Curriculum and Assessment Review
Lord Freyberg
To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the implications of the final report of the Curriculum and Assessment Review, published on 5 November 2025, for education in England.
Lord Freyberg (CB)
My Lords, I am delighted to be opening this debate and grateful for the number of noble Lords who have put their names down to speak. I confess I wish we had been granted more time, given the breadth and importance of this subject. I look forward to hearing all contributions, whatever the topic, and to the Minister’s response to what I am certain will be a well-informed and searching debate. I am grateful too for the many briefings I have received in preparation from a wide range of organisations, among them the Campaign for the Arts.
I intend to focus on arts education, though I will say a brief word towards the end about modern languages, where some difficult questions remain. The Curriculum and Assessment Review, published on 5 November last year, was an independent report led by Professor Becky Francis, and its findings carry considerable weight. The Government’s response deserves to be treated seriously. It acknowledges, clearly and without equivocation, that arts education in England has suffered a prolonged and serious decline—and that acknowledgement alone represents a change of tone that many in the sector had long been waiting for.
The scale of what has happened is worth stating plainly. Since 2011, the number of hours of arts teaching in schools has fallen by 23%. Since 2010, the share of GCSE entries in arts subjects has shrunk by nearly half and A-level entries have fallen by nearly a third. For nearly half of all young people aged 11 to 15—and for a majority when it comes to drama—school is their only contact with the arts. They do not participate in arts activities outside the school gate. When provision in schools declines, those young people do not lose some of their access to the arts, they lose all of it, and the burden falls hardest on those who can least afford it. Children in the most deprived areas are less likely to study arts subjects and less likely to access extracurricular cultural opportunities, creating what the Cultural Learning Alliance has called an entitlement gap. This is not a peripheral concern: it goes to the heart of what we believe education to be and what kind of society we wish to be.
Against that backdrop, the review contains much that deserves recognition. The proposal to abolish the EBacc has been widely welcomed by arts educators and their representative bodies. For 15 years, that performance measure squeezed arts subjects out of timetables, budgets and the thinking of school leaders who had little choice but to prioritise the subjects it rewarded. The reform of Progress 8, although still subject to consultation, signals a more inclusive conception of achievement. The Government’s second pledge in the executive summary, to
“revitalise arts education as part of the reformed national curriculum”,
is not a minor commitment. The arts are described, rightly, as an entitlement for every pupil rather than an optional extra. I welcome these commitments unreservedly.
The challenge, however, lies in the gap between aspiration and implementation, and it is a considerable one. The Government are pursuing an ambitious range of activity simultaneously: a reformed curriculum, an enrichment strategy, the National Youth Strategy, the schools White Paper, the National Centre for Arts and Music Education and the Hodge review of Arts Council England. These initiatives serve different purposes, and not all are primarily concerned with education, but those that are must be properly joined up if they are to deliver on the Government’s commitments. There is, for example, an apparent tension between the national centre’s reliance on leveraged philanthropy to fund activities that would previously have been covered by statutory schools funding, and the Hodge review’s parallel recommendation for an entirely separate philanthropic fund. I ask the Minister directly: is it either viable or desirable to place this much weight on philanthropy to fill gaps that statutory funding ought to cover?
Compounding this, the new National Centre for Arts and Music Education is reported to be operating on a smaller budget than the bridge organisations it replaces, only some of which will continue to receive support from DCMS. But even a well-resourced national centre could not on its own solve what is, in the end, the most pressing problem of all: there are simply not enough specialist teachers to deliver the arts subjects the Government have promised.
The Government have reduced initial teacher training bursaries for creative subjects at precisely the moment when the review calls for their expansion. The consequences are already visible. Drama is recruiting less than half its target number of trainee teachers; music is only just above half. The Campaign for the Arts has noted the obvious tension: the Government have pledged to put creativity at the heart of the curriculum, while simultaneously restricting the financial incentives that draw people into teaching those very subjects. I ask the Minister directly: how do the Government intend to build a revitalised arts education on a diminishing supply of specialist teachers, and will they reconsider the bursary position?
I will add a broader question about how the arts subjects are valued, not merely in policy documents but in public discourse. For too long, arts and humanities subjects have been set in opposition to STEM, as though the two were competing rather than complementary. That false hierarchy has been entrenched by the marketisation of higher education. When universities become dependent on student fees, students become customers, and subjects begin to be valued, or devalued, according to their perceived market worth. The arts and humanities have suffered on both counts: devalued in the league tables that drive student choice and devalued culturally in a discourse that has come to equate worth with starting salary. This is the context in which the review’s commitment to parity of esteem between subjects must be understood. It is why that commitment, if it is to mean anything, will require more than warm words in a curriculum document.
