammar School Curriculum may have had its place in the 1950s, but
almost 70 years on, it does not meet the needs of students, nor the needs of the
21st century economy.” (W: Assistant head and science teacher in a standalone
academy with an ‘Outstanding’ Ofsted rating)
“Just because a student cannot remember 20 physics equations, it does not mean
they are stupid but this is the way students feel!!” (W: Science teacher in a local
authority school with a ‘Good’ Ofsted rating)
For teachers of dance, drama and PE there was a particular concern about the increased weight
given to written forms of assessment and the reduction in the practical component which is
so central to these subjects:
“For creative subjects, the emphasis on theory is important but the fact that this
it now weighed equally to practical ability is not appropriate. Dancers who are
amazing DANCERS will not be as successful as average dancers with good subject
knowledge. This is it the way that a creative subject should be assessed. It is
discouraging for talented dancers!” (W: Dance teacher in a multi-academy trust
school with a ‘Good’ Ofsted rating)
“The practical aspect, the drama, in my subject is now worth less than written
work. How is that a GCSE in Drama?” (W: Head of drama department in a local
authority school with a ‘Good’ Ofsted rating)
“In PE they have … changed a practical vibrant subject into a dull classroom-based
one, with an emphasis on exam skills rather than subject skills.” (W: Head of
department, MFL and PE teacher in a multi-academy trust school with a ‘Good’
Ofsted rating)

A Curriculum for All? The effects of recent Key Stage 4 curriculum, assessment and
accountability reforms on English secondary education

40
5.4 Lack of information and pace of change
A significant concern and frustration for many teachers was the lack of information provided
about the assessment of the new subject content. This was resulting in added stress and an
increase in workload:
“We’re still in the dark as to assessment requirements/standards – exam boards
are still making it up as they go along and there are very few resources available.
This is putting huge pressure on everyone.” (W: English teacher in a school with
an ‘Outstanding’ Ofsted rating)
“The Edexcel RE course has still not been approved and just this week extensive
changes have been made to the course. The inability to provide teachers with the
specification they are teaching next year means we will be woefully underprepared
for the new course and greatly increases our workload as we will be planning on
a week to week basis.” (W: Assistant head and RE teacher in a local authority
school with a ‘Requires Improvement’ Ofsted rating)
“The change of levelling is confusing for students and staff with barely any detailed
information given by the DfE.” (W: Mathematics teacher in a standalone academy
with a ‘Good’ Ofsted rating)
Whilst some teachers welcomed aspects of the new specifications and their potential to
enhance the quality of their teaching, they were critical about the pace of change and the
simultaneous introduction of multiple changes which was felt to compromise the quality of
their teaching:
“The whole principle is good. ... I welcomed it when [it] came in. I think the way
it was brought in had a lot to be desired. ... It needed to be a more gradual process
from primary school. And I think it was very much rushed through. It’s just the
pace of it.” (Mathematics teacher, Ashfield, standalone academy with an
‘Outstanding’)
“The thing about the changes is they are not all bad, so the drive towards students
being able to produce work of a high grammatical standard that is clear, that is
precise, and them being able to do that without being spoonfed, that’s all good
stuff [but] it’s like playing football when you not only do not know where the goal
is going to be, you don’t know what kind of ball you are kicking. Because we
always knew GCSE reform was coming. … That had been touted for years, but
when it did come the pace of change that was expected was huge. So as a head
of English I’m in my second major curriculum rewrite and that’s inside … four
years.” (I: English teacher, Maple Way, voluntary-aided school with a ‘Good’ Ofsted
rating)
“The reforms are so quick and fast coming that if you had time to explore, of
course it would make teaching better, but you don’t. You have an exam that you’ve
got to teach for in two years and completely different to the one before, so you’re
going to look for formulae, you’re not going to be able to refocus. I mean we’ve
got a very, very good English department and I’m sure they’re going to rise to the
challenge but I’m not sure that they will say that teaching is better.” (I: Senior
leader, Maple Way, voluntary-aided school with a ‘Good’ Ofsted rating)

SECTION 5: The new GCSEs

41
“It was now, ‘we are going to change the specifications for key stage three, key
stage four, so now you are not only going to have to rewrite the schemes of work
according to the different ways of assessing, you now are going to have a whole
lot of different stuff you have to teach’ ... It was ‘crunch’, like that.” (I: Science
teacher and NUT rep, Oak Park, local authority school with a ‘Requires
Improvement’ Ofsted rating)
Overall, respondents to the survey and teachers in the case study schools were uneasy about
the new changes to the GCSEs. Their overriding concern centred on the impact of the new
GCSEs on lower-attaining, SEND, EAL and low-income students. The new GCSEs were
characterised as encompassing a “one size fits all” approach which makes it harder for
teachers to respond to the diversity of students’ needs and disadvantages students who are
less able to perform well in written examinations. Many teachers criticised the content of the
new GCSEs which they considered to be anachronistic and uninspiring and, in the case of
some creative subjects, to place insufficient weight on the teaching and assessment of the
practical capabilities which are so integral to these subjects. Teachers also expressed concerns
about the lack of information and resources to help them grade students’ work and plan lessons
adequately, and the simultaneous introduction of multiple changes which were felt to
compromise the quality of their teaching. Added to this was a clear frustration and annoyance
at what were considered to be unacceptable delays and uncertainty surrounding the new
specifications. The overall response highlights the fact that all these concerns have been
compounded by the pace at which the new GCSEs have been implemented, giving little time
for teachers and students to plan for and adapt to the changes.

