Key Stage 1 Curriculum

Caroline Voaden Excerpts

Monday 26th January 2026 Westminster Hall

[Caroline Voaden (South Devon) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Barker. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for South Cotswolds (Dr Savage) for opening the debate with such a well-argued and passionate speech that went to the heart of this debate. I commend Ruth Lue-Quee and all the petitioners for starting the petition, and the 106,082 people who signed it. I also wish the son of the hon. Member for St Helens North (David Baines) a happy birthday.

What is play for? What benefits can it bring to children? And why is it more important than ever that we enable children to learn through play, both inside the classroom and out? Most importantly, perhaps, why should educational play stop at age five in England? Anyone who has spent time watching children play can see that they are learning all the time: their young brains are puzzling over how to do something and they collaborate with friends, finding solutions to whatever challenges they have set themselves, building resilience and learning the art of perseverance.

As someone who has recently welcomed a grandchild into the family, the algorithm has found me, and I now regularly see posts about Montessori play on my feeds. There are brilliant ideas for simple activities in which young children can engage that are fun, that are absorbing and that teach them crucial skills that they will carry with them as they grow. The best bit about it is that children do not know they are learning. They are not being told to sit down, be quiet or work at a set pace. They are enjoying themselves, going at their own speed, working things out as they go and quietly developing their little brains as they play.

We often say in this place that high-quality education is the best possible investment we can make in the future of our country. As the bedrock of everything that follows, the early years are crucial, laying that foundation stone for learning, wellbeing and opportunity. From ages four to seven, significant socio-emotional and physical changes are taking place. For example, at four years old, children start to expand their vocabulary and express their needs through words rather than actions. At five, they start to develop empathy for others and, at six, they begin to experience multiple emotions simultaneously. These are crucial and long-standing developments that shape a child’s character for life, so it is vital that during these formative years children have access for the most appropriate learning methods that nurture their curiosity, creativity and critical thinking—the skills that will help them thrive as adults.

Evidence suggests that during this period of a child’s life, play-based learning can have a positive impact on communication, as well as emotional and physical development, but being outside, getting wet and muddy, sliding around, climbing over things and exploring their world is just as important as sitting inside playing with building bricks or doing puzzles.

Children develop their knowledge and skills in the most meaningful way by doing things that they want to do. The Lego “Play Well Report”, based on nearly 13,000 responses from parents and children, found that 83% of children say they learn better when it “feels like play”. Through play, children have the space and time to make connections in their learning, try things out, make mistakes and learn how to do better next time. Hon. Members from across the House have shared personal experiences, input from teachers and academic evidence that all show the importance of learning from play.

Parents in this country recognise that play helps build the skills that lead to academic success, as well as how important play is to foster creative, sociable and emotionally resilient adults. Critics of play in the classroom often have the misconception that play is only unstructured fun—noisy children mindlessly running around like headless chickens without a care in the world, but as my hon. Friend the Member for South Cotswolds explained, that is not what we are talking about today, as important as it is.

Guided play within the classroom gives children the opportunity to learn and develop in a no-pressure environment, approaching tasks at their own pace and in their own way. The 2023 Ofsted report “International perspectives on early years” agrees with this, highlighting how teaching and play are difficult to separate, with adults likely to be teaching children during play—whether that be free or guided, or unconsciously or consciously.

Other countries have play embedded in their curriculum. In Sweden, the curriculum guidance explicitly states that both free and guided play should be a part of education, and that a child has a right to both these types of play. In Finland, school does not start until age seven, but high-quality early years education is widely available and affordable. Finnish early years programmes focus on children’s holistic development, with an emphasis on play as the primary mode of learning, where teachers act as guides for the child’s exploration.

However, we do not need to look only overseas for inspiration; we can also look at alternative approaches to education here. I recently visited a school in my constituency that follows the play-based Steiner-Waldorf education system. That approach focuses on holistic development through self-directed imaginative play, fostering creativity, social skills and nature connection before age seven. Children are encouraged to engage in uninterrupted free play, nurturing their creativity and allowing them to form and then express their own experiences. Teachers function centrally as role models, teaching not through instruction but through action, which children can then imitate.

Crucially, the Steiner approach includes significant amounts of time spent outdoors, regardless of the weather, to ensure that children connect with nature, improving their physical health and providing them with wonderful educational opportunities. It also helps build that deep connection with nature, which we will need for future generations to care about and promote the protection of our natural world. I commend all the schools in South Devon that prioritise forest school as a way of teaching and nurturing children so well through outdoor play.

I am convinced that there are aspects of the Steiner style of teaching that should be considered more seriously by our mainstream education system, especially for little children in their formative years. It may be dismissed by many as weird hippy nonsense, but it is much more serious than that. We should keep an open mind when approaching how we best educate children during this crucial period of their lives.

