Phillipson Accused of Appeasing Unions by Diluting EBacc

Published: 13 November 2025. The English Chronicle Desk. The English Chronicle Online.

The former chief of Ofsted, Baroness Amanda Spielman, has criticised Education Secretary Bridget Phillipson, claiming her recent curriculum reforms favour union interests over the broader educational needs of students. In a piece for The Telegraph, Baroness Spielman warned that scrapping the English Baccalaureate (EBacc) and diluting performance measures such as Progress 8 risked undermining the take-up of humanities and languages in schools, potentially weakening the balance between traditional academic subjects and vocational or creative alternatives.

The EBacc, introduced in 2010 under then-Education Secretary Michael Gove, was designed to ensure students studied core subjects including English language and literature, mathematics, two sciences, a language, and either history or geography. The measure sought to counteract a growing trend among schools to steer students towards easier or less academically rigorous options—often derided as “Mickey Mouse” subjects. By providing a single benchmark reflecting performance across key academic areas, the EBacc incentivised schools to encourage students to maintain a rounded curriculum, including essential languages and humanities.

Baroness Spielman argued that Phillipson’s recent moves represent a regression from this approach. “The sector has loathed and attacked this measure ever since it was introduced,” she wrote. “Bridget Phillipson is once again favouring unions over voters, leaning on a sector-pleasing recommendation.” She contended that the Education Secretary’s policies risk creating an environment in which schools prioritise the preferences of unions over the educational interests of students and the expectations of parents.

The recent curriculum overhaul introduced by Phillipson includes a new mandatory citizenship course for primary schools, incorporating lessons on climate change and spotting fake news, and a reduction in the number of GCSE exam papers in a bid to alleviate student pressure. While these reforms have been presented as progressive, critics argue that the elimination of the EBacc as a compulsory performance measure removes a key driver for students to pursue languages and humanities subjects, potentially leading to their gradual decline.

Baroness Spielman drew comparisons with Australia, where universities weight student grades according to the relative difficulty of different qualifications, allowing students to choose freely but ensuring they receive fewer points for less challenging courses. She suggested that a similar approach in the UK could preserve incentives for students to take humanities and languages while avoiding overly prescriptive measures. “Students can choose freely, but know that they will get fewer tariff points for easier courses. This entirely removes the incentive for schools to steer their students towards the least demanding courses,” she wrote.

Polling by the organisation More In Common reveals strong public support for the EBacc, with 66 per cent of respondents saying young people should study core EBacc subjects until the age of 16, even if it reduces time for other activities. Support was highest among older voters, with 85 per cent of those aged 76 and over endorsing the requirement, compared with 58 per cent of millennials. The poll also highlighted differing priorities among political groups: 50 per cent of Green Party voters and 48 per cent of Labour supporters ranked the sciences as the most important subjects, while Conservative, Liberal Democrat, and Reform UK voters prioritised financial literacy.

Baroness Spielman traced some of the current challenges back to policies under Tony Blair’s Labour government, which she said introduced “over-generous” weighting in performance tables for non-GCSE subjects such as the European Computer Driving Licence (ECDL), which could be taught in as little as three days. According to her analysis, this incentivised schools to promote easier courses at the expense of rigorous academic subjects. “Schools completely redesigned their offer for age 14-16 to incentivise swathes of pupils to opt for less demanding courses. It was the quick and easy way to get a school’s results up, and most schools succumbed,” she noted.

Although some elements of the curriculum review, such as changes to Progress 8, aim to increase take-up of creative and practical subjects, Baroness Spielman warned that these changes are likely to come at the expense of foreign languages. “GCSE foreign languages could all but disappear from state secondary schools in the next decade,” she said. “This will please the sector and arts lobbies, but in a way that doesn’t fit with most parents’ preferences.”

The Education Secretary’s announcement of a 5.5 per cent pay rise for teachers in 2024/25, one of her first acts in office, has been interpreted by some critics as further evidence of a union-friendly approach. Laura Trott, the shadow education secretary, described the reforms as having a “suspicious whiff of trade union bosses about it,” arguing that Labour’s plans to dilute accountability and adjust standards simultaneously constituted a “two-pronged disaster” for education.

Public opinion, as reflected in recent polling, contrasts sharply with the government’s approach. Most Britons believe that students should continue studying humanities and a language alongside English, maths, and science. Few believe that arts subjects should be prioritised over the core academic curriculum. These findings suggest a divergence between public expectations and the direction of Phillipson’s reforms.

Baroness Spielman emphasised that the removal of compulsory EBacc subjects and the dilution of Progress 8 may encourage schools to offer a broader array of courses but risk inadvertently lowering overall academic standards. While creative and practical subjects are undoubtedly important, she warned that reducing the emphasis on languages and humanities could have long-term consequences for student achievement and employability.

She also highlighted the unintended consequences of prior reforms that sought to create equivalence between non-GCSE qualifications and traditional GCSEs. Examples such as the ECDL and the Diploma in Digital Applications, deemed equivalent to four GCSEs, had led schools to pivot towards easier qualifications to boost performance measures. This shift, she argued, contributed to a collapse in the take-up of languages, humanities, and even some practical subjects, undermining the original intent of performance tables to promote a balanced and rigorous education.

Baroness Spielman concluded by stressing the need for reform that balances creativity and academic rigour while safeguarding essential subjects. “Even government advisers played the game,” she noted, recalling a recommendation that some schools abandon science GCSEs entirely in favour of BTEC Applied Science to improve results. Her critique underscores the tension between institutional incentives, union pressures, and the educational priorities of parents and students.

The ongoing debate over the EBacc and Progress 8 highlights a wider question facing British education: how to maintain standards while supporting a diverse range of subjects that reflect both practical and intellectual learning. As policymakers seek to reconcile union concerns, parental expectations, and student well-being, the former Ofsted chief’s warnings serve as a stark reminder of the potential consequences of prioritising short-term appeasement over long-term educational outcomes.

In the coming months, scrutiny of Phillipson’s reforms is likely to intensify, with parents, educators, and unions closely watching the impact on GCSE take-up in humanities, languages, and practical subjects. The balance between academic rigor, creative freedom, and political expedience remains a central theme in this debate, with Baroness Spielman’s perspective offering a clear critique of the current trajectory.

Ultimately, the question remains whether the Education Secretary’s changes will truly reflect the interests of students or primarily the preferences of the teaching sector and unions. The EBacc, once a defining feature of the curriculum, may no longer serve as the benchmark for academic excellence, raising broader concerns about the future of secondary education in England and the ability of schools to deliver a well-rounded education that prepares young people for both higher education and the wider world.