(1 day, 20 hours ago)
Westminster HallRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Sir Roger Gale (in the Chair)
Before we start, it has been drawn to my attention that a photograph is to be taken in the Chamber at 11 o’clock. We have no power to suspend this sitting to accommodate that, but I will try to get a message to the Speaker’s Office to say that there are Members here who would like to be in the Chamber for that and that if it could be held off until about 11.5 am, that should give Members here time to get across. Those of us taking part in the second debate will not have that luxury.
Olly Glover (Didcot and Wantage) (LD)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered funding for the International Baccalaureate in state schools.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Roger. The international baccalaureate—which I will henceforth refer to as the IB, but I hate acronyms, so I wanted to say it properly to start with—establishes the global standard for education and is recognised by universities, employers and educators worldwide as a symbol of academic excellence.
For those who are unaware, the IB diploma is an alternative to A-levels that offers a breadth of subjects across the curriculum: languages, humanities, sciences, maths and arts. Students complete extended projects, theory of knowledge and service in the community, making for a well-rounded education. Studies have shown that IB students in the UK are three times more likely to enrol in a top 20 higher education institution, 40% more likely to achieve a first-class or upper second-class honours degree and 21% more likely to continue to the second year of university. That is why thousands of British families choose to send their children to schools offering the IB diploma.
Freddie van Mierlo (Henley and Thame) (LD)
I am grateful to my hon. Friend and constituency neighbour for giving way. I have constituents who attend the Europa School in his constituency, and they have been in touch with me about this issue. He speaks of choice. If we can have faith schools, free schools, maintained schools, academies, grammar schools, state boarding schools and colleges—
Sir Roger Gale (in the Chair)
Order. Let us get the ground rules right: this is an intervention, not a speech.
Freddie van Mierlo
Does my hon. Friend agree that choice is an extremely valuable part of the education system, and we should be supporting the Europa School?
Olly Glover
My hon. Friend makes a valuable point and articulately summarises the wide range of choice in schools that there is separately from the IB. He is right to mention the Europa School in Culham in my constituency; I will say more about that school later and explain why it is so important to the Government’s objectives for the Oxford to Cambridge growth corridor.
Since 2013, the Government have provided a large programme uplift—another acronym: LPU—in funding to state schools and colleges in England to support high-quality 16-to-19 study programmes exceeding the standard 600 hours of teaching. That helps to fund state schools to deliver the IB diploma programme. On 1 October this year, the Department for Education wrote to affected state schools and colleges to notify them that the Government are axing the LPU funding for the international baccalaureate diploma programme from the 2026-27 academic year.
As with so much in life, the “what” is important, but in many ways the “how” is even more so. Many schools and parents are hugely concerned that there was no consultation or impact assessment on the changes and no warning that this was coming. It could hardly have come at a worse time, as schools are having open days, showing families around and letting them know what they offer.
Calum Miller (Bicester and Woodstock) (LD)
A governor of the Europa School in my hon. Friend’s constituency wrote to me to object to the short notice that the Government have provided, at a time when children and their parents are making decisions about the future and choosing the opportunity that an IB programme provides. Does he agree that this was short-sighted and ill considered by the Government?
Olly Glover
I very much agree. The fact that there is a governor of this school in my hon. Friend’s constituency shows that these schools often have wide catchment areas, because of the fairly unusual and very popular offer that they make, which is attractive to many in the surrounding areas.
It is unclear what these schools should be saying to parents as they look to enrol their children for the next calendar year. This will be deeply damaging for those schools.
Charlotte Cane (Ely and East Cambridgeshire) (LD)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing the debate. Students in my constituency are served by Impington Village college for the IB. They are deeply unhappy that the college received a letter from the Department announcing the change with no warning or consultation. Does my hon. Friend agree that the Government decision has caused an unacceptable amount of stress for pupils, parents and staff, and that how the Government are acting is the complete opposite—
Sir Roger Gale (in the Chair)
Order. This is an intervention, not a speech. The Chair deprecates scripted interventions; they are supposed to be spontaneous.
Olly Glover
My hon. Friend gives a strong example of another school offering that type of qualification. It is also in that Oxford to Cambridge growth corridor, which is so important to the Government.
The Government have committed to increasing the number of those pursuing further education, whether academic or technical, and they talk about a “broad and bold curriculum”. Removing funding for the IB in state schools does not seem to align with the Government’s stated aims. State schools losing the funding will make it unviable for some of them to deliver the IB programme, as it takes more teaching hours and highly trained specialists.
Some of the state schools offering IB are selective, but many are not, including Europa School in my constituency. Removing the funding ensures that only independent schools can offer the IB, creating a two-tier system so only those who can pay will get it.
Rachel Gilmour (Tiverton and Minehead) (LD)
I was lucky enough to go to a school in Cheltenham called the Cheltenham Ladies college where the IB was offered. It is grossly unfair that children who cannot afford school fees should not have the opportunity for this wonderful international qualification. Does my hon. Friend agree?
Olly Glover
I very much agree. The risk, the consequence, of this Government decision is that it pushes people towards independent schools. Surely that is not in line with the Government’s strongly stated views on private versus state education. Additionally, those teachers trained to deliver the programme may also opt to move to the private sector, meaning our state schools lose yet more teaching talent—both pupils and teachers could be pushed away.
Europa School is a single academy trust based at Culham in my Oxfordshire constituency; I was lucky enough to visit it on 7 March this year. It provides a broad, challenging and internationally minded curriculum with specialisms in modern European languages, in particular French, German and Spanish, and the STEM subjects of science, technology, engineering and maths. The Department for Education provides a grant of £100,000. I am happy to say that Europa School is successful and thriving, with 1,150 pupils, long waiting lists in all cohorts and 106 in the midst of doing their IB diplomas.
My constituency is home to myriad public and private sector science and tech research companies, such as the UK Atomic Energy Authority, in Culham just down the road from the school, the Culham Centre for Fusion Energy and, slightly further from the school, those at Harwell campus and Milton Park. Cutting-edge research and commercial innovation take place every day and, as such, the area attracts a world-class scientific community that very much relies on people coming from wherever in the world has the specialist expertise to contribute to world-class scientific efforts.
For scientists choosing to relocate to the UK to pursue such cutting-edge research, the option of the Europa School is without doubt a draw, and it enables their families to continue their international education. The origins of the school very much lie there, in that it used to be a European Union-funded institution, affiliated to the JET—Joint European Torus—fusion testing facility that was next door in Culham. Clearly, the school has evolved since our decision to leave the European Union, but it still has that international ethos.
There is a real risk that the UK will lose global talent hubs and STEM industries as cutting-edge scientists relocate to other global destinations in the event that the education available to their families loses its relevance. It is hard to see, therefore, how the policy we are debating supports the Government’s stated aim of pursuing cutting-edge scientific research and their goals for the Oxford to Cambridge growth corridor. Only last week, the Government announced funding for the Oxford to Cowley branch line. The funding needed to support Europa School and others is just a drop in the ocean compared with the costs those needed to deliver the Oxford to Cambridge growth corridor.