Finally, I will say a brief word about language—not the language of the review, but modern languages as a subject. The abolition of the EBacc is, on balance, good for arts education, but it carries a real cost for languages, which derived much of their school-level protection from that same performance measure. There are already reports of head teachers reducing GCSE languages provision in direct response to the removal of the EBacc. University departments have been contracting for years. Since January alone, closures or reductions have been announced at Leicester, Nottingham, Heriot-Watt and Essex. In 2024, fewer than 3% of A-levels were in languages; PE attracted more entries than French and German combined. Can the Minister say what steps the Government are taking to ensure that the gains for arts education do not come at the further expense of languages? The case for an advanced language premium, along the lines of the advanced maths premium, has to be considered.
The Government have made a public commitment to every child having access to high-quality arts education, regardless of background or postcode. The ongoing consultation on Progress 8 and the new curriculum expected in 2027 represent a genuine opportunity to get this right. I look forward to hearing how the Government intend to take it.
Lord Watson of Invergowrie (Lab)
My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Freyberg, on securing this important if brief debate. There was much to welcome in both the Curriculum and Assessment Review and the Government’s response to it. Like the noble Lord, I welcome the end of the damaging EBacc obsession from the now noble Lord, Lord Gove, which will pave the way to a broader curriculum with stronger access to music, art, sport, drama and vocational subjects. I was not aware of the point that the noble Lord raised about the threat to language learning; I note that and will take it up in future. It was also pleasing to see the report’s emphasis on oracy and, even more, the Government’s recognition of oracy as a foundational skill alongside reading, writing and maths.
The review said that it is important to ensure that assessments test what pupils should be learning, not just what is easy to measure. It then went on to say:
“We consider that the Key Stage 2 assessments are generally performing well”.
That view is not widely shared by educators at primary level, and I and others regret that the Government did not counter it in their response. Many primary school teachers, school leaders and parents had hoped that the Government would take account of the evidence on the harmful effects of the statutory primary assessment system, including year 6 SATs, year 1 phonics checks and year 4 times tables checks. A system that places data collection and whole-school accountability ahead of prioritising the love of learning and children’s well-being has inevitable consequences. Teaching to the test and a narrow curriculum mean that, for many children, year 6 is spent cramming for the end-of-year exams, focusing on maths, English and little else. Research from the UCL Institute of Education indicates that this is particularly common in areas of high disadvantage.
Research has shown that three-quarters of parents think that SATs harm their children’s mental health, as the stress and anxiety of GCSE-style exams at the age of 10 or 11 take their toll. The review claimed that it would emphasise inclusion, belonging and a curriculum that values every child for who they are. Instead, the review recommended that more children spend more time preparing for government tests, including children with SEND. Some 76% of children with SEND do not reach the expected standard in SATs, while 91% of children with EHCPs do not reach that expected standard. For many of these children, preparing for SATs is the start of school avoidance, which often carries over to secondary school.
The call for meaningful reform of primary assessment from school leaders, teachers, parents and children will not go away, because the problems with SATs persist. Head teachers will continue to struggle to recruit and retain year 6 teachers, and too many parents will continue to see damage to the mental health of their 10 and 11 year-olds. There is still time for the Government to listen to those who know children and their education best, and I hope that discussions to that effect can take place in the near future.
Baroness Sater (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Freyberg, for securing this important debate. I will focus briefly on two areas: financial education and physical education.
On financial education, I welcome the review’s recognition of financial literacy, budgeting and wider life skills in the curriculum. With reforms expected by 2028, we now have a critical window to get this right. The proposals to strengthen financial education in secondary schools and to extend it into primary schools are absolutely a move in the right direction. We know that, if young people start early, they develop good money habits and build confidence in managing their finances.
Financial education has been statutory in secondary schools for over a decade, yet, as the Money and Pensions Service has reported, only around half of children receive a meaningful financial education. As the charity Young Enterprise has said, curriculum reform on its own is not enough: teachers need proper support, including training, clear guidance and high-quality resources.
The APPG on Financial Education for Young People, of which I am an officer, has also made it clear that financial education is not being adequately measured in our schools. Until it is inspected—for example, through Ofsted—it will not be prioritised, and, unless we focus on delivery, we risk repeating the same mistake we have seen in our secondary schools. So I do hope the Government will ensure that this is properly resourced, inspected and given protected curriculum time, because it is a life skill that every child deserves.
I turn now to physical education. We know that children are not getting enough physical activity. With huge concerns around high childhood obesity, mental health and well-being, schools are one of the few places where we can reach every child at scale. Once they leave, we lose one of the best opportunities to shape their lifelong healthy habits. There is already an expectation of around two hours of PE each week. However, as the review highlights, this is not delivered consistently—particularly in secondary schools, where the curriculum pressure is greatest. All too often, PE is squeezed out rather than protected.
The review rightly recognises that improving PE is about strengthening delivery, consistency and the conditions that schools need to make it happen. However, I also believe that we should be more ambitious. The Chief Medical Officer recommends around 60 minutes of physical activity a day for children; that should be our direction of travel, properly embedded into the school day. As Ali Oliver of the Youth Sport Trust said:
“By increasing physical activity levels in schools, we can develop children who are happy, healthy and ready to learn”.
I recognise that we cannot endlessly add to the curriculum, but, equally, we cannot continue to treat health and well-being as a secondary consideration. That is why physical education matters.
Finally, I urge the Government to go further by ensuring that financial education is properly resourced and given the priority it deserves, and by placing physical education at the heart of school life. If we want financially capable and physically healthy adults, we must start in our schools.
Baroness Garden of Frognal (LD)
My Lords, we broadly welcome this report as it shows more commitment to the arts and creative subjects, and sees the end of the EBacc, which focused so heavily on academic learning. As the noble Lord, Lord Freyberg, said, it has been sad indeed to see music disappear from many schools, along with drama, dance and art, particularly as the creative industries are sources of pride and economic well-being in the country.
Students will welcome the greater choice offered. There will be challenges in ensuring that the depleted teaching workforce for these subjects is re-energised, with more teachers being recruited. Can the Minister say how teacher recruitment is going for the creative sector? We also need reform of GCSE English and maths—neither currently encourages young people to pursue these subjects—and we continue to face an acute shortage of science teachers, particularly physics teachers. Do the Government have a plan to remedy that?
We are concerned by the new V-level proposals. T-levels have not caught on as the previous Government hoped. BTECs are understood and accepted by employers, colleges and universities. It takes a while for a new qualification, particularly a vocational one, to become known and accepted. I was working for City & Guilds when NVQs, or national vocational qualifications, were introduced—remember them? It was said that they would simplify the vocational offerings and be the lasting solution to the academic/vocational divide, but where are they now?
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Healy of Primrose Hill) (Lab)
My Lords, there is a Division in the House. The Committee will adjourn for 10 minutes, but these votes may be back to back, so we may adjourn for 30 minutes; we will have to see what happens with the voting.
Baroness Garden of Frognal (LD)
My Lords, as I was saying before I was so rudely interrupted by the votes, national qualifications were supposed to be the lasting solution—and where are they now? I remember the concerns people had that the qualifications which had shaped so many careers were to disappear. We tried to reassure them that they would be City & Guilds NVQs, which calmed some of the storms, but with City & Guilds currently in the doldrums that will not be so easy this time round.
The current creative qualifications are broadly understood and respected. Why create something new, rather than refurbish the existing? We also note that overly prescribed content will not support those SEND learners who currently thrive under a flexible, adaptable and practical-based curriculum. Will the Minister slow down the pace of reforms and retain funding for the successful creative qualifications, at least until T-levels or V-levels have proved their worth, because they certainly have not yet? It is vital to consult further education colleges and tutors, universities, schools and awarding bodies which know at first hand the value of the qualifications they deliver. The awarding bodies were not fully consulted in the development of T-levels, which meant that mistakes were made.
I associate myself most warmly with the very real concerns about modern languages. If I had more time, I would develop my arguments on those, but I must stick to the time here: just rest assured that modern languages are pretty essential to our future, too.
The futures of our young people—the future creative professionals and international ambassadors who could contribute much to the quality of our lives and to the economy—are at stake. However, I congratulate the Government on rowing back from the exclusively academic programmes of their predecessors.
Baroness Caine of Kentish Town (Lab)
My Lords, developing a cutting-edge curriculum to equip children and young people with the essential knowledge and skills which will enable them to adapt and thrive in the world and workplace of the future was a key purpose of this review. Media literacy and digital literacy were two of the top five issues raised by young people and stakeholders in the review process. The definition of media literacy used in this review was
“understanding and engaging critically with the message conveyed through different media channels, including AI”.
However, Ofcom, the body charged with the responsibility for monitoring and overseeing the delivery of media literacy in the UK, uses this definition in its three-year strategy on it:
“the ability to use, understand and create media and communications”
in a variety of contexts. The difference is apparent.
Using and studying creative media content was absent from the consideration of the curriculum review. Why was it missed out? Is it part of the arts? Yes, and the review did deep dives into other arts subjects, but not these. Was it not seen as important to the future of the economy and the future of work, while film, TV and computer games are priorities for support in the creative industries strategy, and createch is growing apace? Was it not seen as societally relevant?
Most culture that people and young people consume is screen-based, and most creative work they make and exchange is on TikTok and will only grow with AI. Unlike other arts subjects, it was not part of the existing national curriculum, and following the philosophy used to approach the review—evolution not revolution—it had no formal foundations in the curriculum to evolve from. Whatever the reason for not addressing it, the result is that questions need to be asked and answered.
GCSEs and A-levels are currently available in media, film and TV studies. Though the take-up is relatively small, with 26,500 at the moment, it is one of the arts subject areas that is seeing an uptick in applications. Are these subject areas recognised as ones that will stand alongside others that have been identified and be given equal status, alongside performance measures and the reformed Progress 8? Do they need to be looked at, revitalised and updated? Are they rigorous enough? Will they be included in the National Centre for Arts and Music? There is one T-level for broadcast and media. Do there need to be VQs, and how will they align with existing qualifications?
