Asked by
To ask His Majesty’s Government what are their plans to replace
A-levels and T-levels with the Advanced British Standard.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for
Education () (Con)
My Lords, the advanced British standard will bring together the
best of A-levels and T-levels, remove the artificial choice
between academic and technical pathways, and raise the attainment
floor for all students. Students will receive more high-quality
teaching time, continue to build maths and English capability,
and develop a wider knowledge base that will enhance their career
opportunities. This is a long-term reform which will need careful
development and consultation.
(Lab)
My Lords, at the Conservative Party conference the Prime Minister
had the opportunity to announce real change for our schools. He
could have spoken about fixing crumbling schools, recruiting and
retaining teachers currently leaving en masse, and sorting out
the widening attainment gap, soaring absence levels and missing
mental health support. Nothing we heard will tackle these issues
affecting pupils now or provide the staff we need to teach now,
let alone in a decade’s time. What are the Government doing this
financial year to provide the buildings, teaching and support
this generation of children so desperately needs?
(Con)
I cannot accept the assertion of the noble Baroness. The
Government are doing a great deal on teacher recruitment, and
these programmes, starting now, will also address the attainment
gap. We will pay up to £6,000 a year tax free to teachers of key
STEM and technical shortage subjects in the first five years of
their career and to those working in disadvantaged schools,
addressing recruitment and attainment. Critically, we will spend
£150 million each year to support those who do not pass their
maths GCSE at 16 to gain these qualifications by the time they
get to 19.
(Lab Co-op)
My Lords, since this is the advanced British standard, can the
Minister confirm that it will be available for schools in
Scotland, as the A-level exam is at the moment? What discussions
have there been with the Scottish Government?
(Con)
As I said in my Answer, there will need to be extensive
consultation, but we hope to work closely with the Scottish
Parliament on this.
(LD)
My Lords, A-levels and T-levels should never be the only options
for 16 year-olds. There are many highly talented, creative and
practical students with work-based skills which are essential for
the economy. Can the Minister reassure us that BTEC vocational
qualifications will continue to be available to ensure that these
students get their work accredited?
(Con)
I am afraid that I cannot reassure the noble Baroness of that.
She will be aware that we have carried out extensive reform of
our qualifications and will know that, as of August 2022, we had
removed 5,500 qualifications with low or no enrolments. However,
we still have the most complicated and duplicative landscape of
qualifications in this area —at least 7,000 available
qualifications—which we will address through our reform
programme.
(CB)
My Lords, as ever, I declare my interest as a secondary school
teacher. The Minister said that the ABS will develop maths and
English capabilities. For anybody who has just guided their son
through the maths GCSE and maths A-level—as I have, rather
badly—are we saying that the maths GCSE is not good enough?
Surely that is enough maths for anybody.
(Con)
I do not think that it is enough maths for everybody. As the
House knows, we are an outlier in the G7 in not requiring maths
to 18. We have made tremendous progress with our maths hubs and
teaching for mastery pro approach. We can see that in Ofsted’s
recent report on school maths, which described how a
“resounding, positive shift in mathematics education has taken
place in primary schools”.
We are determined to invest more in maths and give every child
the opportunity to succeed in maths.
(Con)
My Lords, I very much welcome the Government’s interest in
broadening the curriculum at age 18. Has the Minister had
indications from universities that they are willing to broaden
their admittance criteria too, so that students who follow a
varied programme across the subjects are not disadvantaged
relative to those who have followed a much narrower curriculum?
Will she also ensure that, where children have to learn maths or
English to 18, which they might naturally not wish to do, it is
maths and English for which they will find a use in their lives
and not maths and English which is directed towards getting into
university?
(Con)
The way we are thinking about this programme—I stress again that
we need to consult extensively on the detail of it—is that it
will offer children much more breadth and time, including a third
more teaching time. That means that we can keep around 90% of the
content of the current A-level for those going down an academic
route and follow the occupational standards for those going down
a technical or vocational route. The aim of the programme is to
give children much greater choice so that they will still be able
to access the same three-year degrees if university is their
preferred option but also be well equipped for further technical
education or the workplace.
of Hudnall (Lab)
My Lords, the Minister, in her initial Answer to my noble friend
on the Front Bench, referred to the necessity for extensive
consultation before the new qualifications can be properly
embedded. I am sure she will agree that the burden of changing
the arrangements for post-16 education will fall hugely on
schools, and particularly on school leaders. Can she tell the
House how extensively those people will be consulted? Without
wishing to be disrespectful, how much notice will be taken of
what they say?
(Con)
I am slightly surprised by the noble Baroness’s last remark. This
programme clearly cannot work without the buy-in, understanding
and support of school leaderships, so it would be a short-sighted
Government who did not pay attention to their reflections on
this. I am also slightly surprised by the noble Baroness’s
hesitancy, because this approach was in the Labour manifesto of
2010 and recommended by the Times Education Commission.
(LD)
My Lords, I remind the House of my declared interests. Those with
special educational needs, particularly dyslexia and dyscalculia,
will clearly be put under a lot more pressure by this approach.
When will the Government publish a plan to make sure that these
people are not excluded from reaching an A-level standard or put
under extra pressure? When can we relate it to the rest of the
curriculum, or will we change the law so that you are allowed to
exclude people and discriminate against them?
(Con)
Clearly, we will not do the latter. It is incredibly important
that we design this in such a way that we have the right offer
for children with special educational needs and disabilities,
those who have been in local authority care and those who have
come from particularly disadvantaged homes. That is a clear
commitment from the Government.
(Non-Afl)
Perhaps the noble Baroness can help me. My wife is Polish, and
she read in the newspapers recently that Polish is being offered
at secondary school level, alongside Latin, as a second language.
She was very surprised, and said, having been taught Latin as
well as Polish at school, that Polish is more difficult to learn
than Latin and just about as useful, which surprised me. Could
the noble Baroness advise me on how I should respond?
(Con)
Maybe it would make sense to talk to the school in question to
understand its decision to offer Polish.