Additionally, the Europa School is unique. It operates a bilingual model, enabling European students to continue some learning in their native tongue and UK students the opportunity to reach an unusual level of proficiency in another language. That would be lost if the school had to resort to GCSEs and A-levels, which other schools in the area offer.
Never mind what I think, however. There is a real-world impact on students and their families, and I want to share a little of what students and parents themselves have said. I was told about the Europa headteacher meeting a year 11 student who had applied for a scholarship to a nearby independent school. She would not have considered it but for this announcement. She has her heart set on studying the IB but is now unsettled. Unfortunately, she is not the only one. The existing lower-sixth students have expressed concern about whether the school will be able to continue to offer their choices of subjects without the transitional funding for their final year at Europa.
Uma from the lower-sixth said:
“As an IB student at Europa School UK, my classmates and I are really concerned about the Government’s decision to reduce support for IB students in state schools. It’s a really challenging curriculum that encourages a strong language base, critical thinking, scientific depth and research, with extra requirements to broaden our skills. We are all so passionate about the program and the school, and the opportunity to complete this additional challenge, which now is at risk for us and younger children. If the Government want to invest in the future and believe in equality in education, they should reverse their decision.”
The school has reassured the lower-sixth but cannot offer those reassurances to year 11 students. Amalia in year 11 said:
“Due to the unnecessary uncertainty surrounding this proposal, a significant number of my friends, who I have known for almost my entire life, have started to look into different IB schools. I know I will stay in Europa to pursue subjects such as physics, maths and German, as I want to be an engineer, and the IB is helping me develop all the skills I will need, along with giving me a wider outlook on culture and teaching me problem-solving skills and improving my creative and conceptual understanding. However, my learning of these skills is being put at risk, as some of the classes I hope to take, such as art and philosophy, may not be able to be taught next school year, which would cause such a loss in my and others’ academic development. I also hope to continue with my languages next year, as Europa has provided me with such an enriching and cultural curriculum that has inspired me to continue learning languages, so that I can use them in my later life.”
I would add to those comments that surely, in our globalised world and talk of global Britain, it is more important than ever to improve our language proficiency. We could aspire to be like the Netherlands, where everyone—even in the middle of nowhere, cycling along by the North sea—speaks fluent English. I am not suggesting that Dutch should be the language of choice for us, lovely though it is; I will stop digging at this point.
About 70 parents wrote to me as constituents and have signed a Change.org petition. They told me:
“Many of our families are attracted to work in cutting-edge technology and innovation here, precisely because there is a credible education option for their children who will leave with an internationally recognised qualification. The Government’s stated reason for the change is evidently to encourage schools to focus on the study of STEM subjects. This suggests to us that someone in the Education Department does not understand anything about the IB. The IB ensures that all students must to continue to study mathematics and all the sciences up to the age of 18. For a bilingual school like Europa, the IB offers the only suitable framework that allows our students’ language proficiency to be properly assessed and challenged. If we are forced to revert to GCSEs and A-levels, we will lose the ability to provide the depth of language education that Europa was designed to deliver.”
I hope the Minister can provide clarity on a point that is not clear to me or Europa School. At present, schools get core funding per student for 16 to 19 and then the large programme uplift that I mentioned. The LPU for IB schools was 20% of core funding. Will the increase to core funding of £800 million cover the proposed cut to the LPU? I understand that that £800 million will cover only rising school costs and the increased teacher pay awards. I also understand that there is a parachute payment for the academic year 2026-27 that will be approximately 40% of the previous LPU payment. That might go some way to supporting the current year 12 students to complete their IBs, but still represents a significant shortfall.
In conclusion, it is clear that the education pathway of the IB offers a choice for students and parents that is of high quality and appealing to many. By removing funding for it, the Government are reinforcing a two-tier system, where only those children whose parents can afford independent schools will be able to take the international baccalaureate. That goes against the Government’s stated policies on state versus private education.
The curriculum review should be viewed as an opportunity to learn from the success of the IB diploma, so that more students can benefit from a rigorous programme that balances breadth and depth without narrowing options too early. I ask the Minister to reinstate the funding, at a cost of just £2.5 million a year. When researching for this debate, I was astonished to discover that the Department for Education’s budget is more than £100 billion annually. Assuming that my maths is up to scratch—alas, I did not go to Europa School—that represents 0.0025% of the Department’s annual budget.
I ask the Minister to reinstate that funding so that we do not close the door to a high-quality programme for a generation of state school pupils and their families. I thank everyone for attending the debate and look forward to hearing their comments, in particular the Minister’s.
Sir Roger Gale (in the Chair)
Order. Before we proceed, I should say that eight hon. Members have indicated that they wish to speak. I propose to call the Front Benchers at 10.30 am. We have tried to get a message to the Speaker’s Office and I have not had a response, so we do not know what the score is. If the Front Benchers curtail their remarks, I can suspend the sitting slightly early. Those who are participating in the following business will have to remain here, but other Members should be able to make it to the Chamber by 11 o’clock. I am minded to put a time limit on speeches, but for the moment, if we can work on a self-denying ordinance of five minutes, we should be able to get everybody in. I call Josh Dean.
Josh Dean (Hertford and Stortford) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Sir Roger. I thank the hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage (Olly Glover) for securing this morning’s debate.
Hockerill Anglo-European College in Bishop’s Stortford is one of the 20 or so state schools across the country to offer the international baccalaureate diploma. A vibrant day and boarding school, Hockerill’s post-16 provision is based entirely on the IB diploma, and it is the only school in our community to offer the programme. The removal of the large programme uplift funding for the international baccalaureate programme by the Department for Education would seriously impact Hockerill’s ability to offer the IB.
Hockerill’s sixth form open morning for the next school year takes place in just under a month, and the letter notifying the school of the changes arrived on 1 October—the same day its promotional material for the sixth form was signed off. The school had received no previous indication of potential changes and had not been consulted. The letter professed to let it know about them “in good time” in case it needed “to consider changes” to its “provision and plans”. However, when I met the principal last week, he was clear that, with the prospectus signed off and families due to walk through the door for their open morning, there simply is not time to make drastic changes to provision and that the school will be unable to offer the IB following the changes.
That decision does not take place in a vacuum. Hockerill is an international boarding school as well as a local state school, but the additional income that that once provided has been severely impacted by changes following Brexit. Furthermore, like many state schools, Hockerill has seen a dramatic rise in the number of children with special educational needs and disabilities and education, health and care plans, and the additional provision it offers has also had a significant impact on its budget.
The IB diploma has made up Hockerill’s sole post-16 provision for many years. The school has already advertised that provision to its current year 11 and to year 11 students across our community, and it intends to honour that offer. That means that it will run the provision with reduced transitional funding next year and without the LPU the following year, meaning it will have to consider taking money from elsewhere in an already stretched budget.