To summate, I believe that this was an omission in the curriculum review. There is a good reason for that omission to be remedied as a matter of priority, so that we can be reassured that the appropriate focus and scrutiny, with attendant recommendations, have been done to inform content and planning for the very welcome and much needed new national curriculum. I look forward to the Minister’s reply.
Baroness Burt of Solihull (LD)
My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Freyberg, on securing this debate. It is much needed. I agree with a lot of the comments that have been made so far. I want to go a little off-piste and talk about teaching about religion and belief in state schools, which, according to the courts, must be conveyed in a way that is objective, critical and pluralistic. That principle reflects the wider human rights framework governing education and has been reiterated over a number of years in domestic and European case law. In England, the High Court in Fox v Secretary of State for Education drew attention to the importance of ensuring that pupils receive a balanced understanding of the diversity of beliefs present in modern society, including non-religious world views such as humanism. The judgment highlighted concerns that such perspectives should not be treated as marginal or incidental but rather form a meaningful part of pupils’ education about religion and belief. More recently, the Supreme Court in Northern Ireland, in case JR87, reaffirmed that same principle, upholding the finding that elements of the religious education curriculum there were not sufficiently objective, critical and pluralistic because they effectively privileged particular religious perspectives. Importantly, the court also made it clear that the existence of a parental right of withdrawal cannot compensate for a curriculum that does not meet the required standard.
In the light of that developing case law, and given that the Curriculum and Assessment Review suggested that religious education may in due course be brought within the national curriculum, can the Minister say what assessment the Government have made of the implication of these judgments for religious education in England? What steps will they take to ensure that RE across the English school system is strengthened so that it reflects the full diversity of both religious and non-religious beliefs in contemporary England?
Lord Hampton (CB)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Freyberg for getting this important debate and declare, as ever, that I am a secondary school teacher. Several people have asked me recently why I always declare myself as a teacher, and I always answer, because I have to, but I would anyway. I am very proud of being a teacher. People tend to be interested when you say you are a teacher. I think this goes back to the Blair years, when the status of teachers rose dramatically. I am optimistic that with the CAR, the response and the White Papers we have the opportunity of a similar renaissance.
On Wednesday, I chaired a meeting of the APPG for Art, Craft and Design in Education. The subject was continuing professional development. We heard about pedagogy, assessment objectives, autonomy, skill control and even multimodal ephemeral text. I asked the question, “What about fun?” They brightened and said, “Oh yes, we forgot to mention it was really good fun”. We have forgotten the fun. According to the National Literacy Trust, only one in three 8 to 18 year-olds enjoys reading. School refusal is at an all-time high. My answer, which is in the CAR, is to teach less content—not dumbing down but giving more space for context and criticism. Obviously, I have read enough cognitive science to know that the fundamental core of knowledge needs to be taught and drilled. I shall give the Committee an example. If I have time, I teach a lesson to my year 10 product designers on tampons, condoms and anti-personnel mines. All are designed with the human body in mind. They are designed to interact with the human body. The mine is designed to maim rather than kill. They are all designed by product designers. That lesson reinforces the concepts of anthropometrics, ergonomics, ethics and sustainability—all of which are core curriculum topics—but in a memorable way.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Burt, has touched on, we also need to get rid of compulsory religious studies and replace it with a compulsory citizenship GCSE, which would mix issues such as religion versus humanism, financial and media literacy, and politics—perhaps with trusted partners such as BBC Verify and Bitesize Other Side of the Story. We need more time for CPD for teachers to remind them why they became teachers. If teachers are having fun, they are the best ambassadors for a profession that is still struggling to recruit; and if children are having fun, they turn up to school and they fulfil their potential.
Baroness Ramsey of Wall Heath (Lab)
My Lords, last night I went to see my 17 year-old daughter perform in her final show at the BRIT School in Croydon. There were tears aplenty as a hugely talented bunch of students took their final curtain call. The good news for them is that the world of entertainment is a major employer: the Government estimate that over half a million work in those industries. It is undoubtedly very competitive too, but if you go to the right school and study the right qualification, you have a head start.
The Guardian newspaper put it better than I could just last month:
“As the Grammy winners took to the stage in Los Angeles on Sunday night, one common thread emerged: many had once walked the halls of a comprehensive school in Croydon, south London”—
the BRIT School. Just in case any noble Lords do not have Olivia Dean, Lola Young or Raye on their Spotify playlists, all of whom won Grammys last month from the platform of a BRIT education, then I also mention Adele, Amy Winehouse and Tom Holland. Why am I talking about where Spider-Man went to school, I hear noble Lords ask. It is simply because there seems a serious risk that the education he benefited from is under real threat. It is of course not just his, but the education of all these other stars too and so many other performers, less famous to be sure, but none the less all making an important contribution to the UK economy as well as giving pleasure to audiences home and abroad.
