Now is the right time for a Greater Manchester Baccalaureate

ANDY WESTWOOD

The English Baccalaureate – or ‘Ebacc’ is no more. Following the Curriculum and Assessment Review (CAR) led by Becky Francis, Department for Education (DfE) ministers have confirmed its long-expected demise.

It had been a signature policy of previous Conservative education ministers – first introduced by Michael Gove in 2011 – to focus on more traditional GCSE subjects and drive up accountability on school performance. It consisted of English language and literature, maths, science (either combined or three single sciences), a history or geography GCSE, and a language (ancient or modern) GCSE. Computer Science was included as an alternative science GCSE at a later stage.

The CAR recommended abandoning the Ebacc that “whilst well-intentioned [it had] not achieved” its goal and had “to some degree unnecessarily constrained students’ choices”.

What is the Manchester Baccalaureate?

What does the ending of the Ebacc mean for the so-called Manchester Baccalaureate or the ‘MBacc’ – Greater Manchester (GM) Mayor Andy Burnham’s alternative option for young people in GM? It had been a key initiative for Burnham and part of his broader commitment to skills training and boosting technical education pathways for young people in GM who didn’t want to go to university.

The GM version – tailored towards the sectors and jobs in the city region also included English and Maths, Computer Science and optional choices including Biology, Chemistry, Maths, History, Geography, Modern Languages and also economics, business and creative arts GCSEs depending on the particular sector that students wished to aim for.

So, in practice the Ebacc and the initial conception for the MBacc weren’t really that different – neither were qualifications per se – with both consisting of nationally recognised, regulated and assessed GCSEs. The latter had offered more flexibility in optional GCSEs but depending on the desired sector focus, this could have led to only one or two different GCSE options in practice.

So at least some of the disagreements, particularly between a Labour mayor and Conservative education ministers, were exaggerated. With the demise of the Ebacc there is less need for such a specific alternative.

In theory, bundling up GCSEs including English and Maths can now be done anywhere and, like the MBacc, be chosen according to the jobs and sector needs in any area. There should be less controversy in Information, Advice and Guidance making this clear now that Labour ministers have abandoned their predecessors aim for the Ebacc’s standardising performance measure.

Why the MBacc remains relevant

The idea behind the MBacc remains a good one – i.e. that young people and those advising them should look to the courses and qualifications that would help them towards growing jobs and sectors in GM. And as the MBacc broadens into a catch-all concept for all of the steps (and courses and qualifications) that takes, the more complete it becomes.

Burnham often describes it as part of building a technical pathway for young people that don’t want to go down the university route. At this point it’s worth remembering that is a majority – up to two thirds of young people – in the North West and in most English regions outside London and the South East.

And this at a time when the economy in GM and in each of its major sectors, is currently growing at a faster rate than the rest of the UK. In other words, this isn’t just a policy that increases vocational learning options for young people, but also a human capital strategy that further enhances economic growth in the city region, meeting the skills needs of growing firms and sectors in a fast-moving labour market. But to connect people across GM to these opportunities requires much more than just getting choices and options at GCSEs right.

Meeting future skills demand

According to Skills England data, between 2025 and 2030, priority sectors and occupations in the industrial strategy (each of which are helping to drive growth in GM) are forecast to rise 1.6 times faster than the rest of the economy, an increase of 9%. While one third (34%) of the projected additional employment demand in priority occupations is expected to require education at level 2 or 3, around two thirds (66%) will require workers with a qualification at level 4 or above.

This has implications for England’s wider skills system, particularly as it pushes more resources and incentives towards the industrial strategy and the sectors judged by it to be key for economic growth. This is recognised in the Government’s Post-16 White Paper as it seeks a more joined up system across Further Education (FE), Higher Education (HE), employment training and Research & Development (R&D), with each more directed towards serving the growth needs of industrial strategy sectors. And the same should apply in Greater Manchester – where the majority of these sectors are already well established. But it will need concerted and coordinated effort across the whole post-16 system if the skills needs of growing firms and sectors are to be met.

First it requires more people to progress from Level 2 (L2) to Level 3. Becky Francis and the CAR identified this as an overriding priority and both they and Andy Burnham are committed to T-levels, even though evidence on take-up is still mixed (with just 3% of learners currently enrolled).

Building pathways

The MBacc was designed to ease progression to T-Levels and to other specialist provision within GM. With the introduction of vocational course V-Levels, the options for young people at Level 3 will be broadened, but the greater challenge may now be at Level 4 and above. That might be via a higher level or degree apprenticeship, a technical course at university, or in common with the aspirations of the Post-16 white paper, it might be in higher technical qualifications at L4/5 and/or studying in Technical Excellence Colleges (TECs) as both options are expanded.

This may all sound straightforward, but such higher technical training has been the weakest and most neglected part of our wider skills system in England, with very few apprenticeship places and a ‘missing middle’ at L4/5 compared to other countries in the OECD (see Augar Review). New Level 4 and 5 options and TECs are still largely on the drawing board.

So, this is a space that requires some real innovation in both supply (quality design, teaching) and demand where employers in key sectors must play their part through wider investment, provision of apprenticeships and more work-based training.

Without significant efforts here there is a risk that technical education pathways – including through the MBacc – will stall at L3 and fall short of the skills levels that employers in key sectors require. That’s bad news for young people because they won’t get the jobs; bad news for employers because it will be harder to get the skilled workers they need; and bad news for the GM economy because it will be harder maintain growth.

So, for the MBacc to fully succeed, it will need to finish building the pathways to jobs by focusing on L4 and 5 and working with the colleges, universities and employers that will deliver them.

Innovation and collaboration in technical education

Under the Labour government, education and skills policy may share these ambitions more readily than its predecessors. The white paper calls for more regional collaboration especially between FE and HE to drive both local growth and wider opportunities for young people.

At the Office for Students, new chair Edward Peck has suggested that city regions might pilot collective access and participation plans at Level 4 and 5[i]. So, the ambitions of Andy Burnham might now be more aligned with those of ministers in the DfE than in the past.

Furthermore, there is an opportunity to innovate and test these ambitions together as new provision, institutions and collaborations are supported at Level 4 and 5. Even more so if we also consider the needs of growing firms and sectors and policy initiatives like the ‘Atom Valley’ and ‘Sister’ investment zones. Here an evolving GM tertiary system will also need to offer similar options to existing employees and other adults if businesses are going to scale up quickly.

Together these issues suggest there is still an important future for the MBacc and for Burnham’s broader ambitions for both technical training and the expanding Greater Manchester economy. With the Post-16 white paper and the Industrial Strategy, these should also better align with the current government’s agenda than it did with its predecessors. However, to fully join up technical training with the jobs and sectors growing in GM, its focus must now require higher skills levels alongside qualifications at Levels 2 (GCSE) and 3 (whether ‘T’ or ‘V’ Levels).

It will be at Levels 4, 5 and beyond where technical education is likely to have most impact – provision where the wider system has needed more provision, innovation and choice for many years. The Post-16 white paper makes the filling of this ‘missing middle’ a major priority for driving economic growth. Andy Burnham’s MBacc may have become exactly the right idea, in the right place and at the right time.

[i] Remarks made by Edward Peck during an interview with Debbie McVitty at the Wonkhe Festival of Higher Education, 11th November 2025.