Will the Minister reflect in his response on what consideration the DFE has given to schools such as Hockerill, which did not expect to make drastic changes to their post-16 provision in such a short timeframe, and on how it intends to support them to make any changes? Will he also set out what consideration the DFE has given to, at minimum, extending the transitional funding for a further year to allow schools such as Hockerill to complete the IB programme for current year 11s going into the sixth form, thus reducing disruption? Finally, will he urgently meet me to discuss Hockerill’s case, how the changes will impact the school community and our town, and the wider challenges being faced?
Caroline Voaden (South Devon) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Roger. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Didcot and Wantage (Olly Glover) for bringing forward this debate.
The international baccalaureate sets a global benchmark for education. It is trusted by universities, employers and educators worldwide as a mark of academic excellence. It equips young people with the skills they need for life, producing confident and well-rounded citizens. It therefore makes no sense for the Government to slash large programme uplift funding for the IB diploma programme—a deeply damaging and short-sighted move that will affect only 20 state schools that offer the IB. That funding makes it possible for state schools to deliver the IB programme, and removing it jeopardises access to the programme for state school students across England, entrenching even further the divide between state and private schools. That directly contradicts the Government’s mission to break down barriers to opportunity.
The cut, worth just £2.5 million, as my hon. Friend the Member for Didcot and Wantage said, is a drop in the ocean for the DFE, given its £100 billion budget, but the impact on state schools and students currently taking or planning to take the IB is devastating. Why are the Government discouraging ambition and preventing social mobility to save such a comparatively small sum of money?
I recently heard from Torquay Boys’ Grammar School, which is in the neighbouring constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Torbay (Steve Darling) and is attended by many of my constituents. The school was shocked to learn that its large programme uplift funding would end with no prior warning, cutting £116,000 from its budget in 2026 and £90,000 in 2027. It warned that this was an irreversible change. Establishing the IB involves years of preparation and teacher training, something the school has been building up since 2009.
Losing the IB would happen quickly and with no turning back, but the impact extends beyond that. Torquay Boys’ said that without the IB it could not sustain A-level language courses. Those usually have only four to five students per class, but the IB programme keeps 40 students learning languages at 16 to 18. The cut could therefore lead to the death of certain subjects altogether in some state schools. As a language graduate myself, this is something I care about deeply. We can all plainly see the damage that cutting our ties to our nearest neighbours on the European mainland has done. Effectively wiping out language learning in schools is yet another hammer blow to intercultural understanding and relationship building.
We know that the IB is a pathway to top universities, apprenticeships and employment for young people in the state sector, so the cut is at direct odds with the Government’s pledge to increase the number of students pursuing further education. It provides a broad and balanced curriculum, including maths, science, humanities, arts and a language. This decision therefore also actively conflicts with the Government’s promise in opposition to deliver a “broad and bold” curriculum.
Not every student is ready to limit their choices to three A-levels at 16 years old. The IB enables them to keep their options open for longer, ensuring they reach the right decision about what to go on to study later in life. Why are the Government taking a decision that actively narrows curriculums and limits skillsets? Why are they undertaking this hypocritical action that goes against their own commitments, missions and promises? And what do they seek to gain from a cut that will free up so little cash, but take away significant opportunities from ambitious state school students?
Our education system should nurture every child’s full range of talents by embracing a broader curriculum rooted in curiosity, creativity and critical thinking. The Liberal Democrats want a system that supports aspiration and opens opportunity. We need a more diverse education system, not a more homogenised one. The Government must reverse this cut and go further. The upcoming curriculum review should draw on the success of the IB diploma programme so that more students can benefit from its rigorous and balanced approach. The UK should learn from international models like the IB, not shut them down.
Jayne Kirkham (Truro and Falmouth) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Roger.
Truro and Penwith College in my constituency is a very successful tertiary college. It is fully ready to take up the mantle of two thirds of students and learners being in further education, higher education or apprenticeships by the age of 25. It works closely with businesses to set up courses relevant to the industrial strategy and the high-priority sectors the Government are pushing. It is doing a really good job at getting Cornwall ready for new sectors, particularly things like renewables. It also offers high-level maths, which my own son benefited from a great deal.
The college has been offering the international baccalaureate for a number of years on a non-selective basis. It is one of the most successful IB providers in the country, with a 98% pass rate in 2025 and with nearly a quarter of students achieving 40 points or more, which is equivalent to four A* A-levels. It is also the only provider of the IB in the whole of Cornwall, so students travel from across the duchy, from Launceston to Land’s End—sometimes more than two hours each way—to pursue the IB at Truro college. In fact, some parents relocate specifically to Cornwall because the provision is world class.
The college counts many young people from all areas of deprivation in Cornwall among its students, as well as young carers and people on free school meals. In 2023-24, eight disadvantaged learners took the IB, as did 13 learners with special educational needs and disabilities. I have been contacted by several parents and teachers, who emphasise that the IB’s strength comes from the breadth oflearning opportunities. It is enriching and allows young people to pursue a diverse range of academic subjects, alongside volunteering and participating in sports and creative projects. It prepares them not just for higher or further education, but for employment and contributing to their communities.
Truro college offers such wide provision, and that is just part of what it provides, but it is a very important part. I therefore ask the Minister to assure me that if and when the financial situation improves, he will look again at this type of provision.
Sir John Whittingdale (Maldon) (Con)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage (Olly Glover) on obtaining this important debate. A number of powerful points have already been made, but I want to put on record the concerns that have been expressed to me by constituents who have children at, or who work at, the Anglo European School in Ingatestone in Essex. Like the schools that have already been mentioned, the Anglo European has an outstanding reputation locally and attracts children from a wide area, not just the immediate vicinity.
One reason for that is that the Anglo European is the only school locally that offers the international baccalaureate. The IB course is extremely rigorous, but it provides a breadth of curriculum that is not available in other courses. Many parents choose for their children to undertake it because the result, as has been mentioned, is a higher chance of gaining admission to top universities or employment.
The IB is rigorous, requiring a lot of extra teaching time as a result, and it is in recognition of that that the large programme uplift was instituted. In the case of the Anglo European, the IB requires something like 1,500 hours of teaching time over two years, compared with 1,280 for the standard programme. The value of the uplift to the Anglo European is something like £55,000, and if it is withdrawn, the school will probably be unable to continue to offer the IB.
Like other schools that have been mentioned, the Anglo European draws pupils from a range of different backgrounds and contributes to social mobility. If that course is not available there, it will be available only in the independent schools. Of course, this policy is being introduced at the same time the Government are pursuing their vendetta against independent schools by putting VAT on school fees, which will result in them being further out of reach for the vast majority of people. The result of all this is that only the very richest are likely to be able to attend schools that offer the international baccalaureate.
As has been said, the policy was also introduced without any warning. One of the assistant headteachers at the school said:
“The Department’s letter arrived with no prior warning or consultation, right in the middle of sixth-form information events for next year. This results in…uncertainty for school leaders and governors about whether the full IB Diploma will be viable for this school next year.”
You have made it clear, Sir Roger, that you do not want a lot of these points repeated, so I will not speak any longer, other than to quote what another of the teachers said to me in a letter:
“Without a resolution by the end of this term, the school will be forced to consider alternative curriculum pathways, which would close off the full IB Diploma course from future generations of state school pupils, directly contradicting the government’s promise of a ‘broad curriculum.’”
Like other Members, I hope the Minister will think again.
Jim Dickson (Dartford) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Roger. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage (Olly Glover) for securing this important debate and for his thoughtful opening speech.
Dartford grammar school is a historic institution in my constituency, which has been providing exceptionally high-quality education for pupils of all incomes and backgrounds for a very long time. It is one of the 20 or so schools affected by the decision to remove the large programme uplift for 16-to-19 study programmes, including the IB diploma, from the 2026-27 academic year. Since the election last year, I have been fortunate to visit the school, which is a state school fully funded from the public purse, to see in person the education it offers. It is a privilege to have the school head and members of the board of governors here today, but it is unfortunate that they are with us in such trying circumstances.
As others have said, the international baccalaureate diploma offers pupils from a wide range of backgrounds the opportunity of world-class, rigorous education and a programme of academic study that is second to none. Beyond that, it encourages the development of essential skills and values through extended projects, theory of knowledge and service in the community. Crucially, it also encourages pupils to broaden their horizons and adopt an international outlook in the way they develop their understanding of the world, resulting in Dartford grammar winning the prestigious British Council international school award not only in 2025, but in previous years too.
One of the most memorable occasions during my first year representing Dartford was witnessing the enthusiasm and joy of students involved in the long-standing international exchange programme run by the school with two partner schools in Wakayama, Japan. It is those wider educational opportunities and activities that mean that the sixth form attracts young people from across south-east London and Kent who want to study the IB diploma.
Ms Polly Billington (East Thanet) (Lab)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage (Olly Glover) on securing this debate. Dartford grammar sounds much like Dane Court school in my constituency, which offers the opportunity of the international baccalaureate to children from across the academy chain—I know that some of your constituents benefit from that provision, Sir Roger. The headteacher told me that the wider implication of the cut is that the IB diploma will probably disappear entirely from the state sector. Does my hon. Friend seek reassurance from the Minister, as I do, that the IB does have a future role in breaking down barriers to opportunity, not only in his constituency and mine, but across the country?
Jim Dickson
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. In my constituency, the IB is available to children from low-income backgrounds and is particularly attractive because it provides young people with additional stretch and challenge and breaks down barriers to opportunity—not only in top universities, which is very important, but in apprenticeships and employment. It would be a tragedy if that were lost, and the point that my hon. Friend asks the Minister to respond to is exactly the right one.
The challenge we face is that the longer teaching hours mean that the IB costs more to deliver. The LPU funding has been crucial in allowing state schools such as Dartford grammar to deliver it. It is clear to me that without that funding, the IB diploma will no longer be available at Dartford grammar and will become the preserve of private schools that can afford to offer it, cutting off those in the state sector from the limited access that currently exists.
I understand that there may be some transitional funding in place for the next academic year—40% of the current value has been mentioned—but I am unclear what that will mean for a school such as Dartford grammar, where the entire sixth form takes the IB. The school faces the prospect of needing to replace its entire curriculum and restructure staffing for the sixth form over the next year, with extremely limited notice that this was coming.
I hope that the Minister will be persuaded to think again about the future of the large programme uplift, but if the Government are determined to pursue this course of action, perhaps they could provide more detail and a longer period for any transitional funding for schools, and let us know of any other source of assistance for state-funded schools that wish to keep the IB diploma.
Steve Darling (Torbay) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Roger. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Didcot and Wantage (Olly Glover) on obtaining this debate. I myself applied for a debate on this subject, so I am pleased to be here today.
Torquay boys’ grammar school in my constituency has discharged the pleasure of teaching the international baccalaureate for the last 16 years. It results in an influx into the school of young women, as well as youngsters from across the south-west and even Europe, who want to study the incredible, enhancing baccalaureate. My own son participated in the international baccalaureate. He volunteered in a care home and, a little over 10 years later, he is now a registrar at Torbay hospital and about to enter into a programme to become a consultant with an interest in care for the elderly. That demonstrates how the IB drives positive change. I am aware from universities that the IB is very often—just as in my son’s case—seen as a good standard for gaining entrance to medical schools.
I had a conversation with the head of Torquay boys’ grammar school, who said that the international baccalaureate offers those youngsters who develop later in sixth form greater opportunity to flourish more they would have in an A-level setting. I hope that the Minister reflects on how the international baccalaureate truly helps social mobility—something that I would hope a Labour Government would want to propagate rather than negate.
Colleagues from across the Chamber have highlighted the short notice of the change to funding. My hon. Friend the Member for South Devon (Caroline Voaden) rightly mentioned how it will impact the ability to offer languages, which will affect schools like Torquay boys’ grammar. I am sure that will be echoed across the country. The reality is that the £5 million in question is 0.004% of the education budget—a drop in the ocean. I say to the Minister: please, think again. The IB is about enriching our society and offering greater social mobility. Surely, that is what this Government should be all about.
Helen Hayes (Dulwich and West Norwood) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Sir Roger. I congratulate the hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage (Olly Glover) on securing this important debate.
Post-16 education is a vital stage of a young person’s life. Whether they are following an academic, vocational or technical pathway, it is the stage at which they can focus more on the subjects they love, exercise greater choice over their learning, and begin to think more about where they want their education to take them, whether into further or higher education or employment. It is also a stage at which wider enrichment is vital, helping young people to develop broader transferable skills, find their talents, grow in confidence and expand into their growing freedom and independence.
However, funding for 16-to-19 education in schools and colleges has been significantly cut in real terms. Per-pupil funding had fallen by approximately 11% for colleges and 23% for school sixth form by 2024-25, compared with 2010-11 levels. That decline is the largest in any part of the education sector from nought to 19, and it has not been fully addressed, even with recent increases in funding. That has left many schools and colleges working hard to deliver a broad and enriched education for their 16 to 19-year-old students in the context of severe resource limitations.
There is no doubt that the international baccalaureate is a welcome development in 16-to-19 education. Its programme of study allows students to maintain a broader base, studying six subjects compared with the three of four that are typical for students taking A-levels. The IB also has a focus on broader skills and on creativity, as well as a more diverse range of assessment methods. It has many features that should be common to all post-16 education. But the IB is taught in just 20 of the 2,132 schools and colleges in the state sector that offer 16-to-19 education—less than 1% of those institutions—and in less than 10% of independent schools.
The Government’s decision to redeploy funding from the large programme uplift for the IB must be seen in the context of the broader challenges they face. Given the education funding landscape they inherited, how can they deliver an excellent education for every 16 to 19-year-old student across academic, vocational and technical pathways?
Caroline Voaden
The hon. Member talks about redeploying funding so that it can be spread across the landscape to improve 16-to-19 education, but we are talking about 0.004% of the education budget. Does she think that the tiny amount of funding that goes into the IB would make any difference at all if it were spread across the entire education landscape?
Helen Hayes
I think the Government are right to focus on how to improve education for every young person. If the hon. Member will bear with me, I will come on to some wider points about the importance of the IB, and the features of the IB that should be applicable more widely across the education sector. We need to be clear that we are talking about 1% of schools across the country, and that the other 99% of schools and colleges have many deep challenges. The Government are right to turn their attention to them as well.