What is this risk? It is simply that the BRIT and all other post-16 education producers will be prevented from offering the extended diploma assured by the University of the Arts London in future—or indeed anything like it—for the extraordinary reason, it seems, that the extended diploma is too large. Apparently, the right thing for all 16 and 17 year-olds interested in the vocational path is to take three small qualifications, because that is what A-level students do, even though T-level students do not—I hope noble Lords are keeping up.
Where on earth has all this come from? It seems that someone, possibly in Whitehall, has taken a perfectly understandable recommendation from the Francis review and turned it, for some inexplicable reason, into a very unhelpful one. The Francis review drew attention to the variation in quality of some level 3 vocational qualifications and recommended investment in
“aspirational, coherent, recognised and respected vocational and applied qualifications, to sit alongside A Levels and T Levels”,
called V-levels. It went on to say that the majority should be the size of A-levels but, crucially, that there should be large ones, including for creative subjects, as for T-levels.
Thus far, the Government’s response—drafted, I suspect, by civil servants who did A-levels and do not have a single vocational qualification between them—stated that having large V-levels alongside T-levels would “create confusion”. This is plain silly. More than this, it is pointlessly destructive of world-beating creative vocational education, which is why it is not what Professor Francis and her expert team review recommended, and why it is not what fabulous schools such as the BRIT teach their students. Does my noble friend the Minister, who I am absolutely certain had nothing to do with this silliness, agree that it is not too late to think again, do the right thing and back the wonderful provision that already exists?
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Freyberg, for securing this debate and so brilliantly illustrating the “arts dividend” in education—the phrase used by Darren Henley, CEO of the Arts Council England. The Francis review contains important proposals, but the response to it falls short on the issue that will hugely determine our economic and democratic future: AI literacy. Media and digital literacy is, in Internet Matters’ own words, “a postcode lottery”.
I have three specific concerns. The first is institutional agility. I welcome the media literacy action plan published just 10 days ago, in particular the £24 million TechFirst youth programme and the continued investment in the National Centre for Computing Education. But the plan confirms what we feared: curriculum consultation will not begin until later this year. The revised programmes of study will not be published until spring 2027 and they will not be taught until September 2028. The Government’s own foreword acknowledges that one in seven adults avoids the internet altogether due to safety concerns. They cannot simultaneously diagnose that level of digital anxiety and offer a curriculum solution that is nearly three years away. We need to establish an AI in education advisory board, as suggested by Policy Connect in its report, Skills in the Age of AI, to provide real-time expert guidance, ensuring that the curriculum becomes a living document and is not a decade behind the technology.
My second concern is curriculum philosophy. AI literacy must be a mandatory cross-curriculum competence from age seven to 18, prioritising ethical use, critical thinking and the human-centred skills that AI cannot replace. All this is, of course, to be found in the arts and humanities. There is a democratic dimension that the Government cannot ignore. They intend to extend the franchise to 16 and 17 year-olds. Research by Internet Matters, confirmed by the Electoral Commission, shows that digital literacy is directly linked to young people’s capacity to engage meaningfully in democracy. If the Government extend the franchise, they need to equip young people with the literacy to navigate the information environment.
My third concern is the teaching workforce. Teachers are the primary multiplier for these skills, yet 30% cite a lack of relevant training as a barrier and 21% cite a lack of up-to-date resources. AI literacy must be embedded in initial teacher training, the early career framework and national professional qualifications. The action plan’s commitments on teacher support are welcome but conspicuously vague.
I ask the Minister three questions. What provision will be made for children in school now, before 2028? Will the Government establish an AI in education advisory board? When will a funded plan to integrate AI competences into statutory teacher training be published? We cannot build an AI-ready economy on a digitally illiterate workforce. Education must come first, not last.
Viscount Hanworth (Lab)
My Lords, there are four key stages that have mandatory elements in the maths curriculum. The fourth stage concerns pupils aged 14 to 16. Here there is an abundant list of topics that the student should be taught and which they might presume to know by the age of 16. The list is both complete and unexceptional. My primary interest is with stage 5, which corresponds to ages 16 to 18 and is the stage at which students prepare for their A-level examinations. Nothing at all is specified in the national curriculum for this stage. Nevertheless, at this level, the topics and methods of teaching and the texts of mathematics have hardly changed over the course of half a century or more.
The fact that there has been so little innovation has a simple explanation. Little has changed in the exam papers set by the various boards of examiners, which tend to concur on what is appropriate. The boards are predominantly owned by large publishers that have made considerable investments in producing A-level texts, which they are understandably unwilling to revise. Typically, these texts are lavishly produced with a liberal use of colours, but they are turgid and uninspiring, and unattractive to many students.
