Vocational GCSEs

Baroness Smith of Malvern Excerpts

Wednesday 28th October 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Barran]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what empirical evidence underpins the Secretary of State for Education’s assertion that the introduction of vocational GCSEs will not lead to disadvantaged pupils being disproportionately steered towards vocational or non-academic pathways; and what measures they will take to safeguard against any perception of lowered expectations.

[The Minister of State, Department for Education and Department for Work and Pensions (Baroness Smith of Malvern) (Lab)]

My Lords, this approach to developing technical routes and vocational GCSEs is not about separating pupils into academic or vocational routes at age 14; rather, it is about widening pupils’ choices and supporting coherent progression into a range of academic and technical post-16 options. The new technical education routes will provide every young person with a clear path into further study, apprenticeships or skilled work by combining academic excellence in core subjects with rigorous vocationally focused qualifications of equal parity and esteem as traditional GCSEs.

[Baroness Barran (Con)]

My Lords, I am not sure I heard in the Minister’s Answer any of the robust evidence that I asked for, but I accept the Government’s intentions. The Government have justified their pivot towards generic skills and vocational routes by suggesting that a knowledge-based academic curriculum has contributed to the high level of NEETs among our young people. Given that education is devolved and that Wales and Scotland have pursued these vocational routes for many years and their levels of NEETs are higher than ours, will the Minister concede that stripping academic rigour from our classrooms is a false remedy to a structural economic problem?

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

Evidence actually suggests that the existing technical awards are taken slightly more often by disadvantaged pupils. That is one of the reasons why we are reforming the system so that pupils’ choices are driven by their interests and aspirations, rather than their background. The noble Baroness suggested that this Government have said that knowledge is not important in the curriculum. That is wholly wrong. As the noble Baroness will see when we publish our curriculum plans, following the Curriculum and Assessment Review, we have been clear throughout that knowledge is a key element of the curriculum. But it is possible to deliver high-quality academic standards and deep knowledge alongside the opportunity for pupils also to develop vocational and technical skills in a way that provides a broad and deep curriculum that is currently missing.

[Lord Addington (LD)]

My Lords, will the Minister give us some indication of what advice the Government are giving not only to pupils but to the parents of these pupils about the value of these new qualifications? If we are to get people taking subjects they have an aptitude for, as opposed to what is seen to be the desirable thing by somebody else, we will need to make sure that people understand that process.

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

The noble Lord makes an important point. We will consult on the content and nature of vocational GCSEs very soon, this autumn. Because this is about technical pathways delivered and developed at a local and regional level, we are also working closely with mayoral authorities, employers and others. I am sure that they, as we do, will want to ensure that there is strong advice for parents and clear information about what it means to take a vocational GCSE as part of that broad curriculum.

[Lord Roe of West Wickham (Lab)]

My Lords, I declare my interest as the chair of the Building Safety Regulator. I think it is fair to say that it is well understood across both sides of this House that the construction economy is one of the most important parts of our wider economy. It employs 2 million people, but it will run about 40,000 construction workers short every year between now and 2030. I know that the new proposed vocational GCSE for building construction has been widely welcomed by the industry, but what specific work is being done to ensure that the curriculum and syllabus are built on the needs of the industry and in conjunction with the industry?

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

My noble friend makes an important point. These qualifications must align with and be informed by what the industry sees as important, because that is what provides the opportunity for the young person to know that they are on a pathway that can lead to good work. That will be a key element of the consultation starting soon.

[Lord Hampton (CB)]

My Lords, as with the UTC Question last week, the Government are in danger of asking questions that they should know the answer to. Does the Minister agree that there already is an intellectually rigorous vocational subject? It is called design and technology, and I teach it. All they need to do is reopen the workshops, recruit specialist teachers and get parity of esteem with parents and metrics.

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

I am sure the noble Lord does a very good job of delivering design and technology classes. He will have noted that, in response to the Curriculum and Assessment Review, the Government have been clear that we want to create both more space and more value to some of the courses that have been lost over previous years. In delivering this broad curriculum, we want to be clear—this will be part of the consultation—about what is necessary in terms of equipment, the estate of the school and the training of teachers.

[Baroness Cash (Con)]

My Lords, I fear the Minister misheard the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, who criticised the Government not on the academic curriculum but for saying said that it had contributed to the number of NEETs. The Government are on record as saying that. It is of real concern to many educationalists, who have already seen a focus on skills in Scotland and Wales accelerate the number of NEETs there. How will the Government assess and monitor whether disadvantaged pupils with good results at age 11 are more likely to be entered for a vocational GCSE than a better-off pupil with the same results, which is steering and lowering expectations? We are very keen to understand how the Government will ensure that does not happen.

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

I am very happy to go back and look at the record, but I think the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, said that the Government had said that a knowledge-based curriculum—well, let us look at the record.

My point remains that we are providing for a strong and deep academic curriculum alongside options for students to study more technical and vocational courses. The noble Baroness makes an important point, and with the evidence, some of which I have already cited, and the work we do in developing vocational GCSEs, we want to be very clear that this is providing higher standards and better opportunities for all students. We will make sure that that is part of the development, monitoring and evaluation.

[Lord Mohammed of Tinsley (LD)]

My Lords, I will just follow up on the issue of monitoring and evaluation, in particular on the collection of data. Previously, we have heard the Conservative Front Bench talk about disadvantaged young people, but I want to add young people from minority backgrounds and young people with special educational needs. Will the Government collect data on those young people to see what level of take-up they have by region and to ensure that young people from those backgrounds are not being disproportionately funnelled toward vocational GCSEs rather than the more academic route? Will the Government commit to publishing that data?

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

To be clear, every student will continue to do English, maths and science. That is a really important element of the academic opportunities that are open to them. It is important that these vocational GCSEs sit within technical pathways that are developed at a regional level and therefore are much more likely to be able to recognise the needs and opportunities for young people within those areas. That too will be part of the evaluation.

[Baroness Blower (Lab)]

My Lords, does my noble friend agree that many students were disadvantaged by the previous straitjacket of a curriculum that did not allow for anything like enough access to creative subjects and allowed perilously small access to technical subjects? Does she also agree, therefore, that widening the possibility for all young people is an extremely good idea?

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

Yes, I do agree with my noble friend. That was also the conclusion of the independent Curriculum and Assessment Review, on which the Government will bring forward proposals in the near future. I reiterate that the requirement to continue with English, maths and science, to put vocational GCSEs alongside rigorous academic subjects where that makes sense for the students, is an important part of our proposals. Another is ensuring that these new qualifications meet the highest possible standards, being based on nationally set criteria—which current technical awards are not—and being available for all students. They should be something not that students are funnelled into but that open doors and opportunities for them.