(1 day, 19 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Barran (Con)
My Lords, I start by acknowledging the work of Professor Becky Francis and her expert advisory team on this very important and detailed review. They were set clear criteria, which the team has diligently sought to incorporate. The level of detail in the review means that, given the time available, I will not be able to comment on many of the individual recommendations, but perhaps other noble Lords will raise them.
We were pleased to see that the review builds on the reforms brought in by my noble friend Lord Gove and the right honourable Sir Nick Gibb, the former Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton, and keeps key elements of curriculum and assessment reforms, including a phonics test, a focus on a knowledge-rich curriculum and subject-specific curricula, as well as formal, exam-based assessment.
One advantage of the slight delay between the Government publishing the review and then announcing their response is that, over the past few days, there has been a veritable litany of blogs and commentaries from real experts in this area. A few things from those have started to emerge, which I hope that the Minister will be able to comment on.
First, there seems to be a divide between the advocates of specific subjects, whether citizenship, digital literacy, media literacy, climate change, financial education or the performing arts. The enthusiasts for all those subjects are broadly happy, because their subject is now in, but they are beginning to worry about implementation. Indeed, I heard one advocate of financial education pointing out that although this already exists in the secondary curriculum, many secondary school pupils are not even aware that they have had a financial education lesson. As ever, implementation will be key.
Conversely, those who I would describe as the real curriculum experts are bringing a much more worried tone, as are those who lead some of our most successful schools and trusts. They are worried both by the extension of the curriculum and what that means for powerful knowledge and depth of understanding, and by the way it is being measured. So my questions and concerns reflect some of those of our greatest experts and practitioners and focus particularly on where the Government have diverged from the review’s recommendations.
As Professor Dylan Wiliam said, assessment operationalises the curriculum. It is where the rubber hits the road and, by extension, measurement of a school’s progress also shapes what is taught. In that context, we are concerned about the loss of the EBacc, which had led to a 10-percentage point increase in the uptake of history and geography GCSEs between 2010 and 2024, and also stemmed the decline in modern foreign language GCSEs. We have seen the percentage of disadvantaged pupils who do the EBacc rise from 9% in 2011 to 29% in 2024, and that is what opens doors and drives social mobility. What modelling have the Government done of the likely decline in these subjects in the absence of the EBacc, especially in relation to modern foreign languages?
Even more troubling, perhaps, are the changes to Progress 8, where the review was very clear that with some cosmetic changes to titles, Progress 8 should stay unchanged in substance. There is, I would say, a near-universal view from experts that the changes will lead to a lowering of standards for all children but, most importantly, for the underprivileged. I particularly acknowledge very thoughtful blogs and Twitter threads from Matt Burnage of Ark Soane and Stuart Lock of the Advantage Schools trust. Having invested in the evidence-led approach of the Curriculum and Assessment Review, what was the evidence on which the Government based their decision to deviate from the review’s recommendation in relation to Progress 8? What would the Minister say to school leaders who are already worrying that this will see an increase in breadth at the expense of depth? What would she say, more importantly, to those leaders who say, rightly, that schools do not operate in isolation, so there will be a pressure to choose easier options for pupils, especially disadvantaged pupils—the exact pupils the Government want to help?
The push for rigour, for the rights of all pupils to access the best of what has been written, thought and said, will erode. Key, as ever, will be implementation. To take just one example of curriculum change—
Lord Baker of Dorking (Con)
Just how long will this take? Will the Back-Benchers ever get in?
Baroness Barran (Con)
They will get 20 minutes.
To take one example of curriculum change and how to spot misinformation, as Daisy Christodoulou wrote in her recent blog on the Pacific Northwest tree octopus, there is a risk that we end up with simple checklists that aim to identify misinformation but which, in practice, work only if the pupil has enough knowledge to assess it. Will the Government take the advice of experts in this area and pilot the changes to this element of the curriculum that they propose?
Will the Minister clarify the timing of the introduction of the new curriculum? As noble Lords may have worked out, it will be 2042 before there are 18 year-olds whose whole schooling has been shaped by this review. The elements that risk eroding quality will kick in very quickly; those that might improve it are far, far away. I hope the Minister can also reassure us that, as Professor Becky Francis herself said, the things that will influence outcomes for disadvantaged pupils in the short term—notably, attendance and behaviour—are also outside the curriculum.
Lord Mohammed of Tinsley (LD)
My Lords, I too begin by thanking Professor Becky Francis for her Curriculum and Assessment Review report. There is much in this final report that we on these Benches can welcome. Indeed, quite a few of the ideas bear a distinctly Liberal Democrat imprint: renewed emphasis on a broad and balanced curriculum; the recognition that every child must be offered both rigour and breadth; and the Government’s acceptance of the need for more digital, arts-based and citizenship education.
However, while the ambition is high, the risks are real, particularly for those children whose life chances depend on a system that works for all, not only for the privileged few. If we are serious about social mobility, these reforms must be equally serious about substance, delivery and equity.
I will speak a little more about social mobility and equality of opportunity—an issue close to my heart given my lived experience of the UK’s education system. The Francis review rightly emphasises that the national curriculum must be for every child, and that one of its purposes is
“to ensure that … all young people are not held back by background or circumstance”.
Yet the danger is that without an underpinning investment and workforce plan, these reforms will continue existing inequalities.
Let us consider triple science. The ambition to give more students access to deeper science study is admirable. However, I am not sure whether the Minister is aware that across England, a quarter of state schools have no specialist physics teacher. Without addressing the recruitment and retention crisis in science and other shortage subjects, we risk fundamentally disadvantaging children in less-resourced schools, many of whom are from more deprived backgrounds.
Similarly, while the arts and digital education are flagged in the final report, the parallel removal of bursaries for music teacher training is concerning. Rising teacher vacancies in music and creative subjects, and underinvestment in enrichment, threaten to drive a two-tier curriculum: one for those who attend well-resourced schools, another for everyone else.
I turn to the structure of performance measures and subject choices. The scrapping of the English baccalaureate is not in itself a problem; the problem lies in how its replacement may unintentionally narrow choice rather than broaden it. The new proposals around Progress 8 reform, with dedicated slots for science and breadth subjects, may incentivise schools to pick the cheapest route to satisfy buckets rather than ensuring rich subject access. Our schools will be under pressure to hit headline measures, which may lead schools to steer pupils away from the arts, languages and physical education.
If we are serious about social mobility, we cannot allow the curriculum for large numbers of children to become a bare-minimum choice which gives them fewer options than their more fortunate peers. A child in a deprived area should not be streamed into the narrowest option simply because the school’s performance indicators push them there.
Finally, I will touch on the issues of teacher supply, funding and implementation; they all require teachers, time, training and money. Without proper workforce planning, the ambitions of the final report will collapse under the weight of underresourced schools. The Government must clarify how the reforms are to be funded; how many additional teachers will be recruited in shortage areas; and how all schools, regardless of location, will be supported to deliver the new entitlement. If a child in Sheffield, or anywhere else outside a privileged postcode, is left behind because their school cannot deliver the new curriculum, the promise of a “world-class curriculum for all” becomes a hollow slogan.
Before I conclude, I would like to pose a number of questions to the Minister that I hope she will address in her response to your Lordships’ House. First, what workforce strategy does the Department for Education have in place specifically to deal with the specialist teacher shortages in subjects such as physics, music and languages, given that many schools in disadvantaged areas currently have none?
Also, what assessment has the department made of the impact of narrowing the curriculum on students from lower-income backgrounds? How will the reforms not widen the attainment gap? How will the Government monitor and evaluate whether the new curriculum and assessment changes improve both attainment and life chances for students from underrepresented groups, and will data be published by socioeconomic backgrounds, regions, disability status and other key equality indicators?
Can the Minister also explain why the Government have not progressed with all of the Francis review’s recommendations?
Finally, this report offers not just change but an opportunity to build an education system that is truly inclusive, ambitious and equitable. However, ambition must be matched by resources, rights must be matched by access and the reforms must be implemented with a resolve to ensure that no child is left behind. If we wish to talk of social mobility, we must mean it; if we wish to talk about opportunity, we must support it; and if we wish to talk of education for all, that must include children from communities such as mine in Sheffield, where aspiration is in abundance but where barriers remain real. The proposals are good, but only if we deliver them properly. I look forward to the Minister’s response.
The Minister of State, Department for Education, and the Department for Work and Pensions (Baroness Smith of Malvern) (Lab)
I start by welcoming the noble Lord, Lord Mohammed of Tinsley, to his new role on the Front Bench. I will do my best to cover the points made by the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, and the noble Lord—although I note that, for the second time in a row in responding to a Statement, I have less time to respond than the two Opposition Front-Benchers took to ask me questions.
I start by thanking Professor Becky Francis and those who contributed through her panel and in the consultation. This is a review driven by evidence, informed by data and which has relied on input from experts, the sector and the public. The national curriculum ensures a common entitlement to share in the core wisdom that we as a nation most value. An ambition for a curriculum of high standards was of course led by James Callaghan in his great education debate and delivered by the noble Lord, Lord Baker, in the first national curriculum in 1988.
Successive Governments have understood that, as the world changes, so must the curriculum that prepares our young people for success in that world. That is why this is a national curriculum that will ensure both rock-solid foundations in oracy, reading, writing and maths but also the development of the sorts of skills necessary for young people to be able to succeed in the world today.
On the particular points about accountability in relation to the EBacc, while I can understand the objectives of the EBacc, unfortunately, it did not achieve them. We have seen no increase in the numbers of students aged 16 to 19, for example, who took up subjects focused on in the EBacc. The levels of students taking modern foreign language GCSE increased to begin with but is now at broadly the same level as it was in 2009-10. Of course, the result has been to narrow the curriculum and ease out arts and creative subjects.
In relation to Progress 8, we will consult on how to continue to provide a strong academic core—which we believe our proposals will do—while balancing breadth and student choice. Languages and humanities of course continue to be incentivised in the proposed Progress 8 accountability measure.
On the important point made by the noble Baroness opposite about attendance and behaviour, I am sure she will recognise the work this Government have continued to do—some of it undoubtedly based on work she did—to improve attendance. I am sure she will welcome the fact that children were in school for 5 million more days in the most recent academic year than the year previously.
This is a substantial change, as noble Lords have said, and that is why we are making only changes that are essential. We will support teachers through the resources made available through the Oak Academy, including AI learning assistance to support teachers. There are 2,300 more teachers already in our secondary and special schools as a result of our focus on delivering 6,500 more teachers. We have seen an increase in the number of music teachers entering initial teacher training, which is one of the reasons for the changes in the bursary. Of course, 1,300 fewer teachers are leaving the profession.
We will provide sufficient time to implement this by producing the new national curriculum in spring 2027, with the first teaching to commence in 2028. That will provide four terms’ worth of preparation to deliver the national curriculum—more than was the case the last time it was changed.
On triple science, we will work with schools to see what is necessary to enable them to provide that entitlement for all pupils. For example, we are already providing support for non-physics science teachers to teach physics.
The curriculum has not been updated for over a decade, and parents want one that is fit for the future. We need a knowledge-rich education, which is central to ensuring high and rising standards for every child, and a curriculum that will help children shape their own futures and the future of our country. It must include digital skills for a digital age and the speaking and listening skills that employers value. Music, sport, art and drama will no longer be the privilege of a lucky few. We will have standards that will enable all children to benefit and to deliver their potential, whatever their starting point.
Lord Baker of Dorking (Con)
My Lords, I congratulate the Minister and the Government on accepting the major recommendation of the Becky Francis report, which was to remove the EBacc curriculum that was imposed on all schools by Michael Gove—now the noble Lord, Lord Gove—in 2010. The EBacc consists of eight academic subjects. Word for word, the same subjects were taught in our schools from 1904, and so for 14 years we have had an Edwardian curriculum. It is not surprising that disadvantaged children were not helped. When the Conservatives came into office, there were just over 300,000 disadvantaged students; when they left office 14 years later, there were more than 300,000 disadvantaged students, and that is a disgrace. The other effect of the EBacc is that, when the Conservatives were in office, youth unemployment rose to 13.6%. That is almost the highest rate in Europe and double what it is in Germany. One of the tasks of this Government must be to reduce that level of youth unemployment.
I will say one thing. I hope that the Minister will refute the comments made last week by the noble Lord, Lord Gove, who said, in effect, that by abolishing the EBacc, social expansion and social development would somehow be destroyed in schools. The reality is the exact reverse: when comprehensives will be allowed to take more cultural subjects and more subjects on climate change, data skills and AI, they will find that social responsibility expands dramatically. That is the lesson of the university technical colleges that I have been promoting for the past 14 years. We have an unemployment rate of 5%, but young people leaving school have an unemployment rate of 13.6%—that is totally and utterly unacceptable.
I will say one other thing; I must try to be briefer than some of the other speakers. I will discuss only one element—another interesting thought to give the House. In the Becky Francis report, she said that she wanted to stand for “evolution not revolution”. I am afraid that the reality is completely the reverse. The way that the Government are making changes, first in skills—the noble Baroness is the Skills Minister—V-levels and all of that, and now the Becky Francis report, and now the Bill going through—
Lord Leong (Lab)
May the noble Lord wind up, because we have other speakers coming up as well?
Lord Baker of Dorking (Con)
Some of the long speeches we hear are not from the Back Benches but from the Front Benches, if I may say so. The only comment I will make is that the Government have in fact embarked on revolution, not evolution.
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
I thank the noble Lord. I do not think there is very much I need to add to that.
Baroness Bousted (Lab)
My Lords, I very much welcome this new curriculum and its emphasis on widening the scope to engage more pupils. Does the Minister agree with me that when the Opposition talk about dumbing down and powerful knowledge, the fact is that the current curriculum fails to engage far too many pupils? There is a 20% persistence absence that rises to 35% for disadvantaged pupils and pupils with SEND. We need a rigorous, knowledge-based curriculum but one that addresses the interests, the aspirations and the subjects of a great variety of our pupils, who can see themselves in the curriculum, see the diversity, learn about the arts, financial education and media literacy, and be provided with the skills they will need in the 21st century.
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
My noble friend is absolutely right; we need students to have the deep knowledge that is necessary to succeed in the world, but we also need them to have the skills that the modern world demands of them. This new curriculum will deliver both and, in doing that, will engage more students, as my noble friend says, to achieve success, both for themselves and for the future of the country.
The Earl of Clancarty (CB)
My Lords, the arts sector is hugely grateful that the EBacc has gone, and I think that needs to be said. However, does the Minister agree that it is going to take a lot of work to turn around the culture in relation to the arts in schools that has been in place since 2010 and, importantly, repair the arts infrastructure? This is a question of resources and specialist schoolteachers—which the Minister has mentioned—but the increase is from a low base, so in that light the decision to axe all the arts ITT bursaries seems to many of us unfathomable. The music hub landscape is in a mess and, in the wider landscape, the music course at the University of Nottingham is just the latest to be suspended. Getting rid of the EBacc is a good start, but the Government need to do a lot more work to turn this around in relation to the arts in schools.
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
I agree with the noble Earl that a high-quality arts education must not be just for the privileged few. It is ironic that the arts that have been forced out of state school curricula are those that are so often advertised in independent schools’ offers. It is an essential part of the broad and rich education that every child deserves. We will revitalise arts education for a reformed curriculum and will support teachers.
In improving the art and design curriculum, we will ensure that all pupils are taught the core knowledge and skills to develop their own creative practice and to study the work of a wider range of artists and designers. I have already partly responded to the point about teachers. I will add that our new national centre for arts and music education will provide support for schools and teachers to deliver the reformed curriculum, as will our continued investment in music hubs to support pupils to make good progress in instrumental performance.
Baroness Garden of Frognal (LD)
My Lords, like others, we warmly welcome much in the report, particularly on languages and the arts, as we have already heard. I want to raise one thing mentioned on page 37 about the technical awards. We have not had any briefings or debates on V-levels; they have suddenly appeared as if from the blue. The Government should have learned from the T-levels that it takes a long time to introduce and embed a new vocational qualification. What is wrong with BTECs? They are understood by everybody. They are understood by pupils and even by parents—ye gods, that is a triumph. Universities and employers all understand BTECs. They have served people very well. T-levels have not really got properly embedded yet. Why on earth are the Government involved in embarking in something new when there is something perfectly good already there?