The number of students pursuing mathematics at this level is by common consent far lower than is needed to service the demands of the nation. There are too few graduates to satisfy the competing demands of education on the one hand, and of industry and commerce on the other. Teachers who are maths graduates are not liable to remain long in the teaching profession: they are lured away by the higher salaries on offer elsewhere. Therefore, a large proportion of those who teach mathematics in schools have derived their knowledge in pursuit of other subjects such as economics, accountancy, the physical sciences, life sciences and even geography. Many do an excellent job, but many teach with a degree of diffidence that is often perceived by the students.
Why is the diet so turgid and indigestible? I contend that it is a legacy from the mathematicians working at the end of the 19th century, when the dominant programme was to secure the axiomatic basis of mathematics. This led to an abstract and brutal style that found its way into the textbooks at the higher levels. It gave rise to a didactic style that filtered down to the lower levels. The diet can be rendered palatable by taking care to associate the elements of a mathematics course with the social, historical and scientific context from which they have emerged.
The Earl of Clancarty (CB)
My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Freyberg, on a brilliant opening speech. I believe in two things with regard to school education. First, education is a good in itself. Secondly, a well-balanced education allows students to try out different things and see where their real interests lie. I am particularly grateful for the briefing from the Independent Society of Musicians. I want to make three points: one on accountability measures, the second on teachers and the third on higher education, on the basis that, in the context of this debate, what happens in higher education has a feedback effect on education in schools.
The EBacc shut out art subjects, so its demise is not mourned. Progress 8 is still with us, although the Government, backed up by their vocal support for art subjects, have pledged to reform Progress 8 further. But there is concern that in the new model, with two guaranteed slots in the science bucket, it is still too heavily weighted in favour of the sciences, while humanities, languages and creative subjects slug it out for slots five and six, so that creative subjects can still be ignored, as can languages. The idea of bringing in an extra science subject into the so-called breadth bucket would reinforce this bias even further. There is therefore the question whether some schools may not need to make any changes to the arts curriculum, as they should.
My questions to the Government are: first, what monitoring will be carried out to ensure that the changes that they would like to see in the arts offering in schools will come about? Secondly, will they address the severe shortage of arts teachers, because the arts curriculum that the Government would like to see will not be effective without the specialist teachers required? If the 6,500 more teachers are not subject-specific, how will this be achieved?
Finally, it is important to call out the truly unhelpful remarks made last month by the shadow Education Secretary, Laura Trott, on the programme “Sunday with Laura Kuenssberg”, when she described creative arts courses as “dead-end university courses”. She would like to see more apprenticeships, as many of us would, but she completely misunderstands two things. One is the nature of creative arts courses, which, whether we are talking about the visual arts, film or the performing arts, have always, by their nature, been college-framed courses. They cannot be turned into apprenticeships. Secondly, these are vocations, not dead ends. It is the vocation, not the salary, that is the purpose. If you remove these courses—and they are already vulnerable in the current higher education system—you effectively remove irreplaceable opportunities for a vast number of young people.
I should add that I agree with everything that the noble Baroness, Lady Ramsey, said about the existing qualifications for the Brit School, which should not be changed0.
Baroness Keeley (Lab)
My Lords, I, too, congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Freyberg, on securing this short debate and introducing it so well. I thank the ISM—the Independent Society of Musicians—Dr Anthony Anderson and Professor Adam Whittaker of Birmingham City University, and Dr Robert Gardiner of the RNCM, for their analysis and briefings on the implications of the Curriculum and Assessment Review for music.
The review found that inequalities in music education are substantial, with music showing the widest disadvantage attainment gap of any subject, driven by unequal access to instrumental tuition and wider inequities in school and community resources. I have also raised with Ministers the fact that music teacher supply is a related problem. Since 2010, we have seen persistently high vacancy rates for music teachers. In fact, in 2023-24, that vacancy rate was among the highest of all subjects, and the Department for Education has missed its music teacher recruitment target in 12 of the past 13 years. There was a small increase in recruitment during 2024-25, after the brief return of the £10,000 bursary, but recruitment still reached only around 40% of target.
The conclusion is clear. The music teacher bursary must be restored. The Government’s opportunity mission makes it clear that we want high-quality music and arts education for every child in all state-funded schools. The curriculum review has recentred music and arts as core to a rounded education, not as optional extras, and it has challenged the narrowing of the curriculum that has squeezed music out of timetables, particularly in disadvantaged areas.
But these are only starting points. Organisations such as ISM are clear that curriculum changes alone will not close the participation gap for pupils from low-income backgrounds, who remain much less likely to take GCSE music and, when they do take it, achieve lower grades because cost is still a major obstacle. For too many families, paid lessons and instruments are out of reach, so school provision is the only option. But, as we have heard, shortages of specialist teachers—particularly specialist music teachers, especially in primary schools and in some regions of the country—limit what can be offered.