How can the Government ensure that every young person has opportunities for enrichment and opportunities to develop broad transferable skills? Given the shockingly high figure of one in eight young people who are not in education, employment or training, how can the Government ensure that post-16 education is engaging, inspiring and exciting for all young people?
Where I take issue with the Government is in relation to the lack of consultation underpinning their decision to redeploy funding within the large programme uplift.
Freddie van Mierlo
In so many policy areas, the Government seem to be unable to break wind without consulting for 18 months. Does the hon. Lady agree that they should reverse their decision and hold a consultation before proceeding?
Helen Hayes
If the hon. Gentleman will bear with me, I will elaborate on consultation and engagement in a moment, but I encourage Liberal Democrat Members to reflect on the role that their own Government played in the shockingly deep cuts to 16-to-19 education across the board from 2010, and the implications of those decisions in what the current Government are now trying to tackle.
Engagement with schools and colleges on the decision would have been helpful. Given the Government’s objectives for the economy, I understand the focus on STEM subjects and pupils taking four or more A-levels, but STEM subjects are not the only ones with a higher cost base to deliver. Some creative subjects with direct links to employment in the creative industries also carry higher costs, which can exclude students from lower-income backgrounds.
In the context of the Government’s objective of ensuring parity of esteem between vocational and technical routes and academic ones, it is possible to imagine how the redeployment of the large programme uplift could have helped to increase quality in vocational and technical courses. Evidence of consideration of a range of options and an understanding of the views of those working in the sector would have been helpful in the context of the decision.
The Government’s ambitious programme of education reform will have significant implications for post-16 education. The curriculum and assessment review, the post-16 White Paper, the introduction of V-levels, the youth guarantee and technical excellence colleges will all have potentially profound and positive implications for the opportunities available to young people and the quality of the education they receive.
Helen Hayes
I am not going to take any further interventions.
The international baccalaureate is an important part of the landscape, and I am pleased that the Government have confirmed that all schools can continue to offer it if they wish, but the bigger challenge for the Government is to ensure that there is excellence and enrichment across the board for post-16 education, which is a challenged part of our education landscape. Every young person should be able to benefit from an engaging, inspiring and exciting course of study, whether they are on an academic, vocational or technical route and wherever they live in the country, and every school and college should have the resources it needs to deliver.
Alison Bennett (Mid Sussex) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Roger. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Didcot and Wantage (Olly Glover) on securing this debate on what we have heard from Members across the Chamber is a really important subject.
Varndean sixth-form college in Brighton is the only state-funded provider of the international baccalaureate in the whole of Sussex. I was lucky enough to visit earlier in the year. It is a remarkable institution that gives young people from across the region, including many of my Mid Sussex constituents, the chance to pursue a truly world-class qualification, as other hon. Members have set out. I am pleased that Varndean’s principal, Donna-Marie Janson, joins us in Westminster Hall today.
The opportunity that Varndean offers is under serious threat. Varndean has warned that, without the large programme uplift, the IB will simply become financially unviable. The IB could—and, by the looks of it, will—disappear entirely from state education in our region, and potentially across the country. Let us be clear: that would be a tragedy for young people from Brighton and for those who travel to Varndean from places such as Burgess Hill, Haywards Heath and Hassocks to take the IB and go on to study engineering, medicine and mathematics at some of our leading universities. Claude from Hurstpierpoint told me that his decision to study the IB was
“One of the best choices I’ve ever made”.
The IB is recognised across the world for its quality. It encourages breadth, critical thinking and an international outlook, developing well-rounded students who go on to thrive. Most IB schools are independent, although as we have already heard, Varndean is one of the few state schools keeping this opportunity open for every student, irrespective of their family’s financial situation. If the Government allow these cuts to go ahead, it risks entrenching a two-tier education system, where access to this globally respected qualification is reserved for the wealthy. That cannot be right.
Caroline Voaden
The Government obviously have good intentions about improving the standard of post 16-education; I have seen that for myself on the Education Committee, so I do not doubt their intentions. However, this decision feels like levelling down rather than levelling up. Does my hon. Friend agree that instead of removing the opportunity for students in state schools to study the IB, the Government should consider broadening it and helping other schools to offer this world-class qualification?
Alison Bennett
My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and I wholeheartedly agree with her.
The Government say they want to widen participation in higher education and to boost skills, but cutting funding for the IB does the opposite; it narrows opportunity and stifles aspiration. Therefore, I again urge the Minister to reconsider this decision, to ensure that schools such as Varndean can continue to offer this world-class qualification in the future.
Last Monday, during Education questions, I asked the Minister whether he would consider meeting students from Varndean. Given that Donna-Marie Janson, the school’s principal, is sitting behind me in the Public Gallery, I am sure that his officials could swap numbers with her and set up such a meeting, so will he arrange that meeting?
The IB is a symbol of what education should be— ambitious, inclusive and world class. We must not let it become the preserve of the few.
Ian Sollom (St Neots and Mid Cambridgeshire) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Roger.
I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Didcot and Wantage (Olly Glover) for securing this debate about a decision that demonstrates at the very least a profoundly flawed approach to policymaking and at worst a wilful dismantling of excellence in state education.
Let me begin by examining the Government’s stated rationale for this decision. The ministerial response last week said that the Government would
“focus large programme uplift funding…on those large programmes which include mathematics, further mathematics and other high value A levels.”
The stated aim is to prioritise STEM education and to support the pipeline of students for priority sectors in the industrial strategy.
Let me ask the Minister some questions directly. What evidence does the Department have that this targeted approach will achieve better STEM outcomes than maintaining IB funding? What analysis has been conducted comparing the STEM university destinations and career pathways of IB students with those of A-level students? What data supports the assumption that cutting IB funding while maintaining it for multiple STEM A-levels will improve our STEM pipeline? Can he produce that evidence today?
Every IB diploma student studies mathematics and a science to the age of 18. They develop research skills through writing a 4,000-word extended essay, critical thinking through studying theory of knowledge and real-world problem-solving through community service. Those are exactly the skills that universities and employers tell us that STEM graduates need.
The profound irony is that this Government tell us that they want to prioritise science, technology, engineering and mathematics. However, in making this decision about STEM education, the Department appears to have conducted no impact assessment, carried out no consultation with schools or families, and given no consideration to any unintended consequences.
As has been mentioned, the letter that 20 state schools received on 1 October—right in the middle of sixth-form open day season, with prospectuses already printed and families already making choices—gave them no warning. If this is how the Government approach policymaking about scientific education—making decisions without evidence, consultation or even a basic assessment of consequences—one questions what kind of example they think they are setting for young people about the value of scientific thinking.
I can declare an interest: I took not just two but three mathematics A-levels. I wanted to specialise early, and I am a strong supporter of university maths schools, such as Cambridge Maths school, which serves my constituency. I note that several university maths schools have been left in limbo for many months, unable to open or expand their offer during the Government’s pause of the free school programme. That is not exactly an example of joined-up thinking from the Department.
My point is about choice. A good education system offers pathways to those who want to specialise early and to those who want to maintain breadth. Tony Blair—I am sure the Minister remembers “education, education, education”—understood this. His Labour Government promised an IB school in every local authority. This Labour Government are going in precisely the opposite direction.
There is an even more troubling dimension to this choice—one that I sincerely hope will trouble the Minister as well as the Secretary of State. On 15 October, less than two weeks ago, I stood in almost exactly this spot during the Ada Lovelace day debate and highlighted how early specialisation at age 16 disproportionately impacts girls’ participation in STEM. Research shows that students are more likely to take maths A-level if their maths grade is higher than their other grades at GCSE. Girls generally achieve higher GCSE grades than boys across the board, so they often choose other subjects at A-level. That reflects the wider pool of opportunities available to them as generally higher achievers.
The international baccalaureate solves this problem. Research from the Engineering Professors Council showed that IB graduates are disproportionately women and twice as likely to pursue further STEM study after their first degree. The research explicitly states that actively recruiting IB candidates would be a pathway to getting more women into male-dominated engineering fields.
Here is another direct question for the Minister: how can the Government claim to want more students—particularly more girls—on STEM pathways while cutting funding for a qualification that demonstrably helps to achieve exactly that? The Secretary of State for Education, the right hon. Member for Houghton and Sunderland South (Bridget Phillipson), also holds the Women and Equalities brief, so can the Minister say whether she is comfortable with a policy that reduces women’s participation in STEM? Women make up just 15.7% of the engineering and technology workforce. Jobs in those sectors are expected to grow faster than other occupations through to 2030, and the Government’s response is to defund the programme that helps to keep girls in STEM.
This is close to home for me: Impington Village college, which has been mentioned already, is in my constituency. It was named the UK’s top comprehensive school for 2025. It credits its IB programme as the key to success. I have met students who have told me that the IB gives them breadth, critical thinking and confidence to succeed throughout their whole lives. However, losing £2,400 per student will force impossible choices about staffing and subject range. The Government are forcing the UK’s top comprehensive to compromise the very quality that earned it that recognition.
This is already happening: Tonbridge grammar school, the Sunday Times IB school of the year, announced this week that it will stop offering the IB because it cannot afford to continue. The Secretary of State told the Confederation of School Trusts conference that she wants to “spread excellence” from one school to another—
“the best of the best.”
Impington Village college is the best; Tonbridge grammar is the best. The Government are defunding them. Is that what the Secretary of State meant by spreading success?
Let us examine the value for money argument. This decision will save £2.5 million per year from a Department budget that has been mentioned as exceeding £100 billion. It is invisible in the accounts. For this microscopic saving, we are creating a two-tier system, where a brilliant, internationally recognised qualification becomes exclusive to those who can afford private school fees. Currently, 76 independent schools offer the IB, compared with just 20 state schools, and more state schools need to be able to offer it. This decision does not narrow the gap; it devastates the provision. Indeed, Sir Anthony Seldon wrote in The Times just the other day that this is
“the most regressive elective action towards state schools taken by government in the last 25 years.”
I have three asks of the Government. First, reverse the decision and reinstate the large programme uplift funding for the international baccalaureate diploma programme. The saving is negligible; the damage is profound. Secondly, protect current IB students and those enrolling to begin in the next academic year, and do not pull the rug out from under young people who have made or are making choices in good faith now. Thirdly, learn from the IB’s success, rather than destroy it. Examine the evidence, consult with schools, students and families, and consider how we can give more, not fewer, students access to this broad and rigorous education.
I will close by quoting the international baccalaureate’s mission statement:
“The International Baccalaureate aims to develop inquiring, knowledgeable and caring young people who help to create a better and more peaceful world through intercultural understanding and respect…These programmes encourage students across the world to become active, compassionate and lifelong learners who understand that other people, with their differences, can also be right.”
I hope that the Government have listened to that.
Sir Roger Gale (in the Chair)
I call the Opposition Front-Bench spokesperson, Saqib Bhatti.
Saqib Bhatti (Meriden and Solihull East) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Roger, and to take part in this important debate on funding for the international baccalaureate in state schools. I thank the hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage (Olly Glover) for securing this debate and for his eloquent opening remarks. In fact, we have had a number of eloquent speakers, all the way from Truro to Dartford, as well as my right hon. Friend the Member for Maldon (Sir John Whittingdale), who made the case for his constituents who attend the Anglo European school.
I have to put it on record, if there were any doubt, that His Majesty’s Opposition are beyond disappointed that funding for the international baccalaureate has been scrapped. It is nothing more than another example of this Government’s educational vandalism. IB teaches nearly 2 million pupils in 6,000 schools in nearly 160 countries. It is, by its very nature, global and provides a knowledge-rich curriculum that is deep while at the same time broad. Yet rather than seeking to produce confident and well-rounded citizens who benefit from a schooling system where pupils, parents and educators have plenty of choice, the Government seek to impose a disastrously linear, one-size-fits-all approach on our education system.
Without warning, the Government wrote to state schools and colleges on 1 October to notify them that the large programme uplift funding for the international baccalaureate programme will be axed from the 2026-27 academic year. According to Public First, that will make it unviable for state schools to deliver IB, effectively creating a two-tier education system for independent and state sector students, contrary to what the Minister said at the Dispatch Box last week.
For a long time, pupils, parents, educators and employers have valued the highly respected IB qualification. It provides a broad and balanced curriculum, allowing students to study maths, science, humanities, art and, of course, a language. It offers more breadth than the A-level route and equips young people with the skills they need for life, through extended projects, theory of knowledge and community service. Additionally, as the co-founder of the World of Languages, Languages of the World programme told me, it helps to make language learning much more effective—a point made by a number of hon. Members from across the House today.
The IB provides opportunity through social mobility and has opened students’ minds via a well-balanced and globally respected curriculum. It is academically rigorous and broadens opportunity and aspiration. Like many, I share the disappointment in this policy decision and feel that it will impact the most disadvantaged students disproportionately. Will the Minister clarify whether there was any consultation in the light of the cut to the large programme uplift, and whether the Department has made any assessment of the number of state school pupils who will be forced to seek different routes post GCSE? In other words, which stakeholders did the DFE speak to?
Funding for the IB comes at a cost of a mere £2.5 million: a drop in the ocean of the Department’s huge £100 billion annual budget. Given the IB’s first class reputation, surely the Minister recognises the value it provides. The decision is reckless and already having consequences.
Tunbridge grammar school, which has been mentioned, is a high-performing state provider that previously delivered the IB to all sixth-formers. It has now announced that it will, regretfully, move to A-levels from next year, because of the funding cuts. That is a huge change, and it will not be the last school no longer to offer the IB. I know the Minister, and I believe him to be a good man. He must know the effect, and he should acknowledge the impact of the decision.
