To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the implications of the final report of the Curriculum and Assessment Review, published on 5 November 2025, for education in England.
My Lords, I am delighted to be opening this debate and grateful for the number of noble Lords who have put their names down to speak. I confess I wish we had been granted more time, given the breadth and importance of this subject. I look forward to hearing all contributions, whatever the topic, and to the Minister’s response to what I am certain will be a well-informed and searching debate. I am grateful too for the many briefings I have received in preparation from a wide range of organisations, among them the Campaign for the Arts.
I intend to focus on arts education, though I will say a brief word towards the end about modern languages, where some difficult questions remain. The Curriculum and Assessment Review, published on 5 November last year, was an independent report led by Professor Becky Francis, and its findings carry considerable weight. The Government’s response deserves to be treated seriously. It acknowledges, clearly and without equivocation, that arts education in England has suffered a prolonged and serious decline—and that acknowledgement alone represents a change of tone that many in the sector had long been waiting for.
The scale of what has happened is worth stating plainly. Since 2011, the number of hours of arts teaching in schools has fallen by 23%. Since 2010, the share of GCSE entries in arts subjects has shrunk by nearly half and A-level entries have fallen by nearly a third. For nearly half of all young people aged 11 to 15—and for a majority when it comes to drama—school is their only contact with the arts. They do not participate in arts activities outside the school gate. When provision in schools declines, those young people do not lose some of their access to the arts, they lose all of it, and the burden falls hardest on those who can least afford it. Children in the most deprived areas are less likely to study arts subjects and less likely to access extracurricular cultural opportunities, creating what the Cultural Learning Alliance has called an entitlement gap. This is not a peripheral concern: it goes to the heart of what we believe education to be and what kind of society we wish to be.
Against that backdrop, the review contains much that deserves recognition. The proposal to abolish the EBacc has been widely welcomed by arts educators and their representative bodies. For 15 years, that performance measure squeezed arts subjects out of timetables, budgets and the thinking of school leaders who had little choice but to prioritise the subjects it rewarded. The reform of Progress 8, although still subject to consultation, signals a more inclusive conception of achievement. The Government’s second pledge in the executive summary, to
“revitalise arts education as part of the reformed national curriculum”,
is not a minor commitment. The arts are described, rightly, as an entitlement for every pupil rather than an optional extra. I welcome these commitments unreservedly.
My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Freyberg, on securing this important if brief debate. There was much to welcome in both the Curriculum and Assessment Review and the Government’s response to it. Like the noble Lord, I welcome the end of the damaging EBacc obsession from the now noble Lord, Lord Gove, which will pave the way to a broader curriculum with stronger access to music, art, sport, drama and vocational subjects. I was not aware of the point that the noble Lord raised about the threat to language learning; I note that and will take it up in future. It was also pleasing to see the report’s emphasis on oracy and, even more, the Government’s recognition of oracy as a foundational skill alongside reading, writing and maths.
The review said that it is important to ensure that assessments test what pupils should be learning, not just what is easy to measure. It then went on to say:
“We consider that the Key Stage 2 assessments are generally performing well”.
That view is not widely shared by educators at primary level, and I and others regret that the Government did not counter it in their response. Many primary school teachers, school leaders and parents had hoped that the Government would take account of the evidence on the harmful effects of the statutory primary assessment system, including year 6 SATs, year 1 phonics checks and year 4 times tables checks. A system that places data collection and whole-school accountability ahead of prioritising the love of learning and children’s well-being has inevitable consequences. Teaching to the test and a narrow curriculum mean that, for many children, year 6 is spent cramming for the end-of-year exams, focusing on maths, English and little else. Research from the UCL Institute of Education indicates that this is particularly common in areas of high disadvantage.
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Freyberg, for securing this important debate. I will focus briefly on two areas: financial education and physical education.
On financial education, I welcome the review’s recognition of financial literacy, budgeting and wider life skills in the curriculum. With reforms expected by 2028, we now have a critical window to get this right. The proposals to strengthen financial education in secondary schools and to extend it into primary schools are absolutely a move in the right direction. We know that, if young people start early, they develop good money habits and build confidence in managing their finances.
Financial education has been statutory in secondary schools for over a decade, yet, as the Money and Pensions Service has reported, only around half of children receive a meaningful financial education. As the charity Young Enterprise has said, curriculum reform on its own is not enough: teachers need proper support, including training, clear guidance and high-quality resources.
The APPG on Financial Education for Young People, of which I am an officer, has also made it clear that financial education is not being adequately measured in our schools. Until it is inspected—for example, through Ofsted—it will not be prioritised, and, unless we focus on delivery, we risk repeating the same mistake we have seen in our secondary schools. So I do hope the Government will ensure that this is properly resourced, inspected and given protected curriculum time, because it is a life skill that every child deserves.
I turn now to physical education. We know that children are not getting enough physical activity. With huge concerns around high childhood obesity, mental health and well-being, schools are one of the few places where we can reach every child at scale. Once they leave, we lose one of the best opportunities to shape their lifelong healthy habits. There is already an expectation of around two hours of PE each week. However, as the review highlights, this is not delivered consistently—particularly in secondary schools, where the curriculum pressure is greatest. All too often, PE is squeezed out rather than protected.
My Lords, we broadly welcome this report as it shows more commitment to the arts and creative subjects, and sees the end of the EBacc, which focused so heavily on academic learning. As the noble Lord, Lord Freyberg, said, it has been sad indeed to see music disappear from many schools, along with drama, dance and art, particularly as the creative industries are sources of pride and economic well-being in the country.
Students will welcome the greater choice offered. There will be challenges in ensuring that the depleted teaching workforce for these subjects is re-energised, with more teachers being recruited. Can the Minister say how teacher recruitment is going for the creative sector? We also need reform of GCSE English and maths—neither currently encourages young people to pursue these subjects—and we continue to face an acute shortage of science teachers, particularly physics teachers. Do the Government have a plan to remedy that?
We are concerned by the new V-level proposals. T-levels have not caught on as the previous Government hoped. BTECs are understood and accepted by employers, colleges and universities. It takes a while for a new qualification, particularly a vocational one, to become known and accepted. I was working for City & Guilds when NVQs, or national vocational qualifications, were introduced—remember them? It was said that they would simplify the vocational offerings and be the lasting solution to the academic/vocational divide, but where are they now?
My Lords, there is a Division in the House. The Committee will adjourn for 10 minutes, but these votes may be back to back, so we may adjourn for 30 minutes; we will have to see what happens with the voting.
My Lords, as I was saying before I was so rudely interrupted by the votes, national qualifications were supposed to be the lasting solution—and where are they now? I remember the concerns people had that the qualifications which had shaped so many careers were to disappear. We tried to reassure them that they would be City & Guilds NVQs, which calmed some of the storms, but with City & Guilds currently in the doldrums that will not be so easy this time round.
The current creative qualifications are broadly understood and respected. Why create something new, rather than refurbish the existing? We also note that overly prescribed content will not support those SEND learners who currently thrive under a flexible, adaptable and practical-based curriculum. Will the Minister slow down the pace of reforms and retain funding for the successful creative qualifications, at least until T-levels or V-levels have proved their worth, because they certainly have not yet? It is vital to consult further education colleges and tutors, universities, schools and awarding bodies which know at first hand the value of the qualifications they deliver. The awarding bodies were not fully consulted in the development of T-levels, which meant that mistakes were made.
I associate myself most warmly with the very real concerns about modern languages. If I had more time, I would develop my arguments on those, but I must stick to the time here: just rest assured that modern languages are pretty essential to our future, too.
The futures of our young people—the future creative professionals and international ambassadors who could contribute much to the quality of our lives and to the economy—are at stake. However, I congratulate the Government on rowing back from the exclusively academic programmes of their predecessors.
My Lords, developing a cutting-edge curriculum to equip children and young people with the essential knowledge and skills which will enable them to adapt and thrive in the world and workplace of the future was a key purpose of this review. Media literacy and digital literacy were two of the top five issues raised by young people and stakeholders in the review process. The definition of media literacy used in this review was
“understanding and engaging critically with the message conveyed through different media channels, including AI”.
