Curriculum and Assessment Review
Debate between Lord Holmes of Richmond and Baroness Smith of Malvern(1 month, 1 week ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Holmes of Richmond (Con)
I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper, and declare my technology and financial services interests as set out in the register.
The Minister of State, Department for Education (Baroness Smith of Malvern) (Lab)
My Lords, the curriculum and assessment review is independent. The review will make recommendations to the Government based on evidence and widespread sector engagement. The ambition in the review’s terms of reference is for
“a curriculum that ensures … young people leave compulsory education ready for life and ready for work”,
with digital skills. This may include the other areas that the noble Lord mentions, but it will be for the review to consider that in the context of its overall recommendations.
Lord Holmes of Richmond (Con)
Does the Minister agree that we need not only to significantly increase the levels and quantity of digital, AI, media and financial education but to ensure that it is personalised, flexible, relevant and responsive? One reason alone is that low levels of financial literacy currently cost the country £20 billion and individuals at the sharp end almost £500 a year. Does she agree that if we enable the levels of literacy we need, this will deliver immeasurable benefits to individual flourishing, levels of innovation and economic, social and psychological growth, for the benefit of us all?
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
The noble Lord makes an important point about the breadth that we need in the teaching that goes on in our schools and in the skills, attributes and knowledge that young people have when they leave school to enter into life and into work, as I said. That is why this Government set up the curriculum and assessment review: to use the evidence being gained from the wider engagement to make recommendations about how we can improve on providing skills in all those areas, and particularly ensure that the curriculum supports students with special educational needs and those from disadvantaged backgrounds, to close some of the gaps in pupils’ learning.
Special Educational Needs
Debate between Lord Holmes of Richmond and Baroness Smith of Malvern(2 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
My noble friend is absolutely right. That is why, as part of the 10-year plan for change and modernisation in the NHS, I am assured that there will be a focus on reducing the length of waiting times and improving the provision of autism services. The SEND Code of Practice is also clear that meeting the needs of a child with special educational needs and autism does not require a diagnostic label or a test. We expect schools and colleges to monitor the progress of all pupils and put support in place where needed. There has been some good work—for example, by the Autism Education Trust—to provide a range of training and support for staff on autism. However, it is clear that there is more we need to do, both to identify and then to support children and young people in this situation.
Lord Holmes of Richmond (Con)
My Lords, what is the Government’s plan to have the right level of SENCO support throughout our education system? Similarly, what are the Government going to do in terms of access to clinicians and experts for the preparation of reports? It cannot continue to be a matter of those who can pay, paying, and those who cannot, sadly, having to wait and often ending up in an endless loop, never ending up getting the diagnosis and help they require.
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
The noble Lord is right that in an education, health and care plan, the health element is also very important. As my noble friend identified, where there are delays in getting a diagnosis, that can also mean that children and young people are not getting the support that they need in schools or being identified for additional support within those schools, which is wrong. That is precisely why the Government are determined to make the long-term fundamental reform that will support inclusive mainstream schools for the early identification and support of children, and also ensure that where special schools are needed, there is a place in them for the most complex needs.