Educational Assessment System Reform

Steve Witherden Excerpts

Wednesday 15th October 2025 Westminster Hall

[Steve Witherden (Montgomeryshire and Glyndŵr) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Lewell.

Before being elected, I spent nearly two decades as a teacher. I know all too well the realities of working in a system that prioritises teaching to the test at the expense of a creative curriculum, broader educational experiences and, most importantly, pupil wellbeing.

As chair of the all-party parliamentary group for education, I recently led an inquiry into the loss of love of learning. It found that current assessment practices have a significant impact on students’ engagement with, and attitudes towards, learning. One submission highlighted that a system which frames learning through a lens of student deficit rather than progress ultimately ends up demotivating learners and narrowing their sense of possibility. When education is reduced to a means of securing exam results, we lose the intrinsic joy and value of learning itself.

One of the most powerful moments during the inquiry came when a group of primary school children from Wales visited Parliament to give evidence. They were genuinely surprised and, frankly, horrified to learn about the pressure and stress their peers in England face when preparing for SATs—and they were right to be shocked. In England, SATs preparation dominates much of the year 6 curriculum, leaving little room for creativity, exploration or deeper understanding.

Research from More Than a Score found that over three quarters of parents believe that SATs have a detrimental impact on their child’s mental health. More than a third reported that their children were not sleeping properly in the run-up to the exams. Of course, that pressure does not end in primary school. GCSEs and A-levels occupy multiple years of a young person’s life and subject them to immense stress.

According to YoungMinds, pupils sitting their exams last summer reported elevated levels of anxiety, self-harm and even suicidal thoughts. Current systems also disproportionately disadvantage pupils with special educational needs and disabilities—or additional learning needs, as they are known in Wales—as well as those experiencing mental health issues or growing up in a socioeconomically disadvantaged circumstance.

[Rachael Maskell]

I am grateful for what the hon. Member is saying. As well as widening inequality through the current assessment system, which we know occurs, does he not agree that it also stifles social mobility, holding many young people back from the opportunities they could have?

[Steve Witherden]

Yes, I agree 100%.

In 2025, more than 75% of pupils with SEND and over 90% of those with an education, health and care plan did not meet expected standards in their end-of-primary SATs. Many carry that label of failure into secondary school before they have even had the chance to flourish. As someone who is dyslexic, dyscalculic and was functionally illiterate until the age of 11, I know what it feels like to struggle within a system not designed for people like me.

Teachers in schools serving deprived communities consistently report higher levels of pupil anxiety and disengagement related to SATs, compared with their counterparts in more affluent areas. The current high-stakes, one-size-fits-all model is not only outdated; it actively perpetuates inequality. Like Wales, England should abolish SATs. They damage children’s mental health, impose unnecessary stress at a formative age and fail to serve as reliable indicators of pupil or school performance.

At GCSE and A-level, we must reduce our dependence on high-stakes, end-of-course exams or on-demand online assessments, which give pupils—particularly those who struggle under timed conditions—greater opportunity to succeed. For far too long, education policy has been shaped by an obsession with measurable outcomes, too often at the expense of the very learners who most need our support.

I look forward to the final report of the curriculum and assessment review and urge the Government to respond with both ambition and compassion. Let us move beyond high-stakes learning, reduce anxiety in our classrooms, and above all, restore joy, creativity and a love of learning.

--- Later in debate ---

[Saqib Bhatti]

I will address that question in one second. As the interim report said, students relish the chance to demonstrate their knowledge and capabilities, despite the stress of exams. I was moved by the hon. Gentleman’s speech. He talks about panic attacks, and other people have talked about mental health and wellbeing, so let me be clear: if those things are observed and not accommodated by the current system, Opposition Members will happily look at suggestions and work on a cross-party basis, if we believe that that will improve the system while also protecting our children.

If the Government really want to tackle the challenges affecting student mental health on a day-to-day basis, we have been clear: this is not just about exam season, and we think that banning phones from schools would do far more to relieve many of the social pressures that face young people, and allow them to focus on their educational needs instead. I welcome support from the Government Benches for a proven mechanism that clearly leads to addressing students’ mental health. After speaking to teachers and other stakeholders we are clear about the positive impact that banning mobile phones would have on mental health—[Interruption.] I am happy to take a positive intervention on that.

It is deeply disappointing, if unfortunately not too surprising, that this seems to be the direction that the Government are taking with our education system, given the appalling record of their colleagues in the Welsh Government on education. Even the most disadvantaged children in England achieve better educational outcomes than the average student in Wales, thanks to the Welsh Government choosing ideology over evidence, and it is the students who suffer in the long term.