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
There will be plenty of opportunity for people to have their say about V-levels, not least in the consultation that we published alongside the skills White Paper. It has never quite been my approach to say, “If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it”. There are improvements that we can make to the standard of our vocational education. T-levels are now achieving considerable success, both in the outcomes for students and for a broad range of students in terms of their prior attainment. As we carry out that consultation, I am very happy to carry on talking about where we think V-levels fit in the important range of choices and options for students aged 16 to 19.
The Lord Bishop of London
My Lords, we are living in an increasingly complex world, and the study of religious education is critical in helping young people to navigate it. The need for understanding and dialogue across different faith groups and worldviews is increasingly obvious. The Church of England has welcomed the scrapping of the EBacc, because it has positive implications for religious education. At present, schools with a religious character provide the most comprehensive RE in the country. Will the Government commit to ensuring that these new proposals do not undermine this or the historic role that churches have in providing education in England?
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
I will start—seeing as this is my first opportunity—by congratulating the right reverend Prelate, who is soon to be elevated. The Government firmly believe in the importance of religious education. Good-quality RE can develop children’s knowledge of the values and traditions of Britain and other countries, and foster understanding among different faiths and cultures. That is why it remains compulsory for all state-funded schools, including academies and free schools, at all key stages. We welcome the review’s recommendation that Vanessa Ogden continue her work with the sector to seek to reach consensus on what a national curriculum for RE might look like. We look forward to seeing the outcome of that work.
Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Katz) (Lab)
My Lords, I think it is the turn of the Conservative Benches, but we should have enough time for everybody to get in.
Baroness Bottomley of Nettlestone (Con)
I am really grateful for the noble Lord’s protection and championing. It is always an honour to give way to the future Archbishop of Canterbury.
Can the Minister say more about the new oracy framework? Of course, young people need to be able to speak as well as read and write. Can she give us an assurance that, in preparing the framework, her department will work closely with the experts in this field, the English Speaking Union, whose work this has been for the last 107 years?
Secondly, I welcome the focus on building media literacy. The number of young people who do not read a newspaper and do not listen to the broadcast media is alarming. Their information comes through social media, with its adjusted algorithms. Within that, can the Minister give an unequivocal assurance that the benchmark for independent, impartial broadcasting in this country—and, I would say, around the world—is the BBC? Whatever the short-term squall, the BBC is a huge jewel in Britain’s crown.
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
I can give the noble Baroness the assurance she asks for on the development of the oracy framework. As she has identified, being able to speak and listen is an enormously important skill that employers say they need young people to have. On the point about media literacy, as she says, in a world in which young people need to distinguish misinformation and disinformation, it is enormously important that they are supported with media literacy. That is why media literacy will be embedded in English, in history and in citizenship. I share her view about the importance of the BBC, both at home and abroad.
Baroness Keeley (Lab)
My Lords, I welcome the Curriculum and Assessment Review, particularly the removal of the EBacc, which has damaged the provision of arts and music education in state schools. I also welcome the emphasis on both media literacy and music provision in the curriculum. It is important to highlight the significant inequalities in access to music in state schools. The annexe to the review highlights that in 2023-24, one in four young people may not have been able to access a music qualification at key stage 4 in their school, even if they wanted to.
A further aspect of inequality highlighted in the review concerns those pupils whose parents cannot afford extracurricular tuition. Can my noble friend the Minister assure me that the Government will double down on these inequalities to ensure that the ability to read music and play an instrument becomes available to all students in state schools, and that the number of specialist music teachers will start to be restored to the much higher level it was at in 2011?
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
Despite the fact that my cello has sat in the attic for far too long, I wholly agree with my noble friend about the value of music and music tuition. We recognise the current challenge of access in music. Tackling that starts with a high-quality music education for every pupil through a reformed programme of study, and then providing clear progress routes for further study to 16 and 18, starting with a review of music, GCSE and technical awards. It needs the continued investment that the Government are making in the 43 music hubs partnerships across England to offer musical instrument tuition, instrument loaning and whole-class ensemble teaching. That is why I welcome the increase we have seen in the number of teachers teaching music and those entering initial teacher training.
