Dr Michael Gray is the Chairman of Hereford & South Herefordshire Conservative Association and the Executive Headmaster of a 3-18 independent school in the West Midlands.
Bridget Phillipson’s removal as Secretary of State for Education was met with very little public disappointment. A recent survey conducted by the National Education Union shortly before her removal, found that none of the more than 4,000 respondents believed that she was performing ‘very well’, while the same proportion believed that the Government was performing ‘very well’ on education.
Unlike many of her predecessors in the role, Phillipson served more than two years in the post and became the third longest-serving education secretary since 2010, with her ministerial role preceded by her appointment as Shadow Education Secretary in November 2021.
Although the policies that were implemented during her tenure varied considerably, they were united by a common philosophy: more central direction, greater reliance on the state and less emphasis on institutional autonomy and parental choice – which is likely to have profound consequences for schools, families and children in the years ahead.
The significance of these wider questions has been highlighted almost immediately by the direction taken under Burnham’s new premiership. His first major announcement on education proposed devolved responsibility to local leaders, schools and employers over technical qualifications from the age of fourteen. The proposal makes it clear that the wider debate around who should shape education – central governments, local institutions or individual schools – is far from settled.
Few areas within education are more important than what is taught within the classroom. In November 2025, the Department for Education published its 197-page curriculum and assessment review. In many senses, the contents were relatively uncontroversial and represented – in the words of the report – a ‘refreshing’ of the curriculum, rather than any sort of radical overhaul.
While some might argue that the review was too cautious, it is also helpful to maintain continuity in a profession where ministerial merry-go-rounