Curriculum and Assessment Review

Debate between Baroness Barran and Lord Mohammed of Tinsley

Monday 10th November 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Barran (Con)]

They will get 20 minutes.

To take one example of curriculum change and how to spot misinformation, as Daisy Christodoulou wrote in her recent blog on the Pacific Northwest tree octopus, there is a risk that we end up with simple checklists that aim to identify misinformation but which, in practice, work only if the pupil has enough knowledge to assess it. Will the Government take the advice of experts in this area and pilot the changes to this element of the curriculum that they propose?

Will the Minister clarify the timing of the introduction of the new curriculum? As noble Lords may have worked out, it will be 2042 before there are 18 year-olds whose whole schooling has been shaped by this review. The elements that risk eroding quality will kick in very quickly; those that might improve it are far, far away. I hope the Minister can also reassure us that, as Professor Becky Francis herself said, the things that will influence outcomes for disadvantaged pupils in the short term—notably, attendance and behaviour—are also outside the curriculum.

[Lord Mohammed of Tinsley (LD)]

My Lords, I too begin by thanking Professor Becky Francis for her Curriculum and Assessment Review report. There is much in this final report that we on these Benches can welcome. Indeed, quite a few of the ideas bear a distinctly Liberal Democrat imprint: renewed emphasis on a broad and balanced curriculum; the recognition that every child must be offered both rigour and breadth; and the Government’s acceptance of the need for more digital, arts-based and citizenship education.

However, while the ambition is high, the risks are real, particularly for those children whose life chances depend on a system that works for all, not only for the privileged few. If we are serious about social mobility, these reforms must be equally serious about substance, delivery and equity.

I will speak a little more about social mobility and equality of opportunity—an issue close to my heart given my lived experience of the UK’s education system. The Francis review rightly emphasises that the national curriculum must be for every child, and that one of its purposes is

“to ensure that … all young people are not held back by background or circumstance”.

Yet the danger is that without an underpinning investment and workforce plan, these reforms will continue existing inequalities.

Let us consider triple science. The ambition to give more students access to deeper science study is admirable. However, I am not sure whether the Minister is aware that across England, a quarter of state schools have no specialist physics teacher. Without addressing the recruitment and retention crisis in science and other shortage subjects, we risk fundamentally disadvantaging children in less-resourced schools, many of whom are from more deprived backgrounds.

Similarly, while the arts and digital education are flagged in the final report, the parallel removal of bursaries for music teacher training is concerning. Rising teacher vacancies in music and creative subjects, and underinvestment in enrichment, threaten to drive a two-tier curriculum: one for those who attend well-resourced schools, another for everyone else.

I turn to the structure of performance measures and subject choices. The scrapping of the English baccalaureate is not in itself a problem; the problem lies in how its replacement may unintentionally narrow choice rather than broaden it. The new proposals around Progress 8 reform, with dedicated slots for science and breadth subjects, may incentivise schools to pick the cheapest route to satisfy buckets rather than ensuring rich subject access. Our schools will be under pressure to hit headline measures, which may lead schools to steer pupils away from the arts, languages and physical education.

If we are serious about social mobility, we cannot allow the curriculum for large numbers of children to become a bare-minimum choice which gives them fewer options than their more fortunate peers. A child in a deprived area should not be streamed into the narrowest option simply because the school’s performance indicators push them there.

Finally, I will touch on the issues of teacher supply, funding and implementation; they all require teachers, time, training and money. Without proper workforce planning, the ambitions of the final report will collapse under the weight of underresourced schools. The Government must clarify how the reforms are to be funded; how many additional teachers will be recruited in shortage areas; and how all schools, regardless of location, will be supported to deliver the new entitlement. If a child in Sheffield, or anywhere else outside a privileged postcode, is left behind because their school cannot deliver the new curriculum, the promise of a “world-class curriculum for all” becomes a hollow slogan.

Before I conclude, I would like to pose a number of questions to the Minister that I hope she will address in her response to your Lordships’ House. First, what workforce strategy does the Department for Education have in place specifically to deal with the specialist teacher shortages in subjects such as physics, music and languages, given that many schools in disadvantaged areas currently have none?

Also, what assessment has the department made of the impact of narrowing the curriculum on students from lower-income backgrounds? How will the reforms not widen the attainment gap? How will the Government monitor and evaluate whether the new curriculum and assessment changes improve both attainment and life chances for students from underrepresented groups, and will data be published by socioeconomic backgrounds, regions, disability status and other key equality indicators?

Can the Minister also explain why the Government have not progressed with all of the Francis review’s recommendations?

Finally, this report offers not just change but an opportunity to build an education system that is truly inclusive, ambitious and equitable. However, ambition must be matched by resources, rights must be matched by access and the reforms must be implemented with a resolve to ensure that no child is left behind. If we wish to talk of social mobility, we must mean it; if we wish to talk about opportunity, we must support it; and if we wish to talk of education for all, that must include children from communities such as mine in Sheffield, where aspiration is in abundance but where barriers remain real. The proposals are good, but only if we deliver them properly. I look forward to the Minister’s response.