[Steve Witherden]

Would the hon. Gentleman agree that if we narrow the curriculum, take out the music and drama lessons, fill the curriculum and stack it to the rafters with numeracy and literacy-heavy subjects, all the pedagogies, and teach to the test, with exams, exams, exams, that will lead to better PISA results but not necessarily to better mental health for the students in the system?

[Saqib Bhatti]

Let me address that point directly. First, I am not sure that narrowing the curriculum to that degree would lead to better PISA results. I think the hon. Member for South Devon (Caroline Voaden) spoke about that, and I was nodding my head. I agree that we should have those investments in music that the Government have not committed to—[Interruption.] Let me finish, because it is important to recognise for the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire and Glyndŵr (Steve Witherden)—hopefully I have got his constituency right—that Wales, which is run by Labour, has much lower standards. That means less positive outcomes for children, which means less positive outcomes in the rest of their life. It is clear that those children are being let down by Welsh Labour.

We want extracurricular activities. That is why, when I visited Coppice academy in my constituency, which also has a forest school, I was heartened to see all the work that the kids are doing in those schools. Narrowing the curriculum is not what we are talking about. We are talking about something that is wholly rounded, but we must have a standardised and anonymised test system that allows a better level playing field for people from any background to be able to challenge and to thrive in life.

Let me return to the topic at hand. It is almost a month to the day that I welcomed the Minister to her seat, and we had a fantastically packed Chamber where we addressed special educational needs. I wrote to her after that debate, but I have still not had a response. Perhaps she could provide some clarity on the schools White Paper, say what will happen with the SEND reforms and also the curriculum review—I look forward to hearing from her on that, perhaps when she winds up the debate.

The world’s best-performing educational systems test to ensure that all students have a strong grasp of reading, writing and arithmetic in their early years, setting up children for future success at the earliest opportunity in their education. The widespread adoption of phonics testing in year 1 in England has seen English pupils rise up the international league tables, while the Welsh Government’s blind adherence to the widely discredited cueing method and its rejection of phonics testing has seen thousands of Welsh pupils leaving primary school effectively unable to read. Students and parents alike have plentiful cause for concern if that is the sort of education system that the Government want to create in England. I hope that the Minister can wholeheartedly reject the Welsh educational system—one in which thorough assessment of students’ progress has been replaced with a union-influenced aversion to testing in any form.

If the Government do go ahead with banning exams in favour of coursework and formal assessments, they could undermine every major achievement of our education system over the last decade and a half. Academies have changed the lives of their students through the initiative of their leadership. They are already being deprived of the freedoms that they have been used to in leading the way to school improvement and providing a knowledge-rich curriculum that has given every student the opportunity to access quality academic education. That is already being threatened with being dumbed down. If that were to happen, our education system would be left in an even sorrier state.

I hope that the Ministers listen to the views of students and parents. The Conservatives reformed education, and by the time we left, it was one of the best systems in the world. I hope we can keep it that way.

Children with SEND: Assessments and Support

Steve Witherden Excerpts

Monday 15th September 2025 Westminster Hall

[Neil Duncan-Jordan (Poole) (Ind)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Huq.

It is with a great sense of pride that I speak in this debate, because it was my constituent, Rachel Filmer, who launched this petition, which has secured over 100,000 signatures. It is great to see Rachel in the Public Gallery today.

Some weeks ago, I held an event in my constituency with SEND families to discuss the challenges they face and to hear what needs to change. Some specific issues arose. First, class is a huge issue in the current system. Many parents resort to private diagnosis after waiting for extended periods, which has concerning implications for low-income families who might not have the resources to get such a diagnosis.

[Steve Witherden (Montgomeryshire and Glyndŵr) (Lab)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that, when a class element applies with less favourable outcomes for those who cannot pay, the very concept of universalism is in jeopardy?

[Neil Duncan-Jordan]

As I am a keen universalist, I have to agree with my hon. Friend.

There is also a bureaucracy to navigate. It takes massive amounts of time, effort and knowledge of process for parents to navigate the system to get the support they need. That puts parents with lower educational attainment, complex personal needs or busy working lives at a disadvantage. It is no wonder that 62% of parent-carers of SEND children are not in paid employment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Steve Witherden (Montgomeryshire and Glyndŵr) (Lab)]

Although education is devolved in Wales, I speak in my capacity as chair of the all-party parliamentary group for education and parliamentary convenor of the Socialist Educational Association. Before getting elected, I was a teacher for nearly two decades, so I know all too well the realities of our education system. Dyslexic, dyscalculic and completely illiterate until age 11, I was placed in bottom sets and written off by many teachers, so I also know all too well the pressures of going through the system with SEND, or additional learning needs, as it is called in Wales.

As of January 2025, more than 1.7 million pupils in England have been identified with SEND, and the number of children with education, health and care plans has more than doubled since 2015. Despite that increase in identification, the Department for Education has admitted there has been no consistent improvement in outcomes for these children.

Exam pressure is especially acute for students with SEND. Research from Omnisis shows that 88% of parents of children with SEND said their child was worried about this year’s SATs and one in five described their child as “very worried”—twice the national average. Our all-party parliamentary group’s “Loss of the Love of Learning” inquiry found that the stress of test preparation has serious negative effects: disrupted sleep, increased school refusal and declining self-esteem among SEND pupils.

We must recognise the disproportionate effect of our current assessment framework on SEND children, and begin to prioritise children’s wellbeing and their love of learning, rather than just performance metrics. Though high-needs funding has increased since 2015, it falls short of what is needed. The 14 years of austerity have pushed our schools to the brink. The sharp decline in teaching assistants—often lifelines for SEND children—and the overworking of teachers, as they struggle to meet the diverse needs of all their students, have only deepened the crisis. What guarantees can be given that the SEND reforms promised in the schools White Paper this autumn will not simply be a vehicle for further cuts?

Oral Answers to Questions

Steve Witherden Excerpts

Monday 16th June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Stephen Morgan]

I was very pleased to meet my hon. Friend to discuss Saint Benedict, which will benefit from transformed buildings through the school rebuilding programme. This Government have committed to continue and expand that programme to improve the school estate and give children the best start in life. I know that my hon. Friend is a real champion on these issues, and I would be very happy to discuss them further.

[Steve Witherden (Montgomeryshire and Glyndŵr) (Lab)]

5. What steps she is taking to expand school-based nurseries.

[Andrew Lewin (Welwyn Hatfield) (Lab)]

6. What steps she is taking to expand school-based nurseries.

--- Later in debate ---

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

School-based nurseries are a key part of delivering on our plan for change by making high-quality early years education more accessible and affordable, so that every child gets the best start in life. At the spending review, we announced almost £370 million for school-based nurseries, on top of the £37 million already awarded to schools. The Tories left a childcare pledge without a plan, but this Labour Government are delivering on promises made to families, saving working parents up to £7,500 a year.

[Steve Witherden]

The Government have announced £37 million for the first round of schools to expand nursery provision, supporting the roll-out of the extended 30 hours childcare offer in England, but the Public Childcare Now campaign points out that nearly two thirds of the funded schools are part of multi-academy trusts. While we are fortunate not to have academies in Wales, concerns remain that this model encourages privatisation, reduces accessibility and undermines staff pay and conditions, contributing to greater educational fragmentation. What assurances can the Minister offer that expanding entitlements without investing in public infrastructure will not exacerbate these issues?

Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill

Steve Witherden Excerpts

Tuesday 18th March 2025 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Order. Before I call the next speaker, I refer back to the point made by Munira Wilson about the corrected online version of her amendment 1, for the benefit of Members who are in the Chamber. In case there is any confusion, the correct version should begin:

“Clause 24, page 44, leave out lines 34 to line 4 on page 45 and insert”.

[Steve Witherden (Montgomeryshire and Glyndŵr) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to speak in this important debate and express my support for the Bill. For far too long, school children have borne the brunt of academisation. Fortunately, the Labour Government in Wales rejected this model, but, having been a teacher on the border for most of my working life and a national executive member of the NASUWT, I have seen at first hand the negative impact of academies becoming the default model, while local authorities have been sidelined.

Since the introduction of the Academies Act 2010, the freedom for academies and free schools to set their own pay, terms and conditions has led to the exploitation of teachers. For example, teachers at Ark schools are expected to work 1,657 hours more annually than a maintained school teacher, while earning £7 less per hour. The lack of national consistency not only allows these schools to undervalue and overwork staff but undermines basic rights such as pension schemes, maternity and sick pay. Our Bill will tackle those disparities by extending the statutory pay and conditions framework to all teachers in academies, ensuring greater consistency and fairness between academies and maintained schools.

There is also the issue of admission policies. Too many schools misuse their control over admissions to break with inclusive local authority policies, selecting what they consider to be a more favourable intake of students. The Bill’s extension of the power to direct admissions to academies will ensure that local authorities can secure places for hard-to-place and vulnerable students, rather than allowing academies to exercise shameful selective admissions. Furthermore, by ending academy presumption, the Bill takes a significant step towards increasing academy accountability, empowering local authorities to better serve the needs of their communities, particularly helping SEND students and reducing reliance on unaffordable independent providers.

I hope to see the severe disparity between teachers’ pay and the high salaries of academy CEOs reviewed and addressed in future education legislation. We must ensure that funding is directed where it is most needed: to teaching and learning. This Bill marks an historic first step towards creating an accountable and fair education system that will benefit all our children.

