Baroness Cash (Con)

My Lords, as ever, I thank the Minister for bringing this Statement to the House. Last week’s PISA results placed English pupils in the top 10 in the world for reading, maths and science. That is down to the dedication and hard work of our teachers in executing almost 30 years of reform begun under new Labour and continued by the Conservatives. I am delighted that this Statement acknowledges that success, but it makes the dismantling of the system which has given generations of children greater life chances much harder to justify. It is laudable that the Government wish to address what is not working and to do more for those not in education, employment or training. We on these Benches share that desire. But good intentions are not the same as good decisions. The parts of the system which are working so well should be left alone. Since 2016, schools have been judged on the progress every pupil makes between the ages of 11 and 16. We know this measure as Progress 8. It is a reliable measure because it adjusts for intake, so it quickly weeds out the schools coasting on good results in affluent areas without significant improvement and reveals the schools with remarkable outcomes for children in our most deprived communities—top schools like Tauheedul girls’ school, Mercia in Sheffield and Michaela. It is such a good measure that the Government’s own independent reviewer, Professor Francis, recommended keeping Progress 8 completely unchanged. But the Government have overruled her, and we know from the February consultation what overruling her means. It means broadening the subjects for lower-attaining pupils to “reward inclusion”—if ever there were words to make the heart sink. Can the Minister assist us here? What evidence did the department possess to justify overruling its own expert reviewer? There is a very bold claim about NEETs in this Statement that the overfocus on academic pathways is a major factor driving the growing NEETs crisis, which has produced the current 1 million NEETs. Now is not the time for an economics debate, so I am going to resist that temptation, but we have data on this. Wales has been rolling out precisely the kind of skills-based, less exam-focused curriculum now proposed by this Government for England. On the results published on 8 September, Wales scored well below England in maths, reading and science. The Institute for Fiscal Studies tells us that 11% of Welsh 16 to 18 year-olds are NEET against 5% to 9% across the rest of the United Kingdom, and that disadvantaged children in England score 30 points higher than disadvantaged children in Wales. The Statement also cites 1.5 million persistently absent children as part of its reasoning against the current academic curriculum. I am delighted to talk about school absence; we do not talk about it enough and the toll it takes on children’s outcomes, and parents need to know more about that. The Education Policy Institute has found that the widening of the disadvantage gap since 2019 is entirely explained by higher absence rates among poorer pupils. Again, there is no causal link with the academic curriculum. We have the data. Persistent absence is 18% in England, 28% in Scotland, and 37% among Welsh secondary pupils—20% higher in Wales under the same skills-based, less academic curriculum the Government now propose for England. While absence rose across every UK nation after the pandemic, in England, with its boring old academic curriculum, the rate is the lowest and falling. We have heard a lot this week since the Statement about the abolition of resits. None of us wishes children to resit exams for the sake of it, but, again, we have data on this. Solid LSE research cited by Alan Milburn comparing students of identical ability who fall just either side of the grade boundary finds that just failing as opposed to just scraping a pass in English GCSE makes a young person more likely to be out of education and work by 18. At 16, 35% lack the grades, but by 19 it is only 22%, so resits help almost a third of those to transform their life chances. Can the Minister tell us what happens to that group if resits are abolished, and what is going to replace resits? Vocational pathways are the centrepiece of the new Prime Minister’s and Secretary of State’s education reforms, but, regrettably, from this Statement we are none the wiser as to what these will look like. We still do not know what qualifications we are expecting and when, which means real uncertainty for children and their families. It supposedly launches in two years, but the qualifications are just existing technical awards with any new ones yet to be explored. There is no plan for the specialist teachers, and colleges cannot fill technical posts today. There is no plan for work experience when T-levels already struggle to find placements. There is nothing on who decides which children will take this route, no guarantee of what it leads to and no budget. I ask the Minister: which qualifications will a child starting in September 2028 take? When will we know? Who will decide which children go down this route? Will completing it guarantee a place on a T-level or V-level course or an apprenticeship? And will the Minister guarantee that a child who starts it can return, complete academic GCSEs and go on to A-levels if needed? I must press the Minister on a few other questions about the timetable. The review was published in November 2025. The Government promised the first teaching of the new curriculum would happen in September 2028, with the final documents by spring 2027 and four terms for schools to prepare. The draft curriculum and the Progress 8 consultation response were due this September. It is now 17 September, the Commons has risen, this House rises this afternoon, and nothing has been published. Can the Minister tell us on what date the draft curriculum will be published? Does the four-terms pledge still stand? And if so, what does that mean for the implementation date? Finally, will the Progress 8 consultation response come before or after schools must set their options for 2027? I thank the Minister in advance for her answers.