The English Baccalaureate (EBacc) should not have been introduced before the National Curriculum Review was completed, according to a cross-party group of MPs.

The EBacc was introduced last year as a way of measuring performance in core subjects in English schools.  EBacc subjects are: English, maths, geography or history, the sciences and a language.

The Education Select Committee suggests that any new performance or curriculum measures affecting schools should only be implemented after proper consultation with key stakeholders and the wider public – something which didn’t happen with the EBacc. The report also questions whether the name "English Baccalaureate" is appropriate when "it is not a baccalaureate as generally understood".

The Committee says that the government should also have waited until after the conclusion of the National Curriculum Review before introducing the EBacc. A review of the National Curriculum was announced in January this year by the Department for Education (DfE) with the aim of “slimming down” the curriculum. Michael Gove, Education Secretary has said that he wants to create a “more manageable” curriculum, to “free up teachers so that they can create lessons that really inspire and engage their pupils.”

The Chairman of the Committee, Graham Stuart MP, said, "We want the Government to deliver on its promise in the White Paper – The Importance of Teaching – to use performance tables to put greater emphasis on the progress of every child. We don’t think we are there yet and feel that, for now, the EBacc is not part of a balanced score card. Instead it risks focusing schools on those children who are on the border line of achieving the EBacc at the expense of others both below and above that threshold."

The report notes that "certain academic subjects studied at A-level are more valued by Russell Group universities than others", but argues that a "focus on a fairly narrow range of subjects, demanding considerable curriculum time, is likely to have negative consequences on the uptake of other subjects."

The Committee does not make recommendations on which subjects should or should not be included – "that," argued Mr Stuart, "is not up to a group of politicians" – but rather encourages the government to reconsider the EBacc's composition when the National Curriculum Review is concluded.

Mr Stuart concluded, "There is no question that the Government’s motivation behind the EBacc is right in several regards. Of course all children should have access to a broad and balanced curriculum – including traditional, academic subjects – and of course we should be working tirelessly to narrow the gap in attainment between the richest and poorest.

But our inquiry uncovered significant concerns about the EBacc’s composition, potentially negative as well as positive impact, and the way it was introduced. We received a huge amount of evidence and the Government needs to look at that very closely: indeed, if it had conducted a similar consultation, it might have avoided some of the concerns which have been expressed."

Shadow education secretary, Andy Burnham responded to the report, "This damning verdict leaves the Secretary of State and his ministers isolated," he said. "They cannot continue to ignore the weight of professional and parliamentary opinion. Mr Gove urgently needs to remember his responsibility to all children and his promises to trust teachers. He should listen to the chorus of criticism and set up a proper review of his English Baccalaureate."