Additional written evidence is contained in Volume 3, available on the Committee website at www.parliament.uk/educom

On cover and title page: House, committees of the whole House, general committees and select committees. On title page: Returns to orders of the House of Commons dated 14 May 2013 (the Chairman of Ways and Means)

Britain’s two recent referenda - on Brexit (2016) and on Scottish independence (2014) - have raised in the public mind fundamental questions about the future of the UK. It seems that for the first time, the public, the media and the political elite have woken up to the fact that in different parts of the UK, there are different histories, different aspirations and different imagined futures in relation to a whole range of vitally important political issues. But what the public debate often fails to recognise is that in many areas of public life – perhaps especially education – the UK is already a federal state and in key respects has been so for many years. The aim of this volume is therefore to take stock: to try and capture what the current state of educational policy and practice is across the whole of the UK. This has been achieved by commissioning two different papers from each of the four countries – Wales, Scotland, Northern Ireland and England. The first is an overview, exploring the distinctive history, principles and current policies of each country. The second paper has been specifically chosen as a case study of a key policy that highlights the distinctiveness of each country – the Foundation Phase for Wales, assessment policy in Scotland, ‘shared education’ initiatives in Northern Ireland and higher education policy in England. Taken together these eight papers give an important insight into the complexities of educational policy and practice across the whole of the UK today. This volume was originally published as a special issue of Oxford Review of Education.

The Government's plans for replacing GCSEs with new English Baccalaureate Certificates in some subjects is trying to do too much, too fast. Introducing several fundamental changes at the same time and to a tight timetable will jeopardise the quality of the reforms and may threaten the stability of the wider exam system. GCSEs need "significant improvements" in order to restore public confidence in the exam system, but the Government still needs to make the case that the GCSE brand is so discredited that it is beyond repair. MPs are also concerned about the impact of the changes on subjects outside the English Baccalaureate, where students will be taking GCSEs for some time to come, according to the Government's plans. The report also questions how well the Government's proposals will serve lower attaining pupils, who are often the most disadvantaged. There is no evidence that the proposed changes will help to tackle under-achievement or narrow the attainment gap between the richest and poorest students any more effectively than GCSEs. The Government is also called upon to re-think its plans for a Statement of Achievement specifically for lower attaining pupils. MPs agree that changes are needed to the way in which exams are run, but they raise serious concerns about franchising subjects to exam boards. The report is critical of the Government's decision to abolish some GCSEs before publishing the outcomes of the National Curriculum Review and its proposed changes to the school accountability system. MPs also note the wide-ranging stakeholder opposition to many of the Government's proposals.

In this report the Education Committee stresses that the Department for Education must maintain sufficient focus on the critical children's policy agenda to ensure this is given adequate resources and receives enough attention from senior officials and ministers. Children's policy must retain sufficient status alongside schools and colleges, which appear to occupy the majority of Ministerial and officials' time. The Committee's report - which considers evidence from current and former DfE Board members, and independent experts - commends several aspects of the DfE's governance and leadership, including the appointment of four skilled and experienced new non-executives. The Committee recommends, however, that the Board be subject to increased external scrutiny. The DfE should also consider appointing a non-executive Board member with expertise in children's policy issues, and must do more improve staff morale. MPs also suggest a number of improvements to the DfE's current restructuring plans. Central amongst these is a recommendation for the Department to evaluate the impact of structural change on the front line and on customer service.

The Committee has summarised and evaluated it's work during the current Parliament in a short film entitled 'Closing the gap', available on the Committee's website. This report is intended to supplement the film and provide an overview of their work in different policy areas during the Parliament. Earlier summaries of their work in individual sessions of this Parliament are available on the website of the Liaison Committee. Based on discussions with key players in the fields of education and children's services the Committee decided that their future focus would be on the long tail of underachievement in education. This theme informed their work for the remainder of the Parliament as they sought to recommend changes to close the gap between disadvantaged children and young people, and their peers

The Government needs to prove that it is serious about closing the attainment gap for disadvantaged children by setting out coherent, long-term thinking on early years and children's centres. Ministers should start by making clear the Government's strategy for realising its aspiration to put in place a highly qualified workforce with equal pay and status between early years teachers and those in primary schools. The Government also needs to be clear what children's centres should be offering and who they are for. The Committee identified three different types of centres but this is not reflected in current policy. They also found that the stated core purpose is far too vague and broad. The core purpose needs to focus on achievable outcomes and reflect the difference between centres, especially where they do not offer early education or childcare. Stronger accountability is needed for how well individual children's centres perform and, critically, for how effectively local authorities use children centres to improve outcomes for children in their areas. Closing children's centres should go ahead only after proper consultation and where alternative options have been considered. While some changes may make the network as a whole more effective, it should be up to local authorities to decide how best to organise and commission services. Funding pressures mean some targeting of services is inevitable but all families should be able to access the services they need and that universal services of some sort play a significant part in encouraging families to engage in the first place