Teachers: Music, Drama, Art and Design, and Dance

Debate between Baroness Smith of Malvern and Lord Mohammed of Tinsley

Monday 17th November 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

I completely agree with the noble Lord. That is why, as well as investing in all teachers and seeing the results of teachers coming into the profession, we are making specific contributions by funding the over 40 music hubs, which exist across the country to support the very best teaching of music, and the music opportunities pilot. That will ensure that more young people, particularly those who are disadvantaged or who have special educational needs and disabilities, will be able to play an instrument or sing to a high standard.

[Lord Mohammed of Tinsley (LD)]

My Lords, when discussing the Curriculum and Assessment Review last week, the Minister highlighted that creative subjects will no longer be the privilege of the lucky few. Rural and smaller schools often struggle to attract specialist teachers in creative subjects. How will they deliver a full, high-quality creative curriculum?

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

That is precisely why we need the 6,500 new teachers in secondary and special schools to which the Government have committed. By not only committing to but investing in the profession, we are already delivering results through the increased numbers of teachers that we are seeing. Through the music hub programme, which I discussed previously, we also need to ensure that there are opportunities for teachers to understand the best way both to teach music and to enable their students to have the joy that comes from understanding and enjoying music and either playing instruments or singing.

Curriculum and Assessment Review

Debate between Baroness Smith of Malvern and Lord Mohammed of Tinsley

Monday 10th November 2025 Lords Chamber

[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.

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

I start by welcoming the noble Lord, Lord Mohammed of Tinsley, to his new role on the Front Bench. I will do my best to cover the points made by the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, and the noble Lord—although I note that, for the second time in a row in responding to a Statement, I have less time to respond than the two Opposition Front-Benchers took to ask me questions.

I start by thanking Professor Becky Francis and those who contributed through her panel and in the consultation. This is a review driven by evidence, informed by data and which has relied on input from experts, the sector and the public. The national curriculum ensures a common entitlement to share in the core wisdom that we as a nation most value. An ambition for a curriculum of high standards was of course led by James Callaghan in his great education debate and delivered by the noble Lord, Lord Baker, in the first national curriculum in 1988.

Successive Governments have understood that, as the world changes, so must the curriculum that prepares our young people for success in that world. That is why this is a national curriculum that will ensure both rock-solid foundations in oracy, reading, writing and maths but also the development of the sorts of skills necessary for young people to be able to succeed in the world today.

On the particular points about accountability in relation to the EBacc, while I can understand the objectives of the EBacc, unfortunately, it did not achieve them. We have seen no increase in the numbers of students aged 16 to 19, for example, who took up subjects focused on in the EBacc. The levels of students taking modern foreign language GCSE increased to begin with but is now at broadly the same level as it was in 2009-10. Of course, the result has been to narrow the curriculum and ease out arts and creative subjects.

In relation to Progress 8, we will consult on how to continue to provide a strong academic core—which we believe our proposals will do—while balancing breadth and student choice. Languages and humanities of course continue to be incentivised in the proposed Progress 8 accountability measure.

On the important point made by the noble Baroness opposite about attendance and behaviour, I am sure she will recognise the work this Government have continued to do—some of it undoubtedly based on work she did—to improve attendance. I am sure she will welcome the fact that children were in school for 5 million more days in the most recent academic year than the year previously.

This is a substantial change, as noble Lords have said, and that is why we are making only changes that are essential. We will support teachers through the resources made available through the Oak Academy, including AI learning assistance to support teachers. There are 2,300 more teachers already in our secondary and special schools as a result of our focus on delivering 6,500 more teachers. We have seen an increase in the number of music teachers entering initial teacher training, which is one of the reasons for the changes in the bursary. Of course, 1,300 fewer teachers are leaving the profession.

We will provide sufficient time to implement this by producing the new national curriculum in spring 2027, with the first teaching to commence in 2028. That will provide four terms’ worth of preparation to deliver the national curriculum—more than was the case the last time it was changed.

On triple science, we will work with schools to see what is necessary to enable them to provide that entitlement for all pupils. For example, we are already providing support for non-physics science teachers to teach physics.

