International Baccalaureate: Funding in State Schools

Josh MacAlister Excerpts

Wednesday 29th October 2025 Westminster Hall

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Josh MacAlister)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Roger. I thank the hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage (Olly Glover) for securing this debate and all the Members who have contributed to it. The international baccalaureate can be a fantastic qualification for young people. I commend all the staff and students in international baccalaureate teaching settings. The debate has highlighted the incredible contribution that those teachers and those settings can make to opportunities for young people—we have heard an awful lot about that today.

I want to stress a few things in responding to the points made in the debate, first regarding the role that A-levels play in our school and education system. The hon. Member for Meriden and Solihull East (Saqib Bhatti) referred to a school “regretfully” moving to A-levels, as if they are lesser qualifications. A-levels are fantastic qualifications. They are stretching for students. They offer variety, choice and combinations of qualifications that leave doors open for young people at 16 and beyond. They are recognised by the top universities in the world, including those here in the UK. I urge Members to be careful not to suggest that A-levels are somehow secondary or second order to the international baccalaureate, while recognising the contribution that the international baccalaureate can make.

[Alison Bennett]

A-levels are undoubtedly brilliant, but does the Minister agree that they are more narrow than the international baccalaureate?

[Josh MacAlister]

No, I do not agree with that. Combinations of A-levels allow young people to have a wide and rich curriculum. In fact, the large programme uplift changes that we are making prioritise choices of A-levels that extend beyond the standard three, up to five, to include advanced maths and other well regarded A-level subjects. I do not recognise what the hon. Lady suggests.

[Steve Darling]

My two sons both went to Torquay boys’ grammar school. One undertook the international baccalaureate. The other went down the A-level route and got three A*s. Universities do not like students taking more than three A-levels. We often joke with him that perhaps he should have stretched himself and undertaken the international baccalaureate. What would the Minister’s advice be?

[Josh MacAlister]

I think the logic of that point is that universities will accept three A-levels, and they will accept more than three A-levels, and they will accept an international baccalaureate. The point here is not that the international baccalaureate is the gateway to universities; it is an addition to the system and allows extra stretch for students. I will make a bit more progress and then am happy to take further interventions.

The other point to make at this stage is that it is not correct to say that funding has been scrapped for the international baccalaureate. In fact, some of the statements put out by settings that offer the international baccalaureate have been clear to say that the funding has not been scrapped. The large programme uplift application has been changed, and that additional 20% will no longer be available for settings that want to offer the international baccalaureate.

I want to spend a few minutes setting this decision in context. We are focused as a Government on raising standards across the 16-to-19 education system. We want to offer opportunity for all young people, and we want stretching and rigorous qualifications for them. The large programme uplift will focus on those taking four or more A-levels that include advanced maths and offer a broad and challenging curriculum.

What do we know about the international baccalaureate and how the uplift funding is being used? Only 0.2% of students in 16-to-19 settings are studying the international baccalaureate, and the large programme uplift is only 0.1% of the entire 16-to-19 funding made available. Many of the institutions offering the international baccalaureate are themselves selective in their pre-16 intake. Far fewer students are drawn from disadvantaged backgrounds; I have a list of the rates of free school meals in the main institutions offering it, and they are very low. I am aware of only one LPU-backed setting that offers the international baccalaureate in the entirety of the north and the midlands combined.

This is the challenge I put back to those who have contributed to the debate: if their argument is that they want the international baccalaureate to be offered in many more settings across the country, and for it to be a genuinely equal opportunity that lifts up many students, where do they propose finding the money to do that? The Government are putting additional money into the 16-to-19 system, which I will come on to in a moment, but Members are defending a system that applies to only a very small minority, and that is not equally spread. It is a fantastic opportunity for students, but this Government’s focus, as it will always be, is on opportunity for all.

[Ms Billington]

I gently remind the Minister that, simply because people live in the south-east, it does not mean they are dripping in gold. My constituency in particular experiences distinct levels of deprivation; only 10% of our children manage to pass the Kent test in East Thanet. The opportunity to access the international baccalaureate is vital for those deprived communities. We all know that there are extreme levels of deprivation in this country both across geographical areas and in pockets. I remind the Minister that, in these circumstances, we need to ensure that we have an education policy that reaches the most deprived in places like mine, as much as in places like his.