The Liberal Democrats believe in broad, balanced and forward-looking early years education that prepares students to excel, both in school and outside the classroom. Play-based education must be a part of that, and should not stop at five years old. Playing is important throughout life, though it might change somewhat as the years progress. As this petition highlights, the Government acknowledge the importance of play in achieving this in their early years foundation stage statutory framework. The framework details how play is essential to children’s development, building their confidence as they learn to explore, relate to others, set their own goals and solve problems. Children learn by leading their own play, by taking part in play, and through learning that is guided by adults.

A child’s fundamental development does not stop when they leave reception, so why do the Government think that play is important only until the age of five? Why is England lagging behind the other nations of the UK? To address those inconsistencies, the Liberal Democrats call on the Government to explore how play-based learning could be effectively implemented within the key stage 1 curriculum in England, including through consultation with teachers and schools. This is not about enrichment, but play-structured learning in the classroom.

I hope the Government will take a good, hard look at how play can best be incorporated into our curriculum, given the extensive benefits it can provide, as hon. Members have laid out so eloquently.

Oral Answers to Questions

Caroline Voaden Excerpts

Monday 19th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Josh MacAlister]

I thank the right hon. Member for his read-out of the discussion that took place during the most recent shadow Cabinet meeting, where this was a lively topic of debate. Britain is not broken; it has huge and deep potential, best found in our children. We were pleased to see the last Conservative Government take forward many of the reforms initiated under the last Labour Government, and this Labour Government will be doubling down on the measures that are needed to break down barriers to opportunity at every stage.

[Caroline Voaden (South Devon) (LD)]

3. What steps her Department is taking to improve teacher retention.

[The Secretary of State for Education (Bridget Phillipson)]

Labour is boosting teacher recruitment and retention in order to put 6,500 new expert teachers in front of our classrooms. We have boosted teachers’ pay by nearly 10% and have taken action to improve wellbeing, and we continue to offer the targeted retention incentive, which is worth up to £6,000 after tax. Under the Tories, teachers were leaving schools in droves; under Labour, we have seen one of the lowest leaver rates since 2010.

[Caroline Voaden]

A speech about teacher retention that I made in Westminster Hall recently has been seen by more than 135,000 people on Instagram, and there have been hundreds of comments from teachers. They speak of pay not rewarding experience and far too much time being spent on administration and tests, but it is also clear that safeguarding incidents and poor pupil behaviour are driving teachers out of the profession. We know that both those improve radically when pupils spend less time on social media, so will the Secretary of State commit herself to looking carefully at the Liberal Democrat proposal to introduce film-style age ratings for all social media platforms, not just to help our teachers but to protect our children?

[Bridget Phillipson]

We will look carefully at any sensible proposals to ensure that we can keep our children safe online. I recognise the broader issues that the hon. Lady has raised, about behaviour being a factor that affects teachers’ experiences and about some of the wider pressures including those relating to safeguarding. I am proud of the fact that we are expanding free school meal provision and ending the two-child limit, lifting more than half a million children out of poverty, because we know that poverty is a big driver of many of the challenges faced by our brilliant teachers and school staff.

Length of the School Week

Caroline Voaden Excerpts

Monday 5th January 2026 Westminster Hall

[Caroline Voaden (South Devon) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Hobhouse, and I wish you a very happy new year. I thank the hon. Member for Lichfield (Dave Robertson) for opening the debate. He obviously has a lot of experience in the classroom and has taken the themes behind the petition very seriously. I start by sending out heartfelt thanks to teachers up and down the country; I hope they have all had a lovely Christmas break and I recognise how hard they are working, in increasingly challenging circumstances.

Having looked into the reasons behind the petition, it seems that one of the sentiments was that we need to do what we can to keep our teachers in the profession. Teachers are the most important asset in our education system, and with every year of experience gained they become more valuable. We want to see world-class teachers in our classrooms, with the appropriate training and support to deliver the best education to all our children.

However, we currently face a serious teacher retention problem. Heavy workloads created by unnecessary bureaucracy and increasingly challenging pupil behaviour are driving teachers to leave the profession. Although new teachers keep coming in, we are trying to fill a leaky bucket as more experienced teachers leave in droves.

The most recent Working Lives of Teachers and Leaders survey found that 68% of teachers and school leaders did not think they had an acceptable workload and 55% felt they did not have sufficient control over their workload. In the same survey, more than six in 10 teachers who responded said that they felt at least half their working time was spent on tasks other than teaching. Those findings highlight teachers’ growing frustration with an increasingly unmanageable workload, being swamped by administrative work when they just want to get on with actually teaching the kids.

The Education Select Committee, on which I sit, heard recently about the dire situation we are now in with teacher retention. We were told that 9% leave the profession within a year, a quarter leave within three years and a third within five years. Those figures are far too high and are deeply worrying. It is clear that unless we tackle the reasons for teachers leaving, we will not have a stable, effective and consistent workforce. It does not matter how many teachers we recruit, if we cannot hold on to them after just a few years.