The curriculum has not been updated for over a decade, and parents want one that is fit for the future. We need a knowledge-rich education, which is central to ensuring high and rising standards for every child, and a curriculum that will help children shape their own futures and the future of our country. It must include digital skills for a digital age and the speaking and listening skills that employers value. Music, sport, art and drama will no longer be the privilege of a lucky few. We will have standards that will enable all children to benefit and to deliver their potential, whatever their starting point.

Post-16 Education and Skills Strategy

Debate between Baroness Smith of Malvern and Lord Mohammed of Tinsley

Wednesday 22nd October 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

My noble friend is right that, over recent years, the doubling of the effective subcontracting of university education through franchising has led to concerns around the quality for students and the value for money for the taxpayer. That is why we will take action to register providers of franchised provision and we will strengthen the ability of the Office for Students to tackle poor provision where it is found.

[Lord Mohammed of Tinsley (LD)]

I support the comments of my noble friend Lord Storey and the noble Lord, Lord Knight, on NEETs and funding for them. One of the issues about NEETs is the “not known” figure. We might know the young people who are not in employment, education or training, but often there is a cohort who are not known, and that is where investment in information, advice, guidance and youth work will be essential.

I have two questions for the Minister about lifelong learning. There is a glaring omission from the Statement, and that is post-21 apprenticeships. Lifelong learning does not end at 21, and I would like the Government to look again at the cuts being made to those apprenticeships in the health sector, et cetera. The noble Lord, Lord Storey, asked about the assessment of the cut to the international baccalaureate, and what impact that will have on transnational students, particularly those who want to study abroad as well.

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

First, there is an increase in the number of apprenticeships that have started under this Government. Secondly, on the issue of the international baccalaureate, colleges and schools will continue to receive funding to provide courses, including the international baccalaureate. What they will not receive is the additional top-up that they have for the international baccalaureate, because this Government have made the decision to focus that on maths and STEM subjects, where people take larger numbers of courses. Prioritising those areas is a legitimate decision. Where the IB is being taught, there will be transitional support as the top-up is removed.

Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill

Debate between Baroness Smith of Malvern and Lord Mohammed of Tinsley

Thursday 3rd July 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

I also very much enjoyed the bookbags my boys carried backwards and forwards to school, but I am not sure that trumps what the Government are trying to achieve in reducing the cost of school uniforms. Of course, any school that felt that was crucial could of course include it in the three branded items in the legislative proposals.

[Lord Mohammed of Tinsley (LD)]

From the debate we have just had, It is clear noble Lords have a keen interest in school uniforms. I am going to keep my submission brief. I thank everyone; I think we are all on the same page in the sense that we want to reduce the cost of school uniforms. We have different ideas, but that is what your Lordships’ House is about; we come here together to improve legislation from the other place.

I am keen that we pursue this. I see that in the other place the Government are in a spirit of reflection and review of policies. I hope that spirit wheels its way down the Corridor to here. Then we can also say that, yes, the Government have an ambition of reducing the cost, but we also have ideas that warrant looking at. They may well be ideas that work better. I hope the Government think about it as we move to the next stage of the Bill, so I beg leave to withdraw Amendment 195.

Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill

Debate between Baroness Smith of Malvern and Lord Mohammed of Tinsley

Thursday 19th June 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

My Lords, this Government are committed to protecting children from serious harm and ensuring that they can access the right level of support at the right time. That is what the amendments in this group seek, rightly, to pursue and challenge on.

Amendment 159, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Mohammed, is on the establishment of a child protection authority, as recommended in the final report of the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse. Just to be clear, this Government have made a series of announcements that demonstrate our commitment to strengthen the response to child sexual abuse and exploitation. Establishing a child protection authority was one that we have, in looking at the recommendations from IICSA, committed quite clearly to. I was a bit unclear about the charge made by the noble Lord that we had not accepted that recommendation. In the Government’s update on our work to tackle child sexual abuse, published in April, we announced that we would establish a child protection authority in England. As the noble Lord says, this will help to make the child protection system clearer and more unified and ensure ongoing improvement through effective support for practitioners.