However, Ofcom, the body charged with the responsibility for monitoring and overseeing the delivery of media literacy in the UK, uses this definition in its three-year strategy on it:
“the ability to use, understand and create media and communications”
in a variety of contexts. The difference is apparent.
Using and studying creative media content was absent from the consideration of the curriculum review. Why was it missed out? Is it part of the arts? Yes, and the review did deep dives into other arts subjects, but not these. Was it not seen as important to the future of the economy and the future of work, while film, TV and computer games are priorities for support in the creative industries strategy, and createch is growing apace? Was it not seen as societally relevant?
Most culture that people and young people consume is screen-based, and most creative work they make and exchange is on TikTok and will only grow with AI. Unlike other arts subjects, it was not part of the existing national curriculum, and following the philosophy used to approach the review—evolution not revolution—it had no formal foundations in the curriculum to evolve from. Whatever the reason for not addressing it, the result is that questions need to be asked and answered.
My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Freyberg, on securing this debate. It is much needed. I agree with a lot of the comments that have been made so far. I want to go a little off-piste and talk about teaching about religion and belief in state schools, which, according to the courts, must be conveyed in a way that is objective, critical and pluralistic. That principle reflects the wider human rights framework governing education and has been reiterated over a number of years in domestic and European case law. In England, the High Court in Fox v Secretary of State for Education drew attention to the importance of ensuring that pupils receive a balanced understanding of the diversity of beliefs present in modern society, including non-religious world views such as humanism. The judgment highlighted concerns that such perspectives should not be treated as marginal or incidental but rather form a meaningful part of pupils’ education about religion and belief. More recently, the Supreme Court in Northern Ireland, in case JR87, reaffirmed that same principle, upholding the finding that elements of the religious education curriculum there were not sufficiently objective, critical and pluralistic because they effectively privileged particular religious perspectives. Importantly, the court also made it clear that the existence of a parental right of withdrawal cannot compensate for a curriculum that does not meet the required standard.
In the light of that developing case law, and given that the Curriculum and Assessment Review suggested that religious education may in due course be brought within the national curriculum, can the Minister say what assessment the Government have made of the implication of these judgments for religious education in England? What steps will they take to ensure that RE across the English school system is strengthened so that it reflects the full diversity of both religious and non-religious beliefs in contemporary England?
20 of 38 shown
The challenge, however, lies in the gap between aspiration and implementation, and it is a considerable one. The Government are pursuing an ambitious range of activity simultaneously: a reformed curriculum, an enrichment strategy, the National Youth Strategy, the schools White Paper, the National Centre for Arts and Music Education and the Hodge review of Arts Council England. These initiatives serve different purposes, and not all are primarily concerned with education, but those that are must be properly joined up if they are to deliver on the Government’s commitments. There is, for example, an apparent tension between the national centre’s reliance on leveraged philanthropy to fund activities that would previously have been covered by statutory schools funding, and the Hodge review’s parallel recommendation for an entirely separate philanthropic fund. I ask the Minister directly: is it either viable or desirable to place this much weight on philanthropy to fill gaps that statutory funding ought to cover?
Compounding this, the new National Centre for Arts and Music Education is reported to be operating on a smaller budget than the bridge organisations it replaces, only some of which will continue to receive support from DCMS. But even a well-resourced national centre could not on its own solve what is, in the end, the most pressing problem of all: there are simply not enough specialist teachers to deliver the arts subjects the Government have promised.
The Government have reduced initial teacher training bursaries for creative subjects at precisely the moment when the review calls for their expansion. The consequences are already visible. Drama is recruiting less than half its target number of trainee teachers; music is only just above half. The Campaign for the Arts has noted the obvious tension: the Government have pledged to put creativity at the heart of the curriculum, while simultaneously restricting the financial incentives that draw people into teaching those very subjects. I ask the Minister directly: how do the Government intend to build a revitalised arts education on a diminishing supply of specialist teachers, and will they reconsider the bursary position?
I will add a broader question about how the arts subjects are valued, not merely in policy documents but in public discourse. For too long, arts and humanities subjects have been set in opposition to STEM, as though the two were competing rather than complementary. That false hierarchy has been entrenched by the marketisation of higher education. When universities become dependent on student fees, students become customers, and subjects begin to be valued, or devalued, according to their perceived market worth. The arts and humanities have suffered on both counts: devalued in the league tables that drive student choice and devalued culturally in a discourse that has come to equate worth with starting salary. This is the context in which the review’s commitment to parity of esteem between subjects must be understood. It is why that commitment, if it is to mean anything, will require more than warm words in a curriculum document.
Finally, I will say a brief word about language—not the language of the review, but modern languages as a subject. The abolition of the EBacc is, on balance, good for arts education, but it carries a real cost for languages, which derived much of their school-level protection from that same performance measure. There are already reports of head teachers reducing GCSE languages provision in direct response to the removal of the EBacc. University departments have been contracting for years. Since January alone, closures or reductions have been announced at Leicester, Nottingham, Heriot-Watt and Essex. In 2024, fewer than 3% of A-levels were in languages; PE attracted more entries than French and German combined. Can the Minister say what steps the Government are taking to ensure that the gains for arts education do not come at the further expense of languages? The case for an advanced language premium, along the lines of the advanced maths premium, has to be considered.
The Government have made a public commitment to every child having access to high-quality arts education, regardless of background or postcode. The ongoing consultation on Progress 8 and the new curriculum expected in 2027 represent a genuine opportunity to get this right. I look forward to hearing how the Government intend to take it.
Research has shown that three-quarters of parents think that SATs harm their children’s mental health, as the stress and anxiety of GCSE-style exams at the age of 10 or 11 take their toll. The review claimed that it would emphasise inclusion, belonging and a curriculum that values every child for who they are. Instead, the review recommended that more children spend more time preparing for government tests, including children with SEND. Some 76% of children with SEND do not reach the expected standard in SATs, while 91% of children with EHCPs do not reach that expected standard. For many of these children, preparing for SATs is the start of school avoidance, which often carries over to secondary school.
The call for meaningful reform of primary assessment from school leaders, teachers, parents and children will not go away, because the problems with SATs persist. Head teachers will continue to struggle to recruit and retain year 6 teachers, and too many parents will continue to see damage to the mental health of their 10 and 11 year-olds. There is still time for the Government to listen to those who know children and their education best, and I hope that discussions to that effect can take place in the near future.
The review rightly recognises that improving PE is about strengthening delivery, consistency and the conditions that schools need to make it happen. However, I also believe that we should be more ambitious. The Chief Medical Officer recommends around 60 minutes of physical activity a day for children; that should be our direction of travel, properly embedded into the school day. As Ali Oliver of the Youth Sport Trust said:
“By increasing physical activity levels in schools, we can develop children who are happy, healthy and ready to learn”.
I recognise that we cannot endlessly add to the curriculum, but, equally, we cannot continue to treat health and well-being as a secondary consideration. That is why physical education matters.
Finally, I urge the Government to go further by ensuring that financial education is properly resourced and given the priority it deserves, and by placing physical education at the heart of school life. If we want financially capable and physically healthy adults, we must start in our schools.
GCSEs and A-levels are currently available in media, film and TV studies. Though the take-up is relatively small, with 26,500 at the moment, it is one of the arts subject areas that is seeing an uptick in applications. Are these subject areas recognised as ones that will stand alongside others that have been identified and be given equal status, alongside performance measures and the reformed Progress 8? Do they need to be looked at, revitalised and updated? Are they rigorous enough? Will they be included in the National Centre for Arts and Music? There is one T-level for broadcast and media. Do there need to be VQs, and how will they align with existing qualifications?
To summate, I believe that this was an omission in the curriculum review. There is a good reason for that omission to be remedied as a matter of priority, so that we can be reassured that the appropriate focus and scrutiny, with attendant recommendations, have been done to inform content and planning for the very welcome and much needed new national curriculum. I look forward to the Minister’s reply.
Curriculum and Assessment Review · Order Paper · Order Paper