It is therefore important to address the issue of retention, and to note that it is exacerbated in schools in deprived areas. The Public Accounts Committee found that

“34% of teachers in the most disadvantaged schools had less than five years of experience, compared to 20% in the least disadvantaged”,

a figure that highlights how it is even harder to keep teachers in disadvantaged schools, something that has a knock-on effect on the future life chances of students in those schools, who risk

“being locked out of particular careers due to a lack of trained teachers”.

For example,

“31% of schools in the most disadvantaged areas do not offer Computer Science A-level (compared to 11% in the least disadvantaged areas)”.

Those are imbalances that we absolutely must iron out.

On the proposal made in the petition, the Liberal Democrats do not believe that switching to a four-day school week is the answer to the recruitment and retention problem. Reducing the school week would create additional challenges for families, as has already been mentioned, but particularly in relation to—and I apologise to the hon. Member for Lichfield—childcare. It would be not only logistically challenging, but financially punishing: parents would need to find extra childcare or reduce their working hours, which would make it harder for them to pay household bills and create even more pressure in a relentless cost of living crisis, and would have a damaging effect on the wider economy.

The impact of a four-day week on children’s mental health has been mentioned—but, while many younger people would love an extra day in bed, would it not be better for us to look at the mental health of our young people in a much broader sense? How can we design schools and the curriculum to improve, rather than harm, the mental health of our young people? How can we have more variety, less pressure, and more creativity, music and sport? We could even look at draconian uniform policies and their impact on children’s mental health. Let us design a system that is so great that children want to be there five days a week, not less than they already are.

Although it might sound as though a four-day week for teachers would resolve the retention crisis in our schools, it is not a practical solution for the economy at large. Instead, the Liberal Democrats believe the Government should consider offering greater access to flexible working arrangements for teachers while maintaining the five-day school week. We should follow a balanced approach that seeks to reduce teacher workload and improve retention, while ensuring that pupils continue to receive a complete and varied education. Giving teachers the support they need in the classroom, with enough teaching assistants, has to be part of that too.

The Public Accounts Committee found that, disappointingly, the Department for Education does not seem to understand the root causes of

“why and where workload is high”,

despite workload being the top reason for teachers leaving. We are calling on the Government to take a serious look at teachers’ working conditions, ensuring that they fully understand teacher workload, better to address the issue of teacher retention.

Furthermore, while the only real action from the Government on this issue has been to pledge 6,500 additional teachers over the course of this Parliament, the Public Accounts Committee found that it is unclear how that pledge will be delivered or how progress measured, or

“what achieving it will mean for existing and forecast teacher shortages.”

The Department for Education could not give the Committee a clear explanation of how the pledge was calculated or how it will fill existing gaps, with an estimated need for up to 12,500 more teachers in colleges alone by 2028.

Considering that the last teacher recruitment and retention strategy was published in 2019 by a failing Conservative Government, the Liberal Democrats are calling for a comprehensive teacher workforce strategy to properly address teacher recruitment and retention. Such a strategy would include reforming the School Teachers Review Body to make it genuinely independent of Government and able to recommend fair pay rises for teachers, fully funded every year, with the aim of ensuring that every secondary school child is taught by a specialist teacher in their subject.

We would also ensure that teacher training is properly funded so that all trainee posts in school are paid. Finally, we would introduce a clear and properly funded programme of high-quality professional development for all teachers, including training on effective parental engagement. By focusing on retention, flexibility and proper support for the profession, we believe we can create the conditions teachers deserve and need to thrive, not only for their benefit, but for pupils and families as well.

Oral Answers to Questions

Caroline Voaden Excerpts

Monday 1st December 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Caroline Voaden (South Devon) (LD)]

In July, the Secretary of State promised a better SEND system, with strengthened support, improved access and more funding, yet even a charitable interpretation of the Office for Budget Responsibility’s analysis of the Government’s decision, announced at the Budget, to absorb SEND funding into core budgets shows several billion pounds of unfunded SEND commitments. Parents around the country are worried that the support that they have fought hard for their children to receive may now be taken away. Will she explain how she will deliver strengthened support, while seemingly having to cut billions from SEND funding through upcoming reforms? Can she guarantee that children will not lose support because of this change?

SEND Provision: Kent

Caroline Voaden Excerpts

Wednesday 12th November 2025 Westminster Hall

[Caroline Voaden (South Devon) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir John. I thank the hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Tony Vaughan) for securing this debate. He outlined some horrific stories of neglect and appalling treatment of children with SEND. I am not from Kent—I am from Devon—but all I can say is that I relate. We hear exactly the same horror stories in Devon, and I am sure right across the country it is absolutely shocking.

Children with special educational needs and disabilities and their families are the most vulnerable in our society. When these children do not get the support that they need, they will be less likely to be able to work and participate fully in society in later life, not to mention the issues that they face in the moment. Not only is providing the right support for these children vital for them, their families and their education, but it creates long-term economic benefits. It is not just economically right, though; it is morally right that we act to ensure that children with SEND have the best life chances both in Kent and across the country.