As many Members have been at pains to point out, the IB is a globally recognised qualification that allows UK students to compete with their peers in other countries. In cutting funding for IB in state schools, the Government have tried to claim that they are prioritising subjects that lead to good jobs and drive economic growth, but no one at the Department for Education seems to have done their homework, given that students with an IB diploma are more likely to be admitted to a top 20 UK university than A-level students, in matched samples, and have gone on to become world leaders in their chosen fields.
Will the Minister confirm the rationale behind the funding cut and explain why the Government have taken this decision? Do they have any assessment of the number of state schools that will be forced to stop offering the IB? As I said, I have a lot of time for the Minister, but he has to know that no one buys this being a money-saving exercise; it must be an ideological one. Perhaps the Minister does not believe in the IB? If so, he should say so. In which case, will he confirm what subjects are classed as priorities for economic growth? Moreover, given the IB requires students to study a variety of subjects including mathematics, the sciences and humanities, does he not consider those subjects to be priorities for economic growth?
I ask the Government to listen to the concerns of distinguished educational experts, such as Richard Markham, the chief executive officer of the IB Schools and Colleges Association, who started a petition that has already garnered more than 4,000 signatures, calling for this decision to be reversed. Furthermore, the Government would do well to listen to the schools that will suffer as a result of the decision. State schools such as Europa in Oxfordshire, which has been mentioned, have called the decision a “kick in the teeth” that will lead to inevitable cutbacks in the curriculum that they can offer to aspiring students.
We have to be clear what the decision will mean in practice for those pupils studying IB in state schools. It is not simply a decision to reduce the amount of funding available for state schools to offer the course; in effect, it abolishes the IB in state schools altogether. Dartford grammar school, as has been mentioned, is the largest provider of the IB in the country. It has already warned that it cannot afford to offer IB to its pupils without the funding, and countless other schools have issued similar warnings. I thank Members for mentioning their individual cases.
No advance warning was given of this announcement and no debate had before the decision was made. The sad truth is that the decision, like many of the others the Government have made, will hurt the very pupils the Government claim they want to protect. White working-class boys in state schools will in effect be barred from studying the IB because of the Government’s reckless decision. Why should those boys not have access to the highly respected and globally competitive curriculum that their more affluent peers will still be able to access? Can the Minister provide specific evidence to show that the IB was failing white working-class students, or prove that other routes lead to categorically better outcomes? Does the Minister accept—this is purely a point of logic—that by taking this decision, those who can afford to will continue to do the IB, and for those who cannot, namely in our state sector, the cut has made the IB unviable? That is fact. Does the Minister acknowledge the result of the decision?
The truth is that this policy decision, which reverses nearly half a century of academic excellence, is the latest in a series of failures by the Education Secretary and her Ministers. In cutting funding for level 7 apprenticeships, the Government deprived public sector employers, such as the NHS, of the means to train their workforce properly, and yet the Education Secretary has made it clear that she makes no apology for denying people the chance to reskill later in their careers.
In taxing education, the Government punished parents who have worked hard and saved up to invest in their children. In one breath, the Government promise to spend the money on more teachers, but in another use the VAT on private schools to justify spending elsewhere. Furthermore, in announcing a lower level qualification aimed at white working class pupils, the Government have embraced the bigotry of low expectations. They have told some of our most deprived children that they have no chance at succeeding in school on the same terms as their peers.
With every announcement this Government make, it becomes increasingly clear that their policy on education is simply to cut back, dumb down and deny opportunities to the most disadvantaged children in our country. Instead of expanding parental choice and making opportunities such as the IB available to more families, they are narrowing the options available to parents and making parental choice a premium that only those who can afford it have access to. It is the same as what happened with the Latin excellence programme, which was discontinued by this Government in another one of their terrible decisions.
Ministers seem completely unable to understand why a family might choose to look at different options for their children’s education, rather than the bland uniformity they seek to impose—a fact that became obvious within the first few months of this Government entering office, when they said they would scrap the freedoms that academies have used to turn around failing schools and give children from some of the most deprived areas of the country the best chance of succeeding in life.
We have heard plenty from the Government about their missions, milestones and road maps, yet they only have one mission that we can see, and that is to vandalise our education system and rob schools and parents of the ability to make the choices they think are best for their pupils and children, led by an Education Secretary who prioritises finishing second in the deputy leadership contest for the Labour party, rather than championing children. I know the Minister cannot make an announcement today from the Dispatch Box, but I ask him to at least reconsider this.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Josh MacAlister)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Roger. I thank the hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage (Olly Glover) for securing this debate and all the Members who have contributed to it. The international baccalaureate can be a fantastic qualification for young people. I commend all the staff and students in international baccalaureate teaching settings. The debate has highlighted the incredible contribution that those teachers and those settings can make to opportunities for young people—we have heard an awful lot about that today.
I want to stress a few things in responding to the points made in the debate, first regarding the role that A-levels play in our school and education system. The hon. Member for Meriden and Solihull East (Saqib Bhatti) referred to a school “regretfully” moving to A-levels, as if they are lesser qualifications. A-levels are fantastic qualifications. They are stretching for students. They offer variety, choice and combinations of qualifications that leave doors open for young people at 16 and beyond. They are recognised by the top universities in the world, including those here in the UK. I urge Members to be careful not to suggest that A-levels are somehow secondary or second order to the international baccalaureate, while recognising the contribution that the international baccalaureate can make.
Alison Bennett
A-levels are undoubtedly brilliant, but does the Minister agree that they are more narrow than the international baccalaureate?
Josh MacAlister
No, I do not agree with that. Combinations of A-levels allow young people to have a wide and rich curriculum. In fact, the large programme uplift changes that we are making prioritise choices of A-levels that extend beyond the standard three, up to five, to include advanced maths and other well regarded A-level subjects. I do not recognise what the hon. Lady suggests.
Steve Darling
My two sons both went to Torquay boys’ grammar school. One undertook the international baccalaureate. The other went down the A-level route and got three A*s. Universities do not like students taking more than three A-levels. We often joke with him that perhaps he should have stretched himself and undertaken the international baccalaureate. What would the Minister’s advice be?
Josh MacAlister
I think the logic of that point is that universities will accept three A-levels, and they will accept more than three A-levels, and they will accept an international baccalaureate. The point here is not that the international baccalaureate is the gateway to universities; it is an addition to the system and allows extra stretch for students. I will make a bit more progress and then am happy to take further interventions.
The other point to make at this stage is that it is not correct to say that funding has been scrapped for the international baccalaureate. In fact, some of the statements put out by settings that offer the international baccalaureate have been clear to say that the funding has not been scrapped. The large programme uplift application has been changed, and that additional 20% will no longer be available for settings that want to offer the international baccalaureate.
I want to spend a few minutes setting this decision in context. We are focused as a Government on raising standards across the 16-to-19 education system. We want to offer opportunity for all young people, and we want stretching and rigorous qualifications for them. The large programme uplift will focus on those taking four or more A-levels that include advanced maths and offer a broad and challenging curriculum.
What do we know about the international baccalaureate and how the uplift funding is being used? Only 0.2% of students in 16-to-19 settings are studying the international baccalaureate, and the large programme uplift is only 0.1% of the entire 16-to-19 funding made available. Many of the institutions offering the international baccalaureate are themselves selective in their pre-16 intake. Far fewer students are drawn from disadvantaged backgrounds; I have a list of the rates of free school meals in the main institutions offering it, and they are very low. I am aware of only one LPU-backed setting that offers the international baccalaureate in the entirety of the north and the midlands combined.
This is the challenge I put back to those who have contributed to the debate: if their argument is that they want the international baccalaureate to be offered in many more settings across the country, and for it to be a genuinely equal opportunity that lifts up many students, where do they propose finding the money to do that? The Government are putting additional money into the 16-to-19 system, which I will come on to in a moment, but Members are defending a system that applies to only a very small minority, and that is not equally spread. It is a fantastic opportunity for students, but this Government’s focus, as it will always be, is on opportunity for all.
Ms Billington
I gently remind the Minister that, simply because people live in the south-east, it does not mean they are dripping in gold. My constituency in particular experiences distinct levels of deprivation; only 10% of our children manage to pass the Kent test in East Thanet. The opportunity to access the international baccalaureate is vital for those deprived communities. We all know that there are extreme levels of deprivation in this country both across geographical areas and in pockets. I remind the Minister that, in these circumstances, we need to ensure that we have an education policy that reaches the most deprived in places like mine, as much as in places like his.
Josh MacAlister
I agree that we need to ensure that opportunity goes to those who are furthest from it. My point is that this system does not provide an equal opportunity for many young people in how it is allocated at the moment. Even in institutions in the south where there are large numbers of young people frozen out of opportunities, the ones offering the international baccalaureate are overwhelmingly not offering it to those young people from disadvantaged backgrounds. That is an important point to make in this debate.
Before I move on to overall funding, my final point is that we gave notice of this decision in October, which is ahead of other notifications about the 16-to-19 funding system. We have put in place transitional arrangements for those students who are currently midway through the international baccalaureate.
What is the reality of the funding that the Government are giving to sixth form and FE colleges? The Government have made the decision to increase overall spending on the 16-to-19 system, from £7.6 billion last year to £8.6 billion this year. That reflects a significant increase in not only the number of students but the funding rates, including the base rate of funding per student across 16-to-19 settings, going up by 5.4% to over £5,000. The extra funding for low prior attainment and for children in care is going up by 6.8% this year, and an extra level of funding for resit English and maths is going up by 11.5% this year.
That represents a significant increase in the 16-to-19 funding settlement for the whole system. Within it, colleges and sixth form settings have the freedom of choice to prioritise across their programmes what they teach, including the international baccalaureate. The LPU adds an additional 20% on top of that. I have already highlighted that the LPU is tiny as a percentage of the overall funding for 16 to 19. As a Government we want to make sure that goes into opportunities for the broadest number of students.
Finally, some broad points reflecting on this debate about opportunity and the Government’s priorities. I appreciate the points that hon. Members have made about the choices made by the Government and that many hon. Members wish us to keep the large programme uplift focused as it now is. However, when we add all of the things that hon. Members want to prioritise across the education system, while they may not seem like huge amounts of money individually, taken together they always lead to choices about priorities. The Government are absolutely focused on raising standards, in part because the soft bigotry of low expectations that we have inherited from the 14 years of the previous Government.
I want to say a few things about that. Our work on early years and the huge investment in childcare and breakfast clubs—so that young people can start their education on an even basis—is built off the fact that the coalition Government demolished 3,500 Sure Start centres. The long tail of that for young people’s attainment, especially those from deprived backgrounds, is felt to this day.
Saqib Bhatti
I have to challenge that point. I said that the Minister was a fair man—if I did not, I will say it now—but, if he is being fair, will he acknowledge that the Conservatives started the investment in childcare programme that the Government have continued?
Josh MacAlister
What the Conservative Government did not do was ensure that there was a fiscal position left to fund those sorts of commitments. I will give the hon. Gentleman and the previous Government credit for building on some of the excellent work that had been started under the last Labour Government around phonics, a focus on improving maths and some of the curriculum changes. I give credit where it is due on those.
We now see year 8 students falling behind in their reading—and the Government will be saying more about that in the curriculum and assessment review. That is why we will be introducing reading checks with a focus on standards. Those will mean every young person—regardless of the cash their parents have in their pockets—does well and that on finishing secondary school has equal opportunities and choice to take their talents as far as they can in 16 to 19.
Finally, we will have record levels of investment in the 16-to-19 system. That will include a focus on the scandal of the constant cycle of young people not reaching the level of English and maths needed by the time that they finish secondary school, and being washed around again and again in a resit system that is not fit for purpose. We are rebuilding and investing in that system to ensure that we get that second, third or fourth chance for every young person so that they can get into work and benefit from the opportunities that come from it.
The soft bigotry of low expectations is growing educational inequality. That is what we inherited. It is a million young people not in education, employment or training and the moral scandal that that represents. It is underfunding our 16-to-19 education system year after year so that far too few young people get the quality of teaching needed and there is not support for staff to ensure that young people have their needs meet. It means that we have not had equal and widespread access to a rigorous curriculum for children and young people in the 16-to-19 system across the country—which is what they deserve.
Olly Glover
I shall be concise so that we can be away well before 11. I thank everybody for attending the debate. It is welcome to have had contributions from all three main parties. It was predominantly a well-spirited debate, with a lot of agreement.
It was good to hear about schools other than Europa that offer the IB: Hockerill Anglo-European college, Torquay boys grammar school, Truro and Penwith college, the Anglo European school in Ingatestone, Dartford grammar school, Dane Court grammar school and Varndean college—and Impington Village college, which my hon. Friend the Member for St Neots and Mid Cambridgeshire (Ian Sollom) mentioned; I must not forget that one. All hon. Members who talked about the schools in or near their constituencies highlighted the huge benefits and value that they bring to parents, local communities and children—and at a relatively small additional cost, as the Minister himself acknowledged.
The Minister’s wider comments about what he and the Government are doing to boost education were welcome. I understand what he said about constrained budgets, but too often in politics, and in life in general, we hear false dichotomies—“It is either this or that”, and things are pitted against each other—and many in my constituency will have been disappointed to hear what he had to say.
The debate was well-spirited, with the exception of the remarks of the hon. Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Helen Hayes). Of course, when a Government encounter difficult financial circumstances, they have to make difficult choices, as we did when we were one seventh of a Government. However, I find staggering the hypocrisy of a Government with a gigantic majority who, having lectured everybody else about tuition fees for 15 years, decide to increase them by pegging them to inflation. The key thing I often hear from constituents on the doorstep, whether in relation to this issue or others, is that this Government simply do not listen, and that they have authoritarian, monolithic instincts—expecting everybody to be the same.
Although the Minister said a lot of good things that the Government are doing, sadly, from what has been said today, my constituents and Europa School will feel that this Government have the listening skills of a slab of concrete. I hope to be proven wrong; I hope that in time the Minister will listen to the representations here and elsewhere, reflect, and reconsider.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered funding for the International Baccalaureate in state schools.