Baroness Coussins (CB)
My Lords, with the withdrawal of the EBacc and with more and more universities shutting down their modern language courses, what measures are the Government considering to prevent take-up of languages at GCSE plummeting? Secondly, will the noble Baroness give urgent attention to introducing an advanced language premium to boost take-up of languages at A-level, modelled on the very successful advanced maths premium? We know that having foreign language skills significantly enhances future employability, so we must avoid short-changing pupils in state schools by letting languages disappear.
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
Languages are a vital part of the curriculum, and we want to ensure that all pupils have access to a high-quality language education. That includes supporting and empowering the workforce: for example, we will continue to fund the National Consortium for Languages Education to ensure that all language teachers have access to high-quality professional development. We want more pupils to develop strong language skills and to have their achievements recognised earlier than at GCSE. For that reason, we will explore the feasibility of developing a new flexible languages qualification which enables all pupils to have their achievements acknowledged when they are ready, rather than at fixed points.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
My Lords, alongside my noble friends and the irrepressible noble Lord, Lord Baker, I very much welcome today’s Statement. It talks about “boosting digital literacy through a reformed computing curriculum to allow pupils to navigate the opportunities and challenges of AI and much more”. What is the “much more”?
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
We want, first, to recognise that digital skills are an enormously important element of a young person’s development in the modern world. That is why we will widen the GCSE beyond simply computing and introduce a new level 3 qualification in data science and AI.
Baroness Evans of Bowes Park (Con)
My Lords, Progress 8 has been proved to have been a success, and, as my noble friend pointed out, the Francis review is clear that its recommendation is not to make any changes
“to the structure of Progress 8 or the composition of the ‘buckets’”,
yet Ministers have now decided to consult on changes to the measure anyway. So, will keeping the current Progress 8 measure be included as one option within this consultation, or have the Government simply decided to ignore the evidence-based recommendation of their own review?
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
We believe we will deliver an improved version of Progress 8 that balances a strong academic core with breadth and student choice, reflecting the importance of a curriculum that supports high standards. That improved Progress 8 will recognise the value of subjects, including the arts, which strengthen our economy and society, and the importance of a broad pre-16 curriculum. As I have already said, it will maintain the focus on languages and on humanities. It has the potential in the consultation to strengthen the role, for example, of triple science, which is very important for enabling students to access further science study. We will of course listen carefully to the points that come forward in the consultation.
Baroness Royall of Blaisdon (Lab)
My Lords, I warmly welcome the review and the Government’s response. I particularly welcome the emphasis on preparing young people for a changing world and the statutory requirement to teach citizenship at key stages 1 and 2. This is imperative in order to make the democratic process relevant to young people, but also for respect in politics. The Jo Cox Foundation, which I chair, highlights that, and the Speaker’s Conference noted that 96% of MPs have been subjected to harassment. That cannot be good for democracy. Can my noble friend reassure me that citizenship will be properly taught by properly qualified teachers?
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
I strongly agree with my noble friend, not least because I preceded her as the chair of the Jo Cox Foundation. We agree with the review that people should be taught the skills and knowledge they need to be active, informed and responsible citizens from an early age. As my noble friend says, it was one of the recommendations of the Jo Cox Civility Commission that there should be a better focus on the nature of government and the responsibilities of politicians in the school curriculum, in order to support not only better understanding but to reduce the unacceptable levels of abuse that elected officials face. I am glad that this Government have delivered that.
Baroness Wolf of Dulwich (CB)
My Lords, I welcome the review, and I must press the Minister further on the decision not to accept its recommendation to stick with the current Progress 8. Can she tell us a little bit more about why the Government have made the proposals they have—why creative arts and not computing or technology? For many young people, particularly lower-achieving pupils, there will be less choice under the Government’s proposals. I am not sure that pushing a large number of unwilling boys into drama is quite what we have in mind. Any further enlightenment as to why the Government have made the recommendations they have made would be very welcome.
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
Nobody is going to be pushed into drama who does not want to do it. In fact, in the same category as drama, music, and art and design is design and technology, which is being introduced into the curriculum for the first time. The noble Baroness will recognise that as being important. As I have stated, to ensure that we have a curriculum that supports high standards and the breadth and choice that students need, we are consulting on the reformed Progress 8.