Headteachers’ leaders have warned the Department for Education that its consultation over the creation of the Advanced British Standard (ABS) is “fundamentally flawed” and that delivering the qualification would require significant extra funding.
The Association of School and College Leaders (ASCL) and the NAHT school leaders’ union have raised several concerns over the government’s plan to reform post-16 qualifications, in their responses to the DfE consultation.
The government plans to introduce the ABS over the next decade to replace A levels and T levels. Its aim is that students study both maths and English in some form up to the age of 18, and the plan would bring academic and vocational courses together into one qualification.
In their responses to the consultation, which closes today, heads’ leaders warn that delivering the ABS plan would require significantly more teachers and funding, and they say it is the wrong starting point for 16-19 reform.
Here are five concerns unions have raised about the ABS plan.
Concerns over the Advanced British Standard
1. The wrong starting point
The ASCL said that the approach the government was consulting on is “fundamentally flawed”.
Proper qualification reform would need to start with a consultation on the underlying principles of what students should be studying post-16, the union said.
Only after these principles are agreed should qualification and assessment structure be consulted on, the ASCL said.
The NAHT said it supported technical and academic qualifications being given parity, but added that the entire curriculum at all phases should be reformed as a “coherent whole” rather than parts of it in isolation.
The ASCL suggested it would be better to start curriculum reform by focusing on key stage 4, with a new literacy and numeracy qualification to avoid students getting stuck in a cycle of GCSE resits.
2. ‘Simply a reframing’
“The current proposals for the ABS hold tightly to the traditional system in place now - a repackaging of the current A-level and T-level content, blunt choices for 16-year-olds, a focus on knowledge and assessment by examination,” the NAHT said.
The unions said the academic route of the ABS “seems simply a reframing of current A levels with additional compulsory maths and English”, rather than an approach that would allow students to broaden their learning.
Under the ABS proposals, students would take major and minor subjects, which must include both maths and English. The three major subjects would have around 90 per cent of current A-level content.
3. Staffing and funding issues
Unions have repeatedly warned that the current teacher recruitment and retention crisis would need to be fixed in order for the ABS to work.
The ABS proposals include an increase in teaching time, which the ASCL said would require more teachers. Without recruitment and retention problems being fixed, other proposals “stand little chance of being successfully implemented”, it added.
Both unions also raised concerns about teachers’ ability to teach a subject as both a major and minor component of the ABS at the same time.
The ASCL said: “An additional challenge would be if majors and minors could not be taught concurrently (which is our understanding). In that case schools and colleges may need twice the number of subject teachers to offer both a major and a minor in each centre. This would be completely unworkable.”
Under the plan, secondary schools’ key stage 3 and KS4 provision may need to use more non-specialist teachers because specialist teachers would have to be timetabled into KS5 for increased contact time, the NAHT said.
“This impact would be worsened if majors and minors in subjects are not co-teachable, requiring separate classes and additional teaching staff,” it added.
The NAHT also pointed out that school sixth forms and small colleges, in particular, may not be able to provide both majors and minors and, as a result, would see an impact on their financial viability. This could leave them needing to withdraw 16-19 provision.
4. The needs of all students not met
The NAHT said it did not believe that current proposals for the ABS would provide a qualification to meet the needs of all students because many students cross boundaries between academic and vocational routes.
It also said that more consultation was needed with the special education sector around additional teaching hours and continued study of maths and English.
The ASCL also raised concerns that some students may not prioritise maths and English over their main subjects and may not attend lessons, adding to existing attendance issues.
5. DfE ‘overly’ prescriptive on subjects
The ASCL said that, broadly, it thinks the criteria for including subjects in the ABS are sensible.
However, it said the government “is taking an overly centralised and prescriptive role in only allowing certain subjects to be included, according to what may feel to many to be current political whim”.
“This is a dangerous approach, which suggests a distrust in the ability of the teaching profession, young people and parents and carers in making decisions about what is best for young people,” the ASCL said.
The NAHT said the suitability criteria for including subjects in the ABS should have a much broader scope to avoid restricting the breadth of subjects available.
A Department for Education spokesperson said it is investing £600 million to support schools and colleges in laying the groundwork for the ABS, which is intended to deliver better outcomes for post-16.
The spokesperson added that the feedback of teachers, parents, young people and employers through the consultation will be taken into account in the government’s response.
For the latest education news and analysis delivered directly to your inbox every weekday morning, sign up to the Tes Daily newsletter