A Curriculum for All? The effects of recent Key Stage 4 curriculum, assessment and
accountability reforms on English secondary education

42


43
Section 6
The impact of Progress 8

A Curriculum for All? The effects of recent Key Stage 4 curriculum, assessment and
accountability reforms on English secondary education

44
6 The impact of Progress 8
Teachers’ views on Progress 8 were mixed, combining an appreciation of the positive potential
of aspects of the reform with very strong concerns about the reliability of the measure, its use
as a mechanism to inform evaluations of teacher performance and decisions on their pay and
its substantial workload ramifications.
6.1 The positive potential of Progress 8
Some teachers welcomed Progress 8 as a framework which gives equal value to the progress
of all children and which removes the ‘artificial’ preoccupation with the C/D borderline produced
by the previous accountability focus on the proportion of students attaining 5 or more A*-C
grades at GCSE:
“Ten years ago we said that every child matters, but now we actually genuinely
mean it; that, I think, is very powerful.” (I: English teacher, Maple Way, voluntary-
aided school with a ‘Good’ Ofsted rating)
“I think across education in a way it should give [SEND] children more of an
entitlement in terms of they are going to be seen in published figures, whereas
the five A-Cs, those children could disappear quite quickly, I think, across the board.
So [with] Progress 8 every child’s going to matter.’ (I: Senior leader, Ashfield,
standalone academy with an ‘Outstanding’ Ofsted rating)
“The one thing that I think most people would say has made a difference to their
mindset in terms of Progress 8 is that removal of that kind of artificial D/C barrier
and moving up of lower grades. So me as head of faculty being able to say to my
colleagues, ‘Yeah, but moving that student up from an E to a D, or from an F to an
E, that’s really important.’ … That’s really going to help us.” (I: English teacher,
Oak Park, local authority school with a ‘Requires improvement’ Ofsted rating)
“It has meant that the low ability pupils now matter. A grade D is worth the same to
the school as an A if the progress from KS2 is the same. That’s something [that will]
benefit those who are low attainers who usually get forgotten about over … high
attainers.” (W: Science teacher in a standalone academy with a ‘Good’ Ofsted rating)
“The move to include all students in the measure is positive, in removing the
obsession with percentage A*-C, which forced us to focus on a relatively small
proportion of the cohort who were around the C/D border.” (W: Deputy head teacher
and science teacher in a standalone academy with an ‘Outstanding’ Ofsted rating)
“In a school like mine it helps because it means some resources might get focused
on students other than C/D borderline ones for the first time in years.” (W: English
teacher in a local authority school, Ofsted rating not specified)
In our case study schools, student grouping structures and the matching of teachers to groups
were being reconsidered in the light of Progress 8. In Oak Park the English and mathematics
departments were being asked to regroup the students with the objective of creating a system
which better recognises the diversity of student needs in the hope that this will lead to better
progress for all students. The representatives of the English and mathematics departments
both argued that their main idea was to group students more ‘smartly’ by finding a good match
between teachers and groups with specific characteristics, and the mathematics faculty
created more mixed ability groups on the grounds that:

SECTION 6: The impact of Progress 8

45
“...we think that teaching mixed ability will ... promote more of a growth mindset
for our students, rather than thinking this is where I am, I’m set three, I’m on my
set three track to here.” (I: Mathematics teacher, Oak Park)
In the mathematics department at Ashfield, the setting structure was retained but teachers
were allocated differently to sets:
“We always put our best teachers in the C/D borderline in the middle sets and …
that’s where the intervention went, it was always on the middle ... Whereas [with]
Progress 8 [this] has changed ... Doing the timetable this year was a completely
different job from previous years. We need really good teachers [for] the bottom
set.” (I: Mathematics teacher, Ashfield)
Similarly, in Maple Way, for students in English the setting structures were also retained, but
with sets reduced in size as “the level of need increases” (I: English teacher, Maple Way).
Positive evaluations of the pedagogic intention behind the reform and of its positive effects on
grouping practices in some schools were, however, combined with very strong concerns and
considerable distress about the reliability of the Progress 8 measure and its use as a
mechanism to evaluate teachers’ performance and in turn inform decisions about their pay.
6.2 Concerns about the reliability of Progress 8
A substantial majority of survey respondents (93%) agreed that “Key Stage 2 SATS results do
not provide an adequate basis for tracking student progress across the whole range of
secondary subjects”, with only 3.6% disagreeing with this statement.
Figure 6. KS2 SATs results do not provide an adequate basis for tracking student
progress across the whole range of secondary subjects
Many of the written responses elaborated on teachers’ concerns about the use of Key Stage
2 data in the calculation of Progress 8 scores:
“Progress 8 is … based on inaccurate KS2 data, sometimes not present, and
secondly because progress is not linear, and some students are very successful
at reaching Level 5 at KS3, but that might be their highest academic attainment.”
(W: Head of RE department in a standalone academy, Ofsted rating not specified)
“Targets should be based on individual subjects, not just attainment at KS2 English
and maths. My targets are based on how well pupils did in KS2 English which
bears no correlation to their ability in my subject, leaving some pupils with
completely unachievable targets.” (W: newly qualified MFL teacher in a multi-
academy trust school with an ‘Outstanding’ Ofsted rating)

