Since performance measures create unintended consequences, policymakers must stay alert following reforms around EBacc and Progress 8.
As history has shown us, any new public policy performance measure leads to the system adapting its behaviour.
With the five A* to C GCSE grades performance measure, we saw borderline C/D candidates targeted by schools – to the detriment of those below this group.
I remember a story arose in policy circles about one metropolitan borough that sent letters home to all households with C/D borderline candidates, encouraging a focus on exam preparation prior to GCSEs.
This was not what had been intended in the adoption of the performance measure, and was at odds with the values that motivated its design.
But the measure was retained for many years even after clear research showed that it was damaging and distorting.
England’s education system is big, complex and diverse
Credit to Conservative education ministers who ushered in a new era of performance measures that were based on the value schools added to pupils’ attainment.
These were not originally created by the state, but by highly competent academics, concerned about improving equity and really identifying which schools were making the most contribution to young people’s learning.
The promise of these measures in encouraging educational quality for all was spotted by government and carefully used to refine the basket of measures that we now have.
Some continue to criticise having any performance measures at all, but these voices fail to engage in two simple facts.
First, England’s education system is big, complex and diverse.
Second, England is not an outlier; high levels of accountability are present in Singapore, whose high performance continued to rise during COVID, unlike almost all other nations.
And the myth of high autonomy of schools in Finland is belied by the high levels of compliance and local accountability that have been a long-standing feature of its governance.
But note that both Finland and Singapore are small. They have populations half the size of London. There is a high proximity of policy to practice.
Whereas in England, government must gather and scrutinise data to understand good trends and amplify them, and to spot worrying developments before they grow.
A means of nudging and encouraging the system
Targets and performance measures are not a mark of obsessive control, they are a means of nudging and encouraging the system in the light of evidence.
They provide a means of connecting labour market trends to curriculum balance in schools, and allow equity and quality policies to be delivered without detailed intervention in school planning and teaching.
The EBacc was designed to increase triple science participation, nudge the system towards high-progression and high-return subjects, reverse the decline in modern foreign languages, and retain balance. It delivered this.
And back in 2010, STEM skill shortages were a top national priority for many groups and government departments. Let’s not forget the zeitgeist on which EBacc was forged.
But specific measures will always produce collateral effects, often unanticipated.
With concerns about music in particular, and the EBacc plateauing at 40 per cent of schools, it was inevitable that the curriculum and assessment review would take stock.
The government’s plan to now also adjust Progress 8 can deliver wider impact and incorporate changed views regarding curriculum balance.
EBacc was treated as an opt-in voluntary measure: some were in, many weren’t. Progress 8 holds the potential for universality, if reinforced across Ofsted inspection, MAT review processes, etc.
We must note Singapore’s approach
However, overseeing a revised Progress 8, we must note Singapore’s approach to innovation.
If an educational innovation is not working, they take immediate action.
They are far more vigilant and proactive than other nations, and we should be too. Performance measures in England can swiftly be refined as no change in law is required.
I would advise the same approach to managing the risks in removing the EBacc and using Progress 8 to deliver vital policy on equity, progression and curriculum balance.
Design it well, collaboratively, and monitor its impact diligently.
Review, and reform the moment that things look as if they are not as intended or off track. That’s good statecraft.
Your thoughts