Rishi Sunak’s A-level overhaul plan is undeliverable gimmick, says Labour

Rishi Sunak’s desire to overhaul A-levels was denounced as an “undeliverable gimmick” by Labour and met with scepticism by school leaders who said funding and teacher shortages were far more urgent concerns.

A series of news reports claim the prime minister is planning changes to what students in England are taught after GCSEs, including compulsory maths and English classes as part of a broader “British baccalaureate” qualification.

But although it has been mooted several times in the past year, few details have emerged to flesh out what may end up as a policy in the Conservative party’s election manifesto.

Keir Starmer, the Labour leader, accused Sunak of creating uncertainty: “I think many parents hearing this will be saying: look, at the moment we don’t have enough maths teachers in our secondary schools. At the moment many schools are closed or not functioning properly because the roofs might fall in.”

Bridget Phillipson, the shadow education secretary, said: “This is just the latest undeliverable gimmick from a weak prime minister and a dying Conservative government with no serious plan for improving standards of education for young people.”

So far discussions over what a sixth form baccalaureate may contain appear confined to Downing Street, with little or no involvement from the Department for Education or Gillian Keegan, the education secretary for England.

James Kewin, the deputy chief executive of the Sixth Form Colleges Association, said the government’s biggest priorities should be increasing investment and improving teacher recruitment rather than radical curriculum changes.

“Grand plans with no detail are difficult to take seriously, particularly when they appear to be driven by electoral rather than educational considerations and are reannounced on a regular basis,” Kewin said.

“The post-16 curriculum in England is narrow by international standards but that partly reflects the chronic underinvestment in sixth form education in recent years – 15% lower in real terms than it was in 2010.”

Critics say extra maths and English classes would conflict with the government’s newly introduced T-level qualification, a two-year vocational course equivalent to three A-levels with a heavy curriculum and extended work placements.

Geoff Barton, the general secretary of the Association of School and College Leaders, said the government had “spent a fortune” developing T-levels, and that it was difficult to see how a baccalaureate could be reconciled with other qualifications.

“There is merit in looking at increasing subject breadth in post-16 education but the idea of a ‘British baccalaureate’ is no more than a sketchy slogan, with the prime minister’s rehashed plan for compulsory maths until the age of 18 bolted on,” Barton said.

“Would the British baccalaureate replace A-levels, T-levels, BTecs and existing functional skills qualifications, incorporate them, or be layered on top of them?”

Other pitfalls could include private schools choosing to ignore a baccalaureate and continuing with the “gold standard” A-levels, as many have done with the government’s overhauled GCSE courses.

Harry Quilter-Pinner, the director of engagement and research at the Institute for Public Policy Research thinktank, said: “A British baccalaureate is an interesting idea but Rishi Sunak should walk before running.

“Crumbling schools, a recruitment and retention crisis with teachers, and a postcode lottery of standards are just some of the immediate issues that need to be dealt with.”