A Curriculum for All? The effects of recent Key Stage 4 curriculum, assessment and
accountability reforms on English secondary education

46
“Year 7 students have generic target grades for all subjects. This has made some
very high performing students feeling that they are failing as it looks like they are
not performing.” (W: Art and design teacher in local authority school with a ‘Good’
Ofsted rating)
“I do think pupils should all be pushed to do as well as they can. But the pupils
who walk into my room are not the same children who they were when they were
in KS2. No job would judge you on your work from five years ago even as an adult.”
(W: Head of year and design and technology teacher in a local authority school with
a ‘Good’ Ofsted rating)
6.3 Concerns about the use of Progress 8 to assess teachers’ performance and
determine their pay
Concerns about the reliability of the Progress 8 measure were exacerbated by concerns that
that the measure would be used, or in some cases was already being used, to assess teachers’
performance and inform decisions about their pay.
85% of respondents agreed with the statement that teacher appraisal was becoming
increasingly data-focused in response to Progress 8 and these concerns were voiced very
strongly in the written survey responses:
Figure 7. Teacher appraisal has become increasingly data-focussed in response to
Progress 8
“Flawed KS2 data does not [allow] for proper predictions but … staff can be
threatened with disciplinary action over Progress 8.” (W: Head of vocational subject
department in a local authority school with a ‘Good’ Ofsted rating)
“A lot of staff failed performance management last year based on their data targets
and it has been made very clear that the same will happen again this academic
year even if all other targets are achieved thus blocking pay progression.” (W: Head
of department of art and design in a local authority school with an ‘Inadequate’
Ofsted rating)
“Teachers are failing performance reviews based on P8 even though they have
achieved … other targets.” (W: Design and technology teacher in a multi-academy
trust school with an ‘Outstanding’ Ofsted rating).

SECTION 6: The impact of Progress 8

47
“It is ridiculous that our pay is determined by KS4 target grades which are created
using KS2 data. How can tests in English, maths and science taken at the age of
10 determine the target grade for music or drama etc. at the age of 16? How can
students have a target grade that is the same in all subjects? This is a crazy way
of deciding teacher pay progression – and particularly unfair when you have a
smaller class!” (W: Head of music department in a multi-academy trust with a
‘Good’ Ofsted rating)
“Appraisal linked to data and results is unfair, as the original basis for P8 is flawed,
and progress expected is unrealistic, SATS in Year 6 are unreliable to judge
progress and all students are different. Teachers’ salary linked to such a system is
not fair, we can work ourselves ragged and not get anything to show because
students didn’t progress … enough.” (W: Head of Key Stage and science teacher
in a free school with a ‘Requires improvement’ Ofsted rating)
As well as expressing concerns about the injustice of basing performance evaluations and pay
decisions on what is viewed as a deeply flawed measure, some respondents highlighted the
potential for this to incentivise forms of ‘gaming’ the system:
“Well it is going to be used to judge teachers and how they are paid and that puts
massive pressure on staff to work out how to enable students to jump through
the hoops.” (W: MFL teacher in multi-academy trust with a ‘Good’ Ofsted rating)
“Teachers pay should not be linked to progress measures – creates a dangerous
system meaning it’s easier to do the work for them rather than actually helping
them to learn.” (W: Head of year and design and technology teacher in a local
authority school with an ‘Outstanding’ Ofsted rating)
“We have learning walks, lesson observations, book trawls, six assessments have
to be entered every year – if students are not on target, boxes go red and we are
dragged over the coals. Does not encourage honest appraisal”. (W: Head of year
and design and technology teacher in a local authority school with a ‘Good’ Ofsted
rating)
6.4 The workload ramifications of Progress 8
Many survey respondents commented that their workload has intensified with the introduction
of Progress 8, with a significant majority reporting increased workload related to 1:1 booster
classes (78%), data tracking and data collection (91%) and data analysis (90%).
Figure 8. There has been an increase in the targeting of extra provision (1:1 lessons,
boosters, exam preps) in response to Progress 8

