Lord Carter Condemns 'One-Size-Fits-All' Approach in Schools Bill

House of Lords 20/05/2025

My Lords, I strongly support the purpose clause, particularly where it describes the purpose of the Bill as being to “improve … standards and remove barriers to opportunity in schools in England and Wales”.

I will be very brief and focus on Part 2, dealing with schools. For me, Part 2 should be first and foremost about promoting parental choice, because only parents really know what sort of education is best for their children: not the state, but parents.

There should be choice—as much as possible—since children are all different, and what can be better than an education which enhances the unique talents and personalities of each child?

This also chimes with Article 2 of Protocol 1 to the European Convention on Human Rights, which states in terms:

“In the exercise of any functions which it assumes in relation to education and to teaching, the State shall respect the right of parents to ensure such education and teaching in conformity with their own religious and philosophical convictions”.

So, choice should be enshrined in any Bill purporting to promote children’s well-being.

Is this the Bill’s aim? Looking at Part 2, I rather fear that the opposite is the case.

To take just two examples, academies are important, since their heads have shown by their excellent records of achievement that they know how to run schools better than government.

But Part 2 would impose a one-size-fits-all national curriculum on academies, with the worst probably to follow in sweeping Henry VIII powers.

Then there are faith schools.

What could be more important than a child being educated in an environment rooted in discipline, dignity and duty, which are the hallmarks of our faith schools, such as Haredi schools and other faith schools?

But Part 2 would grant sweeping powers to local authorities to monitor, register and regulate faith-based settings.

It seems to be an agenda seeking uniformity over choice and threatening our diverse landscape, so much admired across the world.

As it stands, therefore, Part 2 of the Bill does not enhance children’s well-being, which is what the Title of the Bill says it is supposed to do.