Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill

Baroness Bousted Excerpts

Thursday 1st May 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Bousted (Lab)]

My Lords, the party opposite claims that education was transformed during its period in office and that this Bill will undo many of the gains made. In the short time I have available, I would like to set some of the record straight. During that period I was general secretary of the Association of Teachers and Lecturers and, from 2017, joint general secretary of the National Education Union, which represents 500,000 members—teachers, leaders and support staff—who, as many Members in this House have affirmed, are the professionals who teach and support our children and young people, and I commend their work today.

Under the party opposite, there was the scandal of “the forgotten third”—the third of all 16 year-olds who failed to get a grade 4 at GCSE English and maths. Under the party opposite, they were denied the help and support they so desperately needed in order to take their place as productive members of society. They were condemned to endless resits of GCSE English and maths, with very low pass rates, unable to get an apprenticeship or to access other routes into training and learning to turn their fortunes around. The party opposite left the most deprived young people stranded. As the noble Lord, Lord Baker, said recently, there are now 750,000 youngsters under 25 who are permanently unemployed. That is a disgrace, and it happened on the watch of the party opposite.

Money talks. Figures from the Institute for Fiscal Studies show that, from 2010 to 2020, spending per pupil in England fell by 9% in real terms. That had huge consequences for the education that schools were able to provide and was compounded by a huge rise in child poverty. But, shamefully, schools serving deprived communities saw the biggest fall in funding of all schools, of 14%. The party opposite professes to care for the most disadvantaged, but in practice during this period it reduced the amount of support needed by the most vulnerable children and young people.

Then there is the party opposite’s apparent alarm at the measure contained in this Bill that all children and young people, whichever school they attend, should follow a broad and balanced national curriculum. The current curriculum in England’s schools is one of the narrowest in the OECD, both pre 16 and post 16. Since 2010, there has been a dramatic and worrying decline in the numbers of pupils studying arts subjects—a 73% decline in GCSE entries for design and technology, 45% for drama and 41% for music. That is why this Bill’s provision of a broad and balanced curriculum for all pupils is absolutely necessary. It is their entitlement. “Broad and balanced” does not mean an overstuffed curriculum; it should, and I am sure will, allow for specialism and appropriate choice. This is a wholly welcome measure.

Then there is the teacher supply problem, which has become a crisis confected by the party opposite. I am chair of the University College London teaching commission looking at this issue. It is shameful that the most deprived children, who most need to be taught by qualified teachers, are the most likely to be taught by teachers who are not qualified in the subject they are teaching—temporary and unqualified teachers. That is why it is so important that all who teach in our schools have, or are working towards, qualified teacher status. This is a social justice issue.

For the party opposite, which reduced spending in schools in such a savage way in real terms over a decade, to support unfilled places throughout the country in order for academies to determine their pupil intake is, frankly, unbelievable. How much more taxpayers’ money would be needed to support this wasteful idea? Surely this is a prime example of an ideology that supports structures, not standards.

The Bill is ambitious. It is positive for all our children and young people. It is proportionate and necessary. I fully support it and commend it to the House.