A Curriculum for All? The effects of recent Key Stage 4 curriculum, assessment and
accountability reforms on English secondary education

48
Figure 9. Workload related to data tracking and collection
Figure 10. Workload related to data analysis
The following were typical of the written comments elaborating on teachers’ Progress 8 related
workload concerns:
“My school has shortened lunch to finish earlier to facilitate additional classes.”
(W: English teacher in a local authority school with a ‘Requires Improvement’
Ofsted rating)
“Support sessions are now compulsory rather than voluntary. Yet these hours do
not count as contact time.” (Head of department and business teacher in local
authority school with a ‘Good’ Ofsted rating)
“Some subject have been forced to include an extra 47 hours of intervention in a
term. Year 11s have had ‘Non-Negotiable’ Half Term and Easter classes. (Some
Year 11s have been in every day in their February half term and every day in the
Easter two weeks.)” (W: Head of dance department in a multi-academy trust
school with a ‘Requires Improvement’ Ofsted rating)
“It has increased the obsession with data, with reducing students to numbers that
can be tracked and measured.” (W: Union rep and English teacher in a standalone
academy with an ‘Inadequate’ Ofsted rating)
“Incessant meetings about statistics and data.” (W: MFL teacher in a local
authority school with a ‘Good’ Ofsted rating)
“I have to write a data report every 6 weeks, which can take up to 20 hours on
top of [my] teaching workload.” (W: Head of department and history teacher in a
chain-academy school with an ‘Inadequate’ Ofsted rating)

SECTION 6: The impact of Progress 8

49
“There have been a third more data-entry windows imposed upon teaching staff.
The weight of this extra workload as a HoD has increased significantly enough for
me to be signed off work with burn-out for two weeks. (I only took one! I didn’t
want my ill health to impact pupils.)” (W: Head of department and history teacher
in a standalone academy with an ‘Outstanding’ Ofsted rating)
72% of respondents agreed with the statement that Progress 8 takes time away from teaching,
and comments about the increased workload associated with Progress 8 were often
accompanied by scepticism about its value:
Figure 11. Progress 8 takes time away from teaching
“There seems to be a lot more ‘weighing the pig’ – very often we’re asked to
measure intervention before we’ve actually had time to do anything valuable. It is
a slow death by a million Excel spread sheets.” (W: Head of department and history
and ancient history teacher in a local authority school with a ‘Good’ Ofsted rating)
“As a teacher of English, the pressure that has been added is incredible. Further
expectations for data collection and reporting on target setting have come into
place with no additional time provided, making teaching more about reporting on
what you are doing rather than actually doing a good job educating the pupils in
your care.” (W: Newly qualified English teacher in a multi-academy trust school
with a ‘Requires Improvement’ Ofsted rating)
“The extra data inputting and marking means less time on focusing on what’s
important – teachers spending time creating engaging lessons and having enough
energy to deliver them.” (W: Head of department of media studies in a multi-
academy trust school with a ‘Requires Improvement’ Ofsted rating)
“More and more data and number crunching that ultimately does not lead
anywhere [and] means less time to prepare for lessons.” (W: Design and
technology teacher in a local authority school with a ‘Good’ Ofsted rating)
“Teaching is no longer about doing the best you can for your pupils; it’s about data
and numbers. Pupils are not children any more; they are dots on a graph which
must look a certain way. I am leaving teaching because of changes to teaching. I
have seen teachers ignore a class because they have to hit data deadlines because
that is what is important these days.” (W: Head of year and design and technology
teacher in a local authority school with a ‘Good’ Ofsted rating)
“The bureaucracy destroys creativity and innovation in the classroom.” (W:
Mathematics teacher in a local authority school with a ‘Good’ Ofsted rating).

A Curriculum for All? The effects of recent Key Stage 4 curriculum, assessment and
accountability reforms on English secondary education

50
“The term ‘extra support’ needs to used carefully. The general view of a lot of my
colleagues is that extra support in not beneficial and is done to such an extent as
to have a negative impact on many students.” (W: Geography teacher in a multi-
academy trust school with a ‘Good’ Ofsted rating)
Overall, an appreciation of the positive potential of aspects of Progress 8 was mixed with very
profound concerns about the reliability of the measure and its potential to be used (and in some
cases its actual use) within systems of teacher appraisal and pay progression determination.
Teachers reported that their workload had increased substantially as a consequence of Progress
8, particularly their workload related to data tracking and collection and data analysis, and they
expressed scepticism about the value of this additional work.


