Britain needs to reform its education system to make it fit for this century. The Times newspaper set up an Education Commission in 2021 to work out what should be done. The Commission’s report, one of the most significant ever published on education, sets out the major changes that are needed. On 13 October, Alistair Lexden opened a debate on the report in the House of Lords, which produced wide agreement across the House on the value of the Commission’s recommendations. The text of his speech follows.
I am very glad indeed to introduce, and set the scene for, this debate on the report of The Times Education Commission, which was published in June, attracting much praise—not least from former Secretaries of State for Education of both the main political parties. That was an indication of the widespread consensus in its favour which the report evoked.
I think I must mention at the outset that in the last few days the Royal Society has sent me its endorsement of the report’s key findings. That august body stresses that Britain needs an education system that acknowledges “the value of academic study, technical training and career pathways.”
The Commission had 22 very distinguished members, including four who sit in Your Lordships’ House, and it is so good to see one of them, the noble Lord, Lord Rees of Ludlow, in his place today.
The Commission was chaired by the well-known Times columnist, Rachel Sylvester, noted for her acute assessments of political life. Her deputy chairman was Sir Anthony Seldon, a prolific historian who has long been prominent in the world of education.
Their colleagues were all leading figures in the fields of business, science, the arts, politics, and of course education itself. They worked intensively for a year. They have produced a unanimous report—no mean feat in an area of policy where controversy thrives.
In their report they make 45 recommendations, all designed to equip our country with an education system fit for the 21st century.
No one who reads their report can fail to be struck by the success with which they have carried out their work. Their conclusions and recommendations deserve the most careful consideration by the government, the political parties and the country at large, particularly by the people with the closest interest in the proposals: families, teachers, employers and of course students, the working population of tomorrow.
The report charts a clear course of action, not for the replacement of the existing education system, but for its evolution in order to secure the improvements that, in the Commission’s view, are needed if Britain is to thrive in this century.
Economic policy alone can never ensure a nation’s prosperity. Conservatives in particular should recall the words of Disraeli: “Upon the education of the people of this country the fate of this country depends.” It is a simple truth that can be so easily obscured by the many other issues that clamour for attention day by day in political debate.
I must declare my interest as President of the Independent Schools Association. Its members, nearly 600 strong, are small in size, diverse in character and successful in performance, not just academically but in the wider terms, such as involvement in their local communities, to which the Commission’s report rightly attaches great importance.
They are totally ignored by the national media which skews the perception of the independent sector as a whole, as if it consisted only of big, expensive institutions. This large group of small schools forms part of a wider organisation, the Independent Schools Council, which has some 1,300 members, whom it accredits and represents.
The report treats independent schools with the same critical rigour that it brings to bear on other elements of the education system. It calls for “much greater collaboration between state and independent schools”, and states that “many more private schools should join multi-academy trusts, sharing expertise and assets across the group.”
There is indeed no better way of drawing the two education sectors more closely together, wherever it is feasible. But I would add that there is great merit too in partnership schemes between schools in the two sectors, through which teachers and pupils work together as colleagues to their mutual benefit. Today such partnership schemes are flourishing in their thousands across the country.
The inclusion in the report of wise comment about independent schools, a small component of the system as a whole, is an indication of the report’s comprehensive character. In this respect it is, I think, unprecedented. There have been reports and government papers galore on schools, on universities and on other individual parts of the system.
Here we are given the carefully considered recommendations of a panel of experts on the system as a whole, from early years through to lifelong learning. It is the range of this report which gives it such significance and stature.
The Commission has devised a bold 12-point plan, which would carry its recommendations into effect. At the very centre stands its proposal for a British baccalaureate. It would offer broader academic and vocational qualifications at the age of 18, with parity of funding for pupils in both routes.
So students would be able to gain high-quality qualifications in a wider range of subjects and disciplines, as in other advanced countries. Time and again across the House we have called for an end to the decline of sport, drama, music, and other creative subjects in our schools. The Commission’s plan would bring them back to the heart of education where they belong.
A YouGov poll carried out for the Commission found that 72 per cent of parents were in favour of “all schools receiving extra government funding to provide additional extracurricular activities like sport, drama, music, debating or dance.”
For me, and for many others across the House, music has a particular importance. Its neglect over recent years would, I know, have once again stirred impassioned comment from my noble friend, Lord Black of Brentwood, Chairman of the Royal College of Music, if ill-health had not prevented him from taking part in this debate.
It is an area in which the gap between independent and state tends to be particularly wide. Many independent schools are trying to help close it by working in partnership with their state sector colleagues. But it is the kind of approach that the Commission’s plan embodies which could bring the glories of music to our young people throughout the country.
Above all, the Commission’s plan makes provision for both knowledge and skills. Are not both required in our fast-changing economy?
I will not go through the plan point by point. Noble Lords will have studied it and formed views about it. This debate provides an opportunity to consider them.
What should happen after our debate? The Government should of course give the report careful consideration as they continue to review their Schools Bill— a measure strongly criticised across this House on a number of specific grounds, and more widely for its lack of ambition and vision.
But we need to look beyond this particular Government. If a report like this had appeared when I was in the Conservative Research Department years ago, I would have said at once, ‘this is manifesto territory’.
It used always to be the case that policy groups, serviced by the Research Department and drawing on the work of outside experts, were set up to prepare the ground for election manifestos.
This has not happened in recent years in the Conservative Party. Now is the time to revive the practice with a Conservative education policy group, stimulated by this report, leading the way. The quality of government suffers if party election manifestos are not based on detailed, serious policy work conducted within the parties themselves.
I think we have seen some of the ill effects of the absence of such work in certain policies of the Conservative Party over recent years. It will not do for a Conservative election manifesto to be cobbled together by one or two people at the last moment with contents that take the Party at large wholly by surprise.
And should not renewed policy work within parties seek consensus between them? Do we really want education to be a fierce party political battleground? Is that in the national interest?
When I made reference to the report of The Times Education Commission in the House back in June, my noble friend, Lord Cormack, who unfortunately cannot be in his place today, quoted those well-known words from the Book of Proverbs: “where there is no vision, the people perish. “
The report of The Times Education Commission sets out both a vision and the means of achieving it. In the words of the report, “education should combine skills and knowledge; character and qualifications; oracy and literacy; emotional as well as intellectual understanding.”
Is this not the kind of system that a successful Britain must have?