More than 20,000 children in Kent have an EHCP. Alongside all other local authorities, Kent has statutory duties to meet EHCP deadlines and offer provision, but it is facing rising demand and declining resources. Under the previous Conservative administration, SEND in Kent was put into special measures after it was identified that urgent action was needed to improve services: just 13% of EHCPs were completed within the statutory 20-week deadline in the year to March 2024. When the county was in special measures, however, there were some improvements: the provision of EHCPs by the deadline went up to 65%. As a result of the improvements, Kent was taken out of special measures, but my hon. Friend the Member for Tunbridge Wells (Mike Martin) is calling for Kent to remain in special measures to allow the improvements to continue.

Even during the period of improvement, quantity did not equal quality. As other Members have said, there has been a litany of mistakes on some of the EHCPs, including the incorrect names of schools, schools that do not exist, schools that are not approved, schools that do not have funding, incorrect needs and spelling mistakes—really basic errors. As a result, Kent county council received more than 500 complaints mentioning EHCPs in the year to July 2025.

When families complain, they are often told to go to a tribunal. Kent county council spent close to £2.2 million fighting parents in tribunals from 2021 to 2024—more than double any other county council. Families see this use of tribunals as a tactic to try to get them to give up seeking appropriate support for their children, and unsurprisingly, the tactic often works, because the tribunals are utterly gruelling, as we in Devon know as well. Families and children spend months preparing for them, the emotional toll is enormous and it sometimes costs as much as £8,000 to get the required legal advice. All the while, the child is not receiving the special education that their EHCP says they require, and delays sometimes stretch to more than a year. Most of these parents know that this is the education their children need. They know they are going to win, but they are forced to jump through hoops, on top of what they are already coping with, as parents of children with special needs and disabilities. It is truly appalling.

The last time my hon. Friend the Member for Tunbridge Wells—who is on paternity leave, so unfortunately cannot be with us today—spoke about this issue in this place, he raised the case of his constituent Ella, who has cerebral palsy and is nine years old. Her father told my hon. Friend about how, when the family complained that her EHCP had not been updated to meet her needs when she moved from nursery to school, and that their application for a placement at a specialist school was rejected with no consultation, they were told on both occasions to go to tribunal. Faced with no other option, Ella’s family opted to go to tribunal. They have now been given a date in May 2026, leaving them stuck for more than a year without a sufficient EHCP to meet Ella’s needs.

Between 2021 and 2024, 98% of SEND tribunals in Kent were successful for the parents, so it is clear that if the parents have the money, time and emotional bandwidth, they can go to tribunal and will be successful, albeit after a wait. However, many parents decide that they are not able, either financially or emotionally, to put themselves through that arduous process, and the same is true nationally. The parents who win that process are often those who are more able to advocate for themselves and their children, rather than those who are less able to do so. Local authorities lose nearly all the cases, wasting more than £70 million annually—£70 million that could be spent on supporting children, rather than fighting unnecessary legal battles.

Since Reform took over Kent county council, the situation has only got worse. Colleagues at the council report that Reform councillors are acting like clowns in a circus. Just six months after being elected, eight of them have either been suspended or expelled from their posts. It seems that Reform cannot run a bath, let alone a county council on which more than 1 million people rely. The chaos is only making the situation worse for vulnerable children with SEND, who need a council that will give them support. The June meeting on children, young people and education was postponed indefinitely, pushing back any support that might be provided. That was just one of a plethora of committee meetings, cabinet meetings and sub-committees that the incompetent Reform administration in Kent has cancelled because it is unable to deliver government.

Reform is simply unable to grapple with a crisis of this magnitude and scale. Worse, Reform is actively proposing withdrawing support from families with children with SEND. The hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage) has suggested removing home-to-school transport funding from some families. He said:

“There are things called parents”

for taking children to school, although he admitted some exceptions could be made for special needs students. Kent faces the largest bill of any council in England for providing home-to-school transport for SEND students at £68 million last year—the hon. Member for Ashford (Sojan Joseph) raised that issue.

The plan by the hon. Member for Clacton to cut school transport would be a disaster for parents who do not have the time or money to drive their children on hours-long round trips to special schools miles away, or might be driving other children in the opposite direction or trying to get to work. He would know this if he ever took the time to speak to the families struggling with this problem.

One Reform councillor in Cambridgeshire showed the party’s true disregard for supporting vulnerable young people when he recently described some children in care as “downright evil”. When given the opportunity to condemn those comments in Prime Minister’s Question Time earlier today, the hon. Member for Clacton refused. Many children in care have special educational needs and disabilities. Reform’s blaming of young people who need our support shows that it is simply not fit to deliver for children with SEND in Kent and across the country.

It is welcome that the Government now recognise that the system needs fundamental change, but their decision to delay the overhaul of SEND provision in England until 2026 is a betrayal of every child with SEND and their families who are looking for better solutions. To kick the can down the road could be an admission that the Government do not have a sense of urgency or that they are not sure what the solution is, but we do need urgent action. Owing to the delay, the detail of the Government’s plan remains unclear. Many families are worried that EHCPs will be scrapped or scaled back, with no idea yet of what could replace them. The uncertainty is understandably causing anxiety among parents who see the documents as the only way to secure the support that their child needs. The hon. Member for Gravesham (Dr Sullivan) spoke of the importance of some kind of legal protection around this support for families.