51
Section 7
Workload and wellbeing

7 Workload and wellbeing
In this final findings section we report on the combined effects of the reforms on teachers’
and students’ wellbeing, with a particular focus on the uncertainty, increased workload,
pressure and anxiety being generated by the reforms.
7.1 Coping with uncertainty
Many teachers reported that the reforms had introduced a great deal of uncertainty and
confusion for schools attempting to implement them. “Madness”, “mire of nonsense”,
“rushed through”, “bit of a mess”, “lot of confusion” are just a few of the phrases that
respondents used to describe their experiences of the reforms and the ways they were being
implemented in their schools. Teachers told us that in some cases the uncertainty had
undermined their confidence and made it difficult to communicate the changes to students
and parents.
For example, teachers reported feeling uncertain about how to advise students and guide them
through the options process and were also extremely puzzled about how to prepare students
for their GCSEs without exemplar materials and a clear understanding of the new grading
system:
“None of the materials from [the exam board] were ready for September. We were
second guessing what to teach and to what level. Workload increased in lesson
prep. Textbooks arrived in November. Assessment and levelling has been an
experimental process. Despite having extra parents’ evenings, the parents are still
confused and believe their children are doing worse.” (W: Mathematics teacher
and union rep in a standalone academy with a ‘Good’ Ofsted rating)
“You go from teaching subjects, and you are really confident, you know how to
advise students, you know what the bigger picture is, to teaching something
completely unknown ... The thing that’s made it stressful is doing all of that without
even having a specification. We’ve had to do that with just a draft and then the
draft changed quite considerably.” (I: RE teacher, Ashfield, standalone academy
with an ‘Outstanding’ Ofsted rating)
“I personally feel really, really familiar with the old GCSE, the one that’s gone now,
and I felt really, really confident I could prepare my students for it and I knew what
the questions were going to look like, and I can’t say that anymore. So it’s difficult
for us to equip our students with what they need to pass, and so it’s also hard to
know if it is going to be useful … I like the idea of the problem solving and the
reasoning, but what is that actually going to look like on the paper, what are they
going to have to do? So it’s hard to know.” (I: Mathematics teacher, Oak Park, local
authority school with a ‘Requires improvement’ Ofsted rating)
Most of the teachers we interviewed expected that Progress 8 would be the focus of the
2016-2017 school year, and told us it was too early for them to say how it will affect their
everyday teaching. Significantly, even one member of the SLT at Oak Park felt underprepared
and uninformed:

52
A Curriculum for All? The effects of recent Key Stage 4 curriculum, assessment and
accountability reforms on English secondary education

“...I think what I’m feeling at the moment is there’s a lot more that I don’t even
necessarily understand yet about Progress 8 and its effects, and I imagine there’s
probably a lot of people feeling similarly. I think I understand bits … but I don’t
know that we all really know what that means, meaning that we still have exams
that haven’t even been decided, we have people teaching at key stage 4 that still
don’t understand what the grade boundaries will be, we still don’t really understand
what that four is. Is it going to be the lower D or is it going to be the C? And [we]
don’t have any exemplar material, so all of the usual preparation that you would
have behind a scheme of learning, you know, planning, couldn’t [happen]. So that’s
another stress for everyone ….” (I: Senior leader, Oak Park, local authority school
with a ‘Requires improvement’ Ofsted rating)
Respondents argued that these sorts of insecurities experienced by teachers can then trickle
down to students and raise their stress levels too:
“I think the Year 10 students are feeling the pressure, definitely, and are, yeah,
extremely anxious about next year. I think teachers are extremely anxious about
next year and I think that’s felt through and through because the teachers aren’t
as confident with the content, with assessing the students and then the students
are going ‘whoa, teachers are supposed to know everything about the syllabus’
… when they’re saying ‘yeah, I’m not too sure if you’re a grade 5 or a grade 4, we
think you might be a grade 4!’” (I: Mathematics teacher, Ashfield, standalone
academy with an ‘Outstanding’ Ofsted rating)
Teacher narratives strikingly revealed that with such uncertainties comes a feeling of guilt and
anxiety for perhaps coming across as unprepared or unprofessional (in lesson planning,
communicating with parents, not being able to provide enrichment programmes any more)
and powerless in the face of external constraints.
7.2 Workload intensification and the pressure to perform
Teachers reported that both teachers and students are experiencing increased levels of stress
associated with a more demanding workload and pressures to meet ambitious performance
targets – often within a context of reduced funding:
“The workload has doubled.” (W: Mathematics teacher in a local authority school
with a ‘Good’ OFSTED rating)
“The workload has hugely increased in [the] last five years and … students and
teachers are more stressed out than ever before.” (W: Head of RE department in
a local authority school with a ‘Good’ Ofsted rating)
“Constant pressure on teachers to meet [or] exceed targets – extra work/after
school, lunch time sessions – no extra pay/time in lieu.” (W: Head of MFL
department in a local authority school with a ‘Good’ Ofsted rating).
“More work and stress for students (with less independent thought and creativity).
More work for teachers (with attendant wellbeing consequences). All this in the
context of reduced funding, teacher shortages, increasing class sizes.” (W: Science
teacher in a Cooperative Trust School with a ‘Requires Improvement’ Ofsted rating)