The Francis review and the Government’s response to it mark a welcome change of direction, but I ask my noble friend the Minister whether the Government will consider two steps that could genuinely close that participation gap. The first is the return of the music teacher bursary, which makes a career as a music teacher possible for those who would otherwise be unable to afford the cost of tuition. The second is the implementation of the Hodge review’s recommendation that the DfE, DCMS and Arts Council England work with philanthropists, trusts and foundations to create a joint fund to improve the cultural offer in schools, including the cost of training and paying for specialist teachers, now that we have the very good news that the Government have accepted all the recommendations of the Hodge review. If we are serious about opportunity for every child, those are the levers that we need.
Lord Addington (LD)
My Lords, looking at this debate, what strikes me as the most unloved thing in the Room is the EBacc. The fact that we have an overemphasis on academic standards has squeezed out the fun bits. If I had longer, I would go over many of the speeches, but the noble Lord, Lord Hampton, bringing the condom and the landmine into the same sentence, along with the tampon, is something that I will try, but will probably fail, to drive out of my brain. The main thing to say is that something that makes school entertaining and keeps you engaged has often driven up attainment in academic subjects. PE is established here, and arts and other creative activities also have a similar record. How do you bring this in? I suggest that the Government look again at something that they have done in PE, which has had a degree of success—the school sports partnership.
This is not about an elite-level pathway; this is about participation. It is about somebody taking on something and getting something back from it. There may not be national bodies for things such as the arts, am-dram and music, but people are doing this out there. I would hope that the Government have some interaction with the voluntary sector, where people do something that is fun and adds to their life. I have known dyslexics who will read a document about something that they are interested in and try several times to get it. They put far more effort in than they will do into some random piece of literature, no matter how highly it is esteemed by certain academics. They will engage with it, and people who have something to engage with positively in the school experience will do better. I hope that the Minister, when she comes to answer, will at least say that the Government are looking positively at this, because there is a whole group of people who can feed into the system.
Music would be a real benefit. Somebody once described to me that if you give a violin or a piano to a child to learn the basics on, it is a choice between being shot or hanged for many parents. Why do we not expand this to a guitar or a set of drums? This is possibly a different form of death, but you get the idea—these are things in which people can engage. Look to what talks to you in your own language, or language that is accessible to you, and you have a chance of expanding people’s horizons and upping their academic attainment.
Baroness Barran (Con)
My Lords, I, too, would like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Freyberg, for his excellent introduction and for securing this short debate. As we have heard, the Curriculum and Assessment Review built on the work of the previous Government and is described as “evolution not revolution”. I briefly acknowledge the work that the last Government did in important areas: strengthening the evidence base around early reading, expanding the use of phonics and other structured programmes, investing in tutoring to help children to catch up after the pandemic and setting a much clearer expectation for a knowledge-rich curriculum.
We on these Benches welcome the chance to strengthen the curriculum, while in no way wishing to sacrifice the emphasis that has been placed on reading, writing, maths, sciences and modern languages, and ensuring that children can access the breadth of education, which noble Lords have expressed so eloquently today. We definitely share with the noble Lord, Lord Freyberg, the concerns about the impact of losing the EBacc on the uptake of modern foreign languages. We also have concerns about some of the proposed changes to the Progress 8 measure, which is out for consultation; the ill-famed soft bigotry of low expectations risks sneaking back into our schools.
We have seen a dramatic improvement in the global rankings for our children in reading, maths and sciences, yet I think all of us who have spoken in this debate want to see more enrichment opportunities for our children. Therefore, can the Minister say, first, what consideration the Government have given to the community budget that was available to schools to allow them to open their facilities to their wider community, such as swimming pools, sports facilities or drama facilities? My understanding is that the grant is gone, but surely that would be a way to use those facilities more. Secondly, what consideration has been given to building on the work of multi-academy trusts that are offering a longer school day? Some trusts add an hour a day—that is a year of extra time for a child’s education to include a bit of fun.
Baroness in Waiting/Government Whip (Baroness Blake of Leeds) (Lab)
My Lords, I am very conscious of the richness of this debate, and I thank the noble Lord, Lord Freyberg, for instigating it and everyone who has participated. I acknowledge that I have 10 minutes to comment on the incredible breadth that has come from the Room. I will touch on as much as I can, but of course it comes with the caveat that, if I cannot specifically answer some of the points raised, I will endeavour to follow up in the usual ways.
A good-quality curriculum should support educational success, ignite curiosity, introduce fresh perspectives, and lay the foundations for a rich and fulfilling life and career. I note the comments from the noble Lord, Lord Freyberg, on disadvantage, impact and entitlement, as well as those from the noble Lord, Lord Hampton, on fun—that is always missed out. I like the way he included teachers in that; that broadens it out a bit, but he is absolutely right that we need enjoyment and engagement.
We know that too many young people are leaving education without the essential knowledge and skills they need to thrive and adapt in a rapidly changing world, as noble Lords have mentioned. That is why we commissioned the Francis review, and we recognise the need to have join-up. I absolutely challenge from the start any suggestion that we are allowing low expectations to creep back in—that is the furthest from our intentions behind the work we are doing. We realise that too many young people have been let down, and we must make sure that we reverse that.