The Lib Dems introduced EHCPs in coalition—we are very proud of that. Before that, we had statements. If EHCPs are to be scrapped, families will still need some kind of statement of need to access services. Ultimately, the Government have to focus on the best way to meet needs and outcomes and not just focus on cost saving. As the Government are reviewing special educational needs and disabilities, it is important that the voices of children and families are heard. They see the system from the inside and experience its shortcomings. I know the Minister has met many families and campaigners and is listening.

After hearing those voices, the Liberal Democrats are also calling on the Government to commit to genuine change of the SEND system. We call for the Government’s White Paper next year to meet our five principles for SEND reform. Alongside putting children and families first, we call on the Government to boost special capacity and improve mainstream provision by building more specialist schools and investing in proper support in mainstream settings. The hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe talked about some very successful interventions elsewhere in the country. Models that do not cost huge amounts of money but offer a creative way of looking at the issue should definitely be explored and rolled out widely.

Early intervention must be improved and delays reduced, and schools need to be resourced to accept children with SEND, with staff trained in integrated teaching and care. To achieve that, funding will be required. That is why the Liberal Democrats are calling on the Government to cap the profits of private equity firms providing SEND provision at 8% to ensure that money is channelled back into the SEND system and not into the pockets of shareholders. We also call on the Government to provide support to any child whose needs exceed a specified cost threshold to ensure that no child is left behind.

The Liberal Democrats would welcome the Government working with us on a cross-party basis to ensure that reforms are delivered quickly. It is vital we get this right. Every child has the right, irrespective of postcode, background or need, to thrive.

[Sir John Hayes (in the Chair)]

Before I call the shadow Minister, I point out to the hon. Lady the courtesies and behaviour in the House. If you are going to name another Member, you should notify them in advance. Did you do that?

[Caroline Voaden]

As far as I am aware, we have done.

[Sir John Hayes (in the Chair)]

Right. I suggest you drop the hon. Member for Clacton a note to say that you raised him in the House and copy it to me. That would be wonderful.

[Caroline Voaden]

I think my office might already have done that. I will check.

[Sir John Hayes (in the Chair)]

Excellent. I call the shadow Minister, Saqib Bhatti.

International Baccalaureate: Funding in State Schools

Caroline Voaden Excerpts

Wednesday 29th October 2025 Westminster Hall

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[Caroline Voaden]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[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.

Holidays During School Term Time

Caroline Voaden Excerpts

Monday 27th October 2025 Westminster Hall

[Caroline Voaden (South Devon) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Lewell. I thank the hon. Member for Keighley and Ilkley (Robbie Moore) for introducing this debate and setting out the issues, and I thank the more than 181,000 members of the public who signed the petition, 243 of whom are from my constituency.

We know that being in school is the best way for children to reach their potential. Absence from school, especially when persistent—I will come back to that later in my speech—can impact children both academically and socially. Yet for some children, our system is designed in such a way that school itself can impact on their wellbeing. The petition that has brought us here today focuses specifically on absence due to holidays. It is clear that all Members here agree that downtime with family is important: a chance to rest, to spend time together without all the usual pressures, and just to be. I hope some lucky Members have fond memories of holiday trips to my constituency of South Devon.

Research from the Department for Education that was published earlier this year highlighted that a pupil who attends 95% to 100% of the time is twice as likely to achieve English and Maths grade 5 than a pupil who attends 90% to 95% of the time, and 23 times more likely to do so than a pupil who attends less than half the time. Missing even 10% of school time can influence the grades a child is likely to achieve at GCSE. The default position should be that children attend school every day unless exceptional circumstances prevent it, and we must use all available means to encourage that.

Deterrence through fines plays a role in that, but we are concerned about the current culture of reaching immediately for the fine lever. It has lost its impact, as many parents now factor fines into the cost of any term-time holiday they take, entrenching the divide between those who can afford it and those who cannot. Instead of using blanket fines, we would seek to reduce the pressure on local authorities and schools to issue fines for absence, and we would instead encourage a collaborative approach between schools and parents that builds trust and puts the child’s wider interests at the centre. That is key during times such as family illness or bereavement, as other Members have said.

Holidays allow children to learn beyond the classroom and discover new passions, abilities and interests through new experiences and simply being in a different environment. For many families, organising a holiday when schools are closed is not a problem. However, for others, a holiday outside term time is simply not affordable. They cannot pay the enormously hiked holiday prices during high-demand periods. One of my constituents wrote to me that he had to pay £3,000 more to take his grandchildren away during the school holidays than during term time. These extortionate price hikes mean that families cannot afford to go away outside term time, and that unfairly robs children—mainly the children who would benefit most—of new and enriching experiences.