53
SECTION 7: Workload and well being

“Budget cuts mean bigger classes. EBacc means more students of all abilities being
pushed to study academic subjects in crowded mixed-ability groups. Add to this the
increased difficulty of the exams and you don’t have a positive result.” (Assistant
head and history teacher in a standalone academy with a ‘Good’ Ofsted rating)
For some teachers, their stress is compounded by uncertainty surrounding job security (see
section 3.2, above).
Many of the written comments referred to teachers leaving or planning to leave the profession
because they felt no longer able to cope with the pressures emanating from a greater focus
on data and accountability measures, an increased workload and a sense of reduced classroom
autonomy:
“I really am not sure about the impact of the current reforms. What I am sure
about is that workload has hugely increased in [the] last five years and that
students and teachers are more stressed out than ever before. I know many
teachers who are quitting, or who have quit, who were great teachers but constant
changes to exam specifications, and a huge decrease in teacher morale due to
constant monitoring and accountability measures, which have stifled creativity in
the classroom, have led to the very best finding alternative careers, or often
quitting with no job to go to, just burnt out and exhausted.” (W: Head of RE
department in a local authority school with a ‘Good’ Ofsted rating)
One teacher, who reported feeling “disheartened” about the focus on ‘core’ EBacc subjects
at the expense of a broader curriculum and “gutted” at her school’s decision to stop offering
Expressive Arts GCSE, commented very powerfully on her own intention to leave the
profession:
“After 32 years I feel at a loss as to what is expected of me. I am too scared to
stay in role as the accountability is too much. The expectations are daunting. We
all try our best for all students and the data is just overwhelming, feeling like a stick
to beat us with. I am leaving at 54.” (W: Head of department and drama/expressive
arts teacher in a multi-academy trust school – Ofsted rating not specified)
7.3 Pupil wellbeing
Respondents also reported concerns about the increased levels of stress, demotivation and
mental health problems they observed in their students. 65% of respondents “agreed a lot”
and 19% “agreed a little” with the statement that the reforms strengthen an exam culture
which undermines students’ mental health and wellbeing.
Figure 12. The reforms strengthen an exam culture which undermines students’ mental
health and wellbeing

54
A Curriculum for All? The effects of recent Key Stage 4 curriculum, assessment and
accountability reforms on English secondary education

The following comments illustrate the kinds of concerns underlying this statistic:
“Students are dragged in on holidays, weekends... The pressure on them is
relentless.” (W: RE teacher in a standalone academy with an ‘Outstanding’ Ofsted
rating)
“All students have to make at least four levels [of] progress. They are getting too
high targets. The teacher has to put in extra intervention to achieve this … and
pupils are actually suffering from stress-related illness because of this.” (W:
Mathematics teacher in a chain-academy with an ‘Inadequate’ Ofsted rating)
“I am seeing more young people having emotional and mental [health] issues than
ever before. How can we say this is progress?” (W: English teacher in a chain-
academy school with a ‘Good’ Ofsted rating)
“We will look back on these days and people will ask how we could do this to our
children. It is akin to abuse.” (W: Music teacher and union rep in a multi-academy
trust school with an ‘Outstanding’ Ofsted rating)
“Mental health issues are rising where children are finding it very hard to cope
with the exams and stress put upon them.” (W: Art teacher in a standalone
academy rated ‘Good’ by Ofsted)
“[There is an] increase in pressure on students and resulting increase in mental
health problems.” (W: Head of Year and DT teacher in a local authority school with
an ‘Outstanding’ Ofsted rating)
“The exam pressure for a lot of students was a real concern for them … We did
have to sort out counselling [for some of them], and … there were incidents of
self-harming.” (I: PE teacher, Maple Way)
In summary, the combined effects of the reforms have been to exacerbate the pressures and
workload intensification already present in a high-stakes accountability context fuelled by data-
driven policies. Teachers reported that exam and accountability pressures have had a negative
impact on the mental health of both teachers and students.

55
SECTION 7: Workload and well being


56
A Curriculum for All? The effects of recent Key Stage 4 curriculum, assessment and
accountability reforms on English secondary education


57
Section 8
Conclusions

A Curriculum for All? The effects of recent Key Stage 4 curriculum, assessment and
accountability reforms on English secondary education