[Graham Stuart]

It is a pleasure to take part in this debate and to follow the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire and Glyndŵr (Steve Witherden), who has done us and the nation a great service with the clarity of his speech. The Labour party is often accused of working to serve the producer interest rather than the consumer interest, looking after the needs of the trade unions and not those of the ordinary citizen or, in this case, the child. But rarely does any Labour Member make it quite so explicit as the hon. Gentleman just did, with a total betrayal of the child and a total focus on the needs of the professional, their interests, their pay, their disparities and their conditions. There was nothing about the child, nothing about the standards of education. Never have I seen a Labour Member speak up so honestly about what this Bill is really about. We should be enormously grateful to him for doing that, and for doing it so clearly—and in not many words.

This Bill contains 38 policy proposals all linked by a troubling theme: the misguided notion that the bureaucrat knows best. In advocating for new schools to be opened and controlled by local authorities, the Government choose to ignore the evidence that competition and innovation are what drive up standards, and instead they consolidate power in the hands of bureaucrats.

Certificate of Common Sponsorship

Steve Witherden Excerpts

Wednesday 22nd January 2025 Westminster Hall

[Steve Witherden (Montgomeryshire and Glyndŵr) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Huq. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Poole (Neil Duncan-Jordan) on securing this crucial debate. Migrant workers are vital to the UK’s economy and society. They make up over a fifth of our workforce and support essential industries such as hospitality and social care. Just last week, I had the privilege of meeting representatives from Focus on Labour Exploitation, the Latin American Women’s Rights Service, the Southeast and East Asian Women’s Association and the Refugee Workers Cultural Association. They voiced serious concerns about the current visa rules that tie many migrant workers to a single employer, leaving them vulnerable to exploitation.

The existing legislation not only creates grey areas that allow employers to pay unliveable wages, deny sick pay and encourage abuse in the workplace, but it also strips employees of the agency to challenge those conditions. Many are trapped in a vicious cycle; they are scared to speak out due to fear of arrest, immigration detention or deportation, with no means to move to a safer employer. I fully support our Government’s commitment to reducing visa and immigration abuse, and empowering workers to report exploitation safely plays a crucial role in that.

The introduction of a certificate of common sponsorship would enable migrant workers to change employers freely without facing the burden of additional immigration fees, the risk of being unemployed within the 60-day period or jeopardising their visa status. That would empower workers, increase accountability and raise standards for migrant workers, as employers would risk losing their workforce if they failed to treat workers fairly. Such measures will redress the power imbalance between workers and sponsors, giving workers the flexibility to escape exploitative situations and access their rights without fear.

What conversations have Home Office officials had with those at the Department for Work and Pensions on the effects of data sharing and protections against employers using workers’ insecure immigration status to threaten and silence them in exploitative situations? The UK’s reliance on migrant workers cannot be overstated and all workers’ contributions must be valued and protected.

Workplace Pay Gaps

Steve Witherden Excerpts

Tuesday 7th January 2025 Westminster Hall

[Steve Witherden (Montgomeryshire and Glyndŵr) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Roger. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Brent East (Dawn Butler) on securing this important debate.

Research in 2023 revealed that mothers in the UK earned, on average, 31% less than fathers—a gap worse than the one 40 years before. The motherhood pay penalty has been overlooked by previous Governments for far too long, significantly contributing to gender pay gaps. The undervaluation of care work, combined with the fact that caregiving responsibilities fall disproportionately on women, means that women are often the ones who take career breaks or reduce their working hours when raising children. This leads to limited work experience and stunted career progression.

The Institute for Fiscal Studies has found that while men’s earnings remain largely unaffected by parenthood, women’s earnings drop significantly after having children. In fact, seven years post childbirth, women earn less than half of what men earn. The penalty is even more severe for black and ethnic minority women, who face additional barriers as the impact of motherhood is compounded by existing ethnic pay gaps and gender and race-based inequalities at work.

I welcome the Government’s commitment to improving parents’ rights in the workplace through the Employment Rights Bill. The Bill’s increased protections against dismissal for pregnant women, for those on maternity leave and for those returning within six months build on existing safeguards against redundancy for mothers, taking us a crucial step forward in addressing the penalty. Furthermore, the Bill’s removal of restrictions on paternity leave and pay will provide more flexibility and encourage a fairer division of parenting responsibilities between partners.

What plans do the Government have to directly tackle the gap between the earnings of mothers and fathers? What specific measures are being considered for single parents, who will not necessarily benefit from changes to paternity leave and who often bear the responsibility for caregiving? Diolch yn fawr.