Parents, carers and grandparents should not have to choose between shelling out thousands of pounds on the additional costs of a holiday outside term time and paying a fine. Instead, airlines and travel operators should stop taking advantage of families. Nearly doubling, or more, the price of the same holiday package from one day to the next is exploitative and completely out of line with any surge in demand, as the hon. Members for Hartlepool (Mr Brash) and for Stevenage (Kevin Bonavia) so perfectly illustrated. However, the question of when people can afford to go on holiday is indicative of the wider issue that school absence is closely tied to a family’s financial situation. In the 2024-25 school year, the absence rate for those who were eligible for free school meals was 10.3%. Those who were not eligible were absent nearly half as much, at 5.2%.

The Liberal Democrats are pleased that the Government have recognised that and are taking steps to resolve it. The roll-out of free breakfast clubs to every state primary school in England and the adoption of the much-loved Liberal Democrat policy of extending free school meal eligibility to children in England whose families claim universal credit will help to address persistent absence. The Government’s provision of those meals and the new breakfast clubs indicate that they acknowledge the correlation between a family’s finances and a child’s attendance. However, I ask the Minister what the Government have done to investigate and relieve holiday-related financial burdens for the children and families that need it most.

Aside from the financial concerns, we should acknowledge that term dates are decided in part by schools, which could therefore be encouraged to organise those dates so that the largest number of families in their communities can benefit from school holidays. For example, some schools might want to shorten the Christmas holiday so that they can offer other holidays for other religious festivals. That would mean that members of other communities would not face fines if they wanted to celebrate together as a family. Being flexible with inset and training days can also enable parents to spend time with children outside school at cheaper times of the year. In areas such as mine, more flexibility would enable families that run tourism and hospitality businesses to have a holiday, which they cannot take in peak seasons.

I turn to the more worrying situation with persistent absences. Since the pandemic, absence from school has become a national crisis, which does significant damage to children’s development and impacts their life chances. The general absence rate in the last academic year was still 2% higher than the rates recorded during the six years before the pandemic, and persistent absence—defined as missing 10% of lessons or more in a year—remained well above the pre-pandemic rate of 10.5%, at a worrying 17.6% in the last academic year.

In many cases, holidays and recreation are not the main reason for parents taking their children out of school; rather, children are forced out of the system by factors outside their control. We see persistent absence from pupils with SEND, young carers and those with mental health conditions. The situation with children with SEND is well illustrated in my constituency: across Devon, the rates of school absence for those with SEND support and those with education, health and care plans have nearly doubled, from 6% and 7.5% respectively in 2016-17 to 11.2% and 13.75% in the last academic year. Nationally, more than 72,000 children with SEND missed half their lessons in the last academic school year—an increase of nearly 9,000, compared with the previous year. That is a direct consequence of inadequate SEND provision and EHCP funding. After years of neglect under the Conservative Government, the system is failing to deliver the outcome that SEND children deserve, pushing them out of school.

We must address the underlying causes of absence constructively, not punitively. No parent should be fined if their child is unable to attend school because of inadequate SEND provision, and no child should be punished for being late because they have the responsibility of caring for a loved one at home. The Liberal Democrats have long called for measures that will help to encourage all those children back into the classroom, including having a qualified mental health professional in every primary and secondary school, and giving local authorities extra funding to reduce the amount that schools have to pay towards the cost of EHCPs.

The central point is that we must first understand why a child is not attending school, whether it is the unaffordability of holidays outside term time, SEND, young caring responsibilities, religious holidays, bereavement or other factors. That understanding must be the starting point before any further action is taken. The solution to this petition and to school absence more generally is not to compel children to attend school with the threat of punishment, but to ensure that they are genuinely able to attend. We should not force them to learn, but enable them, whether by tackling the exploitative pricing structures of travel companies and airlines or removing structural barriers to regular attendance for SEND children, disadvantaged students and carers. We must think in a much bigger way about how to tackle these issues. Fining parents should be a last resort, and should be only one of a suite of options for local authorities and schools to work with parents and encourage the best attendance possible for all our children.

Educational Assessment System Reform

Caroline Voaden Excerpts

Wednesday 15th October 2025 Westminster Hall

[Caroline Voaden (South Devon) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Lewell. I congratulate the hon. Member for Hertford and Stortford (Josh Dean) on securing this important debate. He spoke passionately about the subject. Although I have no doubt that his personal recollections of education are more recent than my own, I not long ago lived through the trauma of summer exam season vicariously through both my daughters, and I am glad that is behind us now.

The effect of exams on the mental health of our children and young people is clear. The hon. Member eloquently laid out that problem and showed that other respectable education systems have found a way to minimise exam time. It is possible to do that, and incumbent on us to look at doing so. Education is about so much more than the grades a child receives. It is about empowering every child to become the best they can be, ensuring they leave school equipped with the life skills, confidence and resilience they need, to lead happy, healthy and successful lives, whatever path they choose.

Education is about so much more than teaching to the test. It should be about opening minds and lighting a spark, as the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire and Glyndŵr (Steve Witherden) described so passionately. As the hon. Member for Warrington South (Sarah Hall) said, social and emotional development is also vital, and as important as academic achievement. At the heart of all this is ensuring that school is enjoyable. Most of us remember that one teacher who inspired us, who turned the light on and sparked a love of something, the one thing we did not mind getting up for in the morning.

I saw a perfect example of that during a recent visit to Stokenham primary school in my constituency. There is a forest school behind the school buildings where children learn through exploring their natural environment in a wonderful wooded area, beautifully demonstrating the importance of learning beyond the classroom, and the creative ways we can bring education alive. That is truly the highlight of the week for all the kids. It might also be music, drama, art or sport, textiles, food tech or woodwork. A holistic approach to education is vital because it nurtures social and creative skills that are just as important as the core subjects of English and maths. If a narrow approach to the curriculum is pursued, enriching experiences such as those risk being pushed to the bottom of the pile.

Lessons that foster interpersonal, creative and emotional skills have their place alongside traditional subjects that are measured in exams. Music has been shown to improve performance in maths, helping children to recognise patterns and sequences, improving memory and recall, as I am sure the hon. Member for Mid Derbyshire (Jonathan Davies) will agree.

Standardised testing remains important. Exams play a vital role in maintaining high educational standards and provide a clear, objective measure of achievement. As the Sutton Trust highlights, anonymous, externally marked exams help to level the playing field for pupils from economically disadvantaged backgrounds. They act as a crucial equaliser for students who may not have support at home for coursework, and they are less susceptible to the biases that can arise in teacher assessments or oral exams.

We heard passionate speeches from the right hon. Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds), the hon. Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell) and other Members that SATs at 11 should not be included in standardised testing. As the Government’s interim report recognises, the current one-size-fits-all approach is letting down some students. Pupils start sitting exams from the age of 11, and their experience is clear: the system puts enormous pressure on our young people and their mental health. We must take the opportunity to think about how we assess their ability. That is clearly demonstrated in the surge in pupils resitting GCSE English and maths. This year, just under 400,000 students resat those subjects, accounting for 23% of all GCSE entries.

The current system that pushes young people to resit the assessments quickly after their first attempt is flawed. Over-16s are caught in a cycle of repeated resits, with the number of 18-year-olds resitting those subjects rising by nearly 20% from last year. Those students risk falling into a dispiriting cycle, feeling they have failed because they cannot pass the exam and being forced to redo it again and again. Understandably, that has a detrimental impact on their mental health, with repeated resits and a rigid assessment system contributing to heightened anxiety and stress. Alongside increasing support for those pupils to get through their English and maths, we must look at the viability of an alternative functional assessment that better fits ability.

We must also reconsider how certain other subjects are assessed in the first place. Evey child will want to pursue their own path, and in certain subjects such as those that are creative, technical and vocational, exams may not be the solution. Our assessment system must reflect that diversity and recognise the many ways in which children can best demonstrate their learning. As the hon. Member for York Central and my hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Manuela Perteghella) said, we all learn differently, so why assess in just one way?

We also need to be mindful that one in every five students has special educational needs. As the Government’s interim report notes, the assessment system needs to be more inclusive, and that inclusivity must extend to those with higher levels of SEND, as highlighted by both the hon. Member for Hitchin (Alistair Strathern) and my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole (Vikki Slade). Currently, only 24% of children with SEND meet the expected standard in reading, writing and maths, compared with 62% nationally. That imbalance is unacceptable, and we must work hard to ensure that it is rectified.

Children with SEND deserve the same opportunities to succeed as their peers, and the assessment system must reflect their specific needs, enabling them to progress and thrive in their education, rather than be weighed down by exams that fail to accommodate their abilities. We must be creative in finding other ways to assess ability. My hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil (Adam Dance), who has done valuable work on education for pupils with neurodivergence, spoke passionately about this, and I commend him for his work on the subject.

We also need to think outside the box when it comes to subjects such as music, drama, art and sports. These subjects develop crucial creative and emotional skills, yet they are not always best assessed through exams. They are the subjects that bring joy to education and transform schools into places where children are genuinely excited to learn. As the parent of a daughter who now works as a professional costume maker, I have seen the joy and passion that a creative career choice can bring. Given the love that people have for films, it is no less valid than a career in law, medicine, finance, or, dare I say it, politics.

All too often, however, such subjects are being squeezed out of our timetables due to budget cuts, teacher shortages and a curriculum that is often narrowed prematurely as schools are forced to focus on assessment. That is unfair, disproportionately affecting pupils from poorer backgrounds who do not otherwise have access to extracurricular activities to make up for the gaps. As a rural MP, I will say that the problem is exacerbated in rural constituencies, where students may not be able to attend after-school clubs if their only way to get home is on the 3.30 pm school bus. Limited or costly transport options should never be a barrier to creativity and involvement in sports. We must protect, not diminish, those subjects and ensure that every learner has the chance to excel on whatever path they choose.