58
1. The research reported here would appear to confirm the fears of critics that the reforms
are resulting in a narrowing of the curriculum offer at Key Stage 4, with the vast majority
of the 1800 survey respondents reporting reduced examination entry rates in creative and
vocational subjects in their schools.
2. The reforms are reinforcing existing subject hierarchies in schools with increased resources
being invested in the teaching of mathematics and English and a concomitant reduction in
the time and resources allocated to creative and vocational subjects, the removal of some
of these subjects from the curriculum offer altogether and decreased job security for
teachers of these subjects.
3. A major concern for teachers is that the steering of students towards EBacc subjects will
increase student disengagement and disaffection, particularly amongst lower-attaining
students and students who are more creatively or practically inclined. Teachers reported
that in some cases this was leading to a deterioration in students’ behaviour.
4. Policy reforms are enacted in different contexts and contextual factors such as intake and
resources (staffing and buildings etc.) as well as the history and culture of schools play a
direct part in facilitating or limiting their capacity to respond to reforms in ways which are
felt to be in the best interests of their students.
5. The way in which schools respond to the EBacc is primarily through their options process.
Our case studies show that, depending on their context, schools are positioned very
differently in terms of their room for manoeuvre in designing option blocks, with larger
schools with a more stable and secure context better able to protect creative and vocational
subjects in their schools.
6. With regard to the new GCSE specifications, we found no evidence to suggest that the
potential identified by Smith (2015) (see Section 1.3.3, above) for the new GCCEs to
facilitate approaches to teaching and learning more suited to the attainment of deep
knowledge and higher order cognitive skills by learners across the attainment spectrum is
as yet being realised. On the contrary, the overwhelming majority of survey respondents
reported an increased focus on test preparation and a strong belief that the content of the
new GCSEs is less suitable for lower-attaining students, with only a small minority agreeing
that the new assessments would lead them to adopt more creative and interactive teaching
approaches. This may at least in part be linked to the pace of change, which has not
allowed sufficient time for teachers to explore alternative ways of teaching the content,
alongside the large volume of content that needs to be covered and the pressures of
working in a high stakes results-based accountability context.
7. Some teachers were critical of the traditional content and approach to assessment of the
new GCSEs for failing to incorporate the kinds of knowledge and skills that are required in
a technological age and, in the case of some creative subjects, for de-prioritising the
practical components that are integral to these subjects.
8. The move away from coursework towards assessment by terminal examinations was seen
by many teachers as demoralising for students who struggle with exams, particularly lower-
attaining, SEND and EAL students. Teachers frequently used phrases such as “setting
students up to fail” in this context.

SECTION 8: Conclusions

59
9. These students are also more likely to attend schools which are more vulnerable to financial
and accountability pressures and therefore less well placed to protect the diversity and
breadth of their curriculum offer. Some teachers spoke of students from low-income
backgrounds who also attend resource-poor schools as being “doubly disadvantaged” by
the reforms.
10. A significant majority of the survey sample expressed strong concerns about the impact
of exam pressures on students’ mental health and wellbeing.
11. Whilst some teachers welcomed aspects of the new GCSE specifications and the change
in focus for their subjects, they also expressed concerns about the pace of change, lack of
information and resources to help teachers grade students’ work and plan lessons
adequately and the simultaneous introduction of multiple changes. All of these factors
were felt to compromise the quality of their teaching.
12. Support for the pedagogically inclusive intentions behind Progress 8 was combined with
strong concerns about the unreliability of Key Stage 2 SATs baseline data, and therefore of
the Progress 8 measure itself. Teachers were also concerned that Progress 8 scores were
already being or would be used to evaluate teachers’ performance and inform decisions
about their pay.
13. Teachers reported a significant increase in workload related to data tracking and collection
and data analysis as a result of Progress 8 and expressed scepticism about the value of
this work.
14. The reforms have introduced a great deal of uncertainty and confusion for schools
attempting to implement them which teachers told us has undermined their confidence
and made it difficult to communicate the changes to students and parents.
15. Overall, teachers’ responses suggest that the combined effects of the reforms have been
to exacerbate the pressures already present in a high-stakes accountability context fuelled
by data-driven policies. Schools with ‘Inadequate’ or ‘Requires improvement’ Ofsted ratings
are especially vulnerable to these pressures.
16. Many of the written survey comments referred to teachers leaving or planning to leave
the profession because they felt unable to cope with the pressures associated with the
greater focus on data and accountability measures, increased workload and a sense of
reduced classroom autonomy.

A Curriculum for All? The effects of recent Key Stage 4 curriculum, assessment and
accountability reforms on English secondary education