We will refresh our national curriculum and publish it in spring 2027, so that it can be taught from September 2028. Therefore, there is still time to engage in the process. The new national curriculum and GCSEs will have improved coherence, clarity and sequencing, so that every child leaves school having mastered the subjects they have been taught. As we have heard, it will need to be strong in skills, thereby preparing young people for life and careers in a changing world. It will deliver high standards for all and rock-solid foundations in oracy, reading, writing and maths, as well as providing an engaging and stretching key stage 3.
I could not agree more with the comments from the noble Baroness, Lady Sater, on financial literacy. It is clearly missing. It is so important—particularly for the most vulnerable children, such as our looked-after population, who desperately need this. I really welcome the focus on this but, of course, there is much more to do.
To drive the standards we are determined to deliver, we must support an appropriate transition from key stage 2 to key stage 3 for all pupils, as well as for the teachers who teach them. I thank my noble friend Lord Watson for his intervention on the primary assessment system. SATs play an essential role in our education system. The review panel was clear that, from its perspective, the system of primary assessment is broadly working well, but we have to make sure that such systems are subject to robust development processes, including reviews, to ensure that they are tailored to and reference children with special needs in particular; that point has been made well. Also, where appropriate, there is a range of access arrangements. Children should not be fearful of these experiences of being tested; that, I think, is the concern.
On arts education, which has obviously been the key thrust of today’s debate, we must make sure that a revitalised process for all is at the forefront of our reforms. The arts help young people develop their creativity and their confidence, benefiting their mental health, well-being and attitudes to learning. Our reformed curriculum will ensure that art and design, music, drama and dance spark creativity, with clear progression for all pupils so that their developing practice and knowledge build towards a set of meaningful outcomes.
In addition, the response to my noble friend Lady Hodge’s review—handily, it came out today; timing is everything—confirms that the Government will accept or explore the recommendations. Arts Council England will play an important role in realising this ambition, and we will work with it to improve access to excellence in arts education and enrichment.
Picking up on the comments made by my noble friend Lady Keeley and the noble Lord, Lord Freyberg, philanthropy is an interesting subject. The arts in this country depend on philanthropy, so we have to make it work better and align with our priorities. The Hodge review aims to create a joint fund in this area; we are not yet clear on whether we will move down that road, but it is essential that we bring together the thinking on this from the National Centre for Arts and Music Education.
On the comments about the National Centre for Arts and Music Education, I can confirm that a budget of £13 million will be set aside for the first three years of a six-year programme. This will be commensurate with the establishment of other centres, supporting schools in the teaching of music, art and design, drama and dance through a programme of professional development, recognising just how important is that teacher training keeps up with the demands.
The noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, talked about the supply of music teachers. In art and design and in music, we have seen remarkable growth in the strength of our teaching workforce. Over the past two years alone, the number of new trainees entering art and design and music has risen sharply: between 2024-25 and 2025-56, postgraduate teacher training recruitment in art and design increased by an outstanding 117%, and, in music, by an impressive 54%. Bursaries for initial teacher training are reviewed annually to ensure that they continue to support recruitment where it is most needed.
There was a lot of interest in Progress 8. This is a key subject. I wish I had more time to go into it, but the review found that the uptake of EBacc subjects did not translate into increased study of them at 16 to 19, and EBacc measures have unnecessarily constrained subject choice. It is out for consultation. Please can everyone make sure that they engage in that process to get the richest possible response.
In answer to the noble Baroness, Lady Sater, physical education is a foundation subject in the national curriculum and compulsory at all four key stages. It is very important to make sure that the dance and swimming content, for example, is included.
The noble Baroness, Lady Garden, talked about V-levels, which were raised by a number of noble Lords including my noble friend Lady Ramsey and the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty. It is vital that we get this right. We need clearer level 2 routes through. I reassure noble Lords that we are working with the sector in the rollout.
Modern foreign languages are the subject of huge concern. We are determined to make sure that all pupils have access to high quality language education. We want to start this at primary, updating key stage 2 languages and exploring the development of a more flexible new qualification, making sure that pupils can have their achievements acknowledged earlier. On an advanced language premium based on the advanced maths premium, we think this would not be the most effective way of increasing the take-up of A-levels, but we want to learn from the Languages For All programme.
My noble friend Lady Caine spoke about media literacy. It is critical that, through our curriculum reviews, children will be better prepared. This needs to be included all the way through. I am happy to discuss this further with her.
In answer to the noble Baroness, Lady Burt, we will be shaped and guided by the sector and take further steps on moving forward with regard to religious education. We have debated this before, in the Chamber. The school consensus should include views from faith, non-faith and wider school stakeholders.
In answer to the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, AI is critical, and we are working with experts to ensure that refreshing the computing curriculum equips pupils with essential digital literacy that will be critical going forward. I am afraid my time is up. I thank all noble Lords for a well informed and enjoyable debate.