Of course, there will be lots of questions about what form the authority takes and its scope—some were raised today by the noble Baroness, Lady Berridge, with specific questions on safeguarding. I reassure the noble Baroness that we have absolutely aligned the work on the CPA with the out-of-school settings call for evidence that she referenced. She identified that the design and the delivery of the authority require consultation, including with child protection experts and victim groups to ensure that it has the right constitution and the right powers. We have already begun our work towards a consultation on the child protection authority, and I assure the noble Baroness that we will engage with key stakeholders as part of this process. We will consult on developing the new child protection authority this year, and the consultation will set out in more detail the proposed roles, responsibilities and powers of the authority.

However, we do not want to wait until we are able to set up the child protection authority in full to take action—there has arguably been too long a delay in acting on the recommendations of IICSA—so we have also already begun to strengthen the national Child Safeguarding Practice Review Panel on some of the key aspects IICSA envisaged for the child protection authority. In 2025-26, we are increasing the resources at the panel’s disposal so that it can increase its analytical capacity and its ability to develop high-quality material for practitioners.

That is part of the overall action that this Government are taking: the strongest possible action to tackle child sexual exploitation, including immediate action to take forward all 12 of the recommendations for change from the noble Baroness, Lady Casey, which were published in her audit just this week. That includes setting up a new national inquiry, with which government departments will co-operate fully to make sure we are tackling this vile crime and supporting victims and survivors. The noble Baroness, Lady Casey, also recommended that the mandatory sharing of information be enforced between all statutory safeguarding partners in cases of child sexual abuse and exploitation. The child protection authority will play a critical role in addressing this recommendation through national oversight of the child protection system and supporting the co-ordination between agencies. Of course, provisions within this legislation are already taking forward other elements of the IICSA recommendations.

Amendment 160, also tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Mohammed, aims to reduce regional variations in the type, frequency and duration of support that children receive under Section 17 of the Children Act 1989, which, of course, places a general duty on local authorities to safeguard and promote the welfare of any child in need by providing appropriate support and services. Here, I fear that I disagree with the noble Lord’s analysis. Prescriptive national criteria with automatic referrals would risk narrowing the cohort of children and limiting local flexibility in providing support. Section 17 rightly allows local authorities discretion to provide support and services based on local need and resources. On this at least—and on other things as well—the noble Baroness, Lady Barran and I are in agreement. A danger of being specific in the way suggested is that groups are left out, narrowing the cohort who receive support—exactly, in fact, what the amendment is seeking to avoid.

It is not the case, as the noble Lord suggested, that there is no national guidance. There has recently been strengthening of the statutory guidance, Working Together to Safeguard Children, to make it explicit that local authorities and safeguarding partners should publish a threshold document for statutory services under Section 17 so that there is clarity for those working within an authority area about what that threshold would be and what action they should take. Furthermore, Ofsted inspects whether these local thresholds are set appropriately.

Working Together is clear that plans setting out support and services for children should be reviewed regularly against progress. All this comes within the broader context of our reforms to family help and multiagency child protection, which we have talked about at some length in earlier proceedings on the Bill and in Committee—reforms precisely aimed at supporting provision at an earlier stage for identifying children who will need support and wrapping that around them, and reforms backed by over £500 million of investment in this financial year and supported by additional investment made available in last week’s spending review for future years. These will provide help for families at the point of need and decisive action when protection is needed.

While I accept that the noble Lord raised important issues about the current working of the system and the need to develop the child protection authority for all the reasons that he spelt out, I hope that I have addressed some of his concerns and reassured noble Lords that this Government are committed to protecting children from significant harm, providing the right support at the right time and, ultimately, improving outcomes so that all children can thrive. On that basis, I hope the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Mohammed of Tinsley (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baronesses, Lady Berridge and Lady Barran, and the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, for their interventions and comments, some of which I agree with and some I may not agree with—but that is the nature of the Committee; we are here to debate and improve Bills that come forward from the Government. I welcome the comments from the Minister, particularly on the national protection agency. Clearly, the devil will be in the detail about its powers and how it functions, rather than just establishing the authority.

On Amendment 160, I clearly still have issues with the disparity between some local authorities having up to 60% of young people in their care with child in need plans and others having 20%, as in the examples I gave. My aim was to raise this in Committee and hopefully for the Minister to look into it. I will continue to press and probe as this Bill travels through your Lordships’ House but, on this occasion, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.