60
Adams, Jeff. (2013). The English Baccalaureate: A New Philistinism? International Journal of
Art & Design Education 32, no. 1: 2-5.
Allen, R. (2015). Education Policy, National Institute Economic Review, 36 (231), R36-R43
Bacc for the Future (2016). Retrieved from: www.baccforthefuture.com (accessed 02/02/16)
Baines, E (2012). Grouping pupils by ability in schools, in Bad Education, eds Adey, P. & Dillon,
J., Buckingham: Open University Press.
Ball S. J., Maguire M. and Braun A. (2011). How Schools Do Policy: Policy Enactments in
Secondary Schools. London: Routledge.
CLA (Cultural Learning Alliance) (2015). ‘Decline in the hours of arts teaching and number of
arts teachers in England’s secondary schools’, Briefing July 2015. Retrieved from:
www.culturallearningalliance.org.uk/images/uploads/Arts_teaching_hours_and_workforce_201
5.pdf (accessed: 18/09/16)
CLA (Cultural Learning Alliance) (2016a). ‘Arts GCSE entries decline in England’. Retrieved from:
www.culturallearningalliance.org.uk/news/arts-gcse-entries-decline-in-england/ (accessed:
18/09/16)
CLA (Cultural Learning Alliance) (2016b). ‘Arts Education Statistics: what we know’.
Retrieved from: www.culturallearningalliance.org.uk/news/arts-education-statistics-what-we-
know/ (accessed: 18/09/16)
Cridland, J (2015) Speech at Festival of Education in Wellington College. Retrieved from:
http://news.cbi.org.uk/news/john-cridland-festival-of-education-speech. (accessed: 14/07/16)
Cook, W. (2013). Vocational Education Protecting Options for pre-16 pupils. Institute for Public
Policy Research.
DfE (Department for Education) (2012). Overwhelming support for foreign languages plan
2012. Press Release. Retrieved from: https://www.gov.uk/government/news/overwhelming-
support-for-foreign-languages-plan (accessed 26/01/16)
DfE (Department for Education) (2014). Fact Sheet: Progress 8. Retrieved from:
www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/285990/P8_factsheet.pdf
(accessed 26/1/16)
DfE (Department for Education) (2015a). Consultation on implementing the English
Baccalaureate. Retrieved from: www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_
data/file/473455/Consultation_on_implementing_the_English_Baccalaureate.pdf (accessed
25/01/16).
DfE (Department for Education) (2015b). School and college qualifications and curriculum.
Retrieved from: www.gov.uk/government/policies/school-and-college-qualifications-and-curriculum
(accessed 26/01/16).
DfE (Department for Education) (2015c). Get the facts: GSCE reform. Retrieved from:
www.gov.uk/government/publications/get-the-facts-gcse-and-a-level-reform/get-the-facts-gcse-
reform (accessed 25/01/16).
References

References The effects of recent Key Stage 4 curriculum, assessment and accountability
reforms on English secondary education

61
DfE (Department for Education) (2016a) Educational Excellence Everywhere. Presented to
Parliament by the Secretary of State for Education by Command of Her Majesty. Cm 9230.
Retrieved from: file:///C:/Users/User/Downloads/Educational_Excellence_Everywhere.pdf
(Accessed 16/09/16)
DfE (Department for Education) (2016b) DfE Progress 8 measure in 2016, 2017, and 2018
Guide for maintained secondary schools, academies and free schools. Retrieved from:
www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/552531/Progress_8_
school_performance_measure_September_16.pdf (Accessed 01/09/16).
Gillborn, D. & Youdell, D. (2000). Rationing education: policy, practice, reform, and equity.
Buckingham: Open University Press.
Hodgson, P. A., & Spours, K. (2015). The Missing Middle: How middle attaining students in
14-19 education are being overlooked and squeezed by policy.
Mansell, W. (2007). Education by numbers: The tyranny of testing. Politico’s Publishing.
Mansell, W. and James, M. (2009). Assessment in schools: fit for purpose? London: TLRP.
McInerney, L (2016, 16 February) ‘Complicated GCSEs are a catastrophe in the making’ The
Guardian. Retrieved from: www.theguardian.com/education/2016/feb/16/gcse-changes-exam-
grades. Accessed: 14/07/2016
Morgan, N. (2015). One Nation Education, Speech to Policy Exchange, London, 3 November.
Retrieved from: www.gov.uk/government/speeches/nicky-morgan-one-nation-education
Mortimore, P. (2013). Education Under Siege. Why there is a better alternative. Bristol: Policy
Press.
National Union of Teachers (NUT). ‘The Government’s EBacc proposals and the NUT’. Retrieved
from: www.teachers.org.uk/education-policies/secondary/government%E2%80%99s-ebacc-
proposals-and-nut. (accessed on 14/07/16)
Parameshwaran, M. and Thomson, D. (2015). The impact of accountability reforms on the Key
Stage 4 curriculum: How have changes to school and college Performance Tables affected
pupil access to qualifications and subjects in secondary schools in England?. London Review
of Education, 13(2), 157-173.
Pring, R. (2013). Another Reform of Qualifications—but Qualifying for What? The Political
Quarterly, 84(1), 139-143.
Smith, L. (2015). Understanding and using Progress 8 and other features of the new GCSE
English examinations, London: King’s College London.
Stobart, G. (2008). Testing times: The uses and abuses of assessment. London: Routledge.
Taylor, J. (2011). The English Baccalaureate: how not to measure school performance,
Lancaster University Management School, Working Paper 2011/010.
Welch, G. F. (2012). The arts and humanities, technology and the ‘English Baccalaureate’:
STEAM not STEM. Journal of Music, Technology & Education, 4(2-3), 245-250.
Wolf, A. (2011) Review of Vocational Education – The Wolf Report. www.gov.uk/government/
uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/180504/DFE-00031-2011.pdf.


62

teachers.org.uk
November 2016
Designed and published by the Communications Department of The National Union of Teachers – www.teachers.org.uk
Origination by Paragraphics – www.paragraphics.co.uk Printed by Ruskin Press – www.ruskinpress.co.uk – 10845/11/16