The Liberal Democrats want children to be able to thrive in a system that allows them to play to their strengths and supports them in their weaknesses, a system that empowers children, where school is a joyful place that encourages children to follow their passions and get excited about their future. The Government’s interim report says that the system is broadly working well, and that exams can be an effective way to assess progress, but it is clear that a one-size-fits-all approach does not work for every pathway, which is why the Liberal Democrats are calling for an assessment system that reflects the diversity of young people’s needs, especially for those with special educational needs.

Holistic teaching and creative subjects have their rightful place in our curriculum, and pupils’ choices should not be narrowed too early to focus solely on examined subjects. Children deserve an exam system that offers choice and equips them with the skills they need, no matter which path they choose to follow. We must find a more balanced approach to assessment: a way to truly assess the gifts and talents that all young people have—because they all do. A system that makes them start to feel like a failure at 11 is just wrong. We owe it to our children to do better and, as the hon. Member for Corby and East Northamptonshire (Lee Barron) said, lift them up, not weigh them down.

I urge the Minister to take this opportunity to seriously consider broadening our curriculum, expanding the provision of extracurricular activities, and developing an ambitious assessment system that ensures young people leave school equipped with the skills, confidence and opportunity to succeed.

Adoption and Special Guardianship Support Fund

Caroline Voaden Excerpts

Thursday 4th September 2025 Westminster Hall

[Caroline Voaden (South Devon) (LD)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Sussex (Alison Bennett) on securing this important debate.

We know that children who experience early trauma face profound challenges that can reverberate throughout their lives. Early years often marked by instability, neglect or harm can leave invisible wounds that can impact emotional development, the ability to form trusting relationships and overall mental wellbeing. However, the challenges are not insurmountable. With targeted therapeutic intervention, children can begin to regain a sense of safety and stability, laying the foundation for healthier, more hopeful futures. Therapy provides them with the essential tools to process their experiences, manage overwhelming emotions and build trust and resilience.

The changes announced in April have meant that many families can no longer pursue the long-term, sustained therapeutic support that is vital for our most damaged children. Two therapists have told me that they have had to stop work with adoptive children because the breaks in support and the lower individual funding allocations have meant that the long-term therapeutic support that they provide is no longer accessible to families. We must not risk losing these valuable skilled professionals from the sector.

James is a 16-year-old adopted young man who ended up leaving his adoptive parents and being placed in residential care after a violent episode. During that time, regular sessions were held with his adoptive parents to help them to understand the placement breakdown and explore how best to support all the family. He now wants to rebuild relationships with his family, but because of the funding cuts, he can access only 16 therapy sessions over the year. Given the complexity of his situation and the need to rebuild attachment relationships, it is just not going to work over 16 sessions. Liaison with child and adolescent mental health services and social care is essential, but funding constraints mean that that cannot happen.

James’s example is not unique: it demonstrates how the inadequate funding model is undermining the very interventions that will allow children to heal, thrive and reintegrate successfully into family life. The Government must provide a long-term commitment to the fund and reconsider cutting the individual support packages. If ever there was a case for investing to save, this is it. Getting it right for some of our most vulnerable children will set them up for a more stable, happy and healthy life. It will support family cohesion, and it will reduce pressure on a host of other Government and third sector services later in life.

Early Education and Childcare

Caroline Voaden Excerpts

Thursday 4th September 2025 Commons Chamber

[Stephen Morgan]

I thank my hon. Friend from along the south coast for his question. I know that Portsmouth football club are very much looking forward to playing Southampton this season. We promised to make childcare more affordable and we are delivering on that. I pay tribute to him and the work that he did in local government, and is now doing in this place, to ensure that childcare is more affordable and accessible for children in his constituency.

[Caroline Voaden (South Devon) (LD)]

I welcome the Government’s commitment to and recognition of the importance of early years provision, and the support for school-based nurseries, like the new Little Thinkers at Kings Ash academy and the nursery at Furzeham primary school. However, like others, I am deeply concerned about recruitment in the sector. Daisy and Rainbow Childcare said to me this morning:

“Our biggest difficulty is managing the drop off in funding as the child gets older, while negotiating a 37% increase in ENICs, ongoing increases in minimum wages and a rate for three and four-year-olds that has never kept pace. Is it any wonder that practitioners are voting with their feet and leaving the sector to take their skills elsewhere? We’ve been advertising for a qualified practitioner now for three months with zero applications.”

Will the Minister explain what the Government are going to do to ensure that recruitment in the sector is maintained?

[Stephen Morgan]

The early years workforce is at the heart of our Government’s mission to give every child the best start in life. I mentioned earlier that we have seen an uplift in the number of people working in the sector by 18,000 this year. Our best start in life strategy set out a range of measures that we will take to encourage more people to work in the sector. I am proud that we have the “Do Something Big” campaign—a real effort to increase the number of people working in the sector—which is making a real difference across our country.