Teachers, headteachers, children, parents and politicians should all feel proud of England’s schools, which have bucked a disappointing international trend. Results from 15-year-olds in reading, maths and science have held up well compared with 90 other countries, according to the programme for international student assessment (Pisa). Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland did not match England’s success in reading and maths, although all four UK nations scored well in science.
Worries about children reading fewer books than in the past should be dispelled to some degree by England’s results, which show no decline in capability since 2022, when the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) last published results. The decision to place more emphasis on science, technology, engineering and maths (Stem), both at primary and secondary levels, has seemingly borne fruit.
Pisa scores do not record everything that schools are doing, and a positive set of results doesn’t mean that all is suddenly right with the system. The focus on Stem was partly at the expense of arts subjects, which were wrongly excluded from the Ebacc suite of favoured GCSE subjects promoted by the Conservatives. This is due to be scrapped by Labour, following the recommendation of Prof Becky Francis’s review. Prof Francis was also right to highlight the demoralising effect of compulsory maths and English GCSE retakes. The education secretary, Lucy Powell, has cited the development of modular replacements as a priority, along with improved technical qualifications, some of which she has suggested could take the form of new GCSEs.
Reform of special educational needs provision, and the laws surrounding it, is arguably the aspect of schools policy that will end up absorbing most ministerial attention. Earlier this week, the Guardian reported on a surge in applications for the education, health and care plans that compel councils to provide a specified level of support to individuals. The government must also find ways to address troublingly wide regional disparities. But concerns about attainment gaps and inequalities, and about the dismayingly high number of pupils who do not thrive at school, should not detract from schools’ striking successes. Many are meeting the demands of a challenging curriculum.
The stagnation and decline in other countries should not be viewed simply as a backdrop for England’s success. Andreas Schleicher, the OECD’s director for education, believes there are weaknesses in how schools adapt to technological change and has questioned whether heavy smartphone use is “compatible with sustained academic attention”. This echoes the concerns of academics who believe that overreliance on screens in schools is undermining learning. While other experts believe that the evidence points to more nuanced conclusions, it seems clear that caution is needed when assessing the role of technology in classrooms as well as in children’s lives in the round.
It would be overly simplistic to blame a poor set of international results on smartphones. After all, English teenagers use them too. But Prof Francis is right that England’s scores suggest there are “important things our education system is getting right”. Her review was aimed at avoiding too much disruption, given the impact on teacher workloads and morale. Further changes should not be rushed into – even by a new education secretary keen to make a mark. England’s schools deserve some praise.
-
Do you have an opinion on the issues raised in this article? If you would like to submit a response of up to 300 words by email to be considered for publication in our letters section, please click here.