[Josh MacAlister]

I agree that we need to ensure that opportunity goes to those who are furthest from it. My point is that this system does not provide an equal opportunity for many young people in how it is allocated at the moment. Even in institutions in the south where there are large numbers of young people frozen out of opportunities, the ones offering the international baccalaureate are overwhelmingly not offering it to those young people from disadvantaged backgrounds. That is an important point to make in this debate.

Before I move on to overall funding, my final point is that we gave notice of this decision in October, which is ahead of other notifications about the 16-to-19 funding system. We have put in place transitional arrangements for those students who are currently midway through the international baccalaureate.

What is the reality of the funding that the Government are giving to sixth form and FE colleges? The Government have made the decision to increase overall spending on the 16-to-19 system, from £7.6 billion last year to £8.6 billion this year. That reflects a significant increase in not only the number of students but the funding rates, including the base rate of funding per student across 16-to-19 settings, going up by 5.4% to over £5,000. The extra funding for low prior attainment and for children in care is going up by 6.8% this year, and an extra level of funding for resit English and maths is going up by 11.5% this year.

That represents a significant increase in the 16-to-19 funding settlement for the whole system. Within it, colleges and sixth form settings have the freedom of choice to prioritise across their programmes what they teach, including the international baccalaureate. The LPU adds an additional 20% on top of that. I have already highlighted that the LPU is tiny as a percentage of the overall funding for 16 to 19. As a Government we want to make sure that goes into opportunities for the broadest number of students.

Finally, some broad points reflecting on this debate about opportunity and the Government’s priorities. I appreciate the points that hon. Members have made about the choices made by the Government and that many hon. Members wish us to keep the large programme uplift focused as it now is. However, when we add all of the things that hon. Members want to prioritise across the education system, while they may not seem like huge amounts of money individually, taken together they always lead to choices about priorities. The Government are absolutely focused on raising standards, in part because the soft bigotry of low expectations that we have inherited from the 14 years of the previous Government.

I want to say a few things about that. Our work on early years and the huge investment in childcare and breakfast clubs—so that young people can start their education on an even basis—is built off the fact that the coalition Government demolished 3,500 Sure Start centres. The long tail of that for young people’s attainment, especially those from deprived backgrounds, is felt to this day.

[Saqib Bhatti]

I have to challenge that point. I said that the Minister was a fair man—if I did not, I will say it now—but, if he is being fair, will he acknowledge that the Conservatives started the investment in childcare programme that the Government have continued?

[Josh MacAlister]

What the Conservative Government did not do was ensure that there was a fiscal position left to fund those sorts of commitments. I will give the hon. Gentleman and the previous Government credit for building on some of the excellent work that had been started under the last Labour Government around phonics, a focus on improving maths and some of the curriculum changes. I give credit where it is due on those.

We now see year 8 students falling behind in their reading—and the Government will be saying more about that in the curriculum and assessment review. That is why we will be introducing reading checks with a focus on standards. Those will mean every young person—regardless of the cash their parents have in their pockets—does well and that on finishing secondary school has equal opportunities and choice to take their talents as far as they can in 16 to 19.

Finally, we will have record levels of investment in the 16-to-19 system. That will include a focus on the scandal of the constant cycle of young people not reaching the level of English and maths needed by the time that they finish secondary school, and being washed around again and again in a resit system that is not fit for purpose. We are rebuilding and investing in that system to ensure that we get that second, third or fourth chance for every young person so that they can get into work and benefit from the opportunities that come from it.

The soft bigotry of low expectations is growing educational inequality. That is what we inherited. It is a million young people not in education, employment or training and the moral scandal that that represents. It is underfunding our 16-to-19 education system year after year so that far too few young people get the quality of teaching needed and there is not support for staff to ensure that young people have their needs meet. It means that we have not had equal and widespread access to a rigorous curriculum for children and young people in the 16-to-19 system across the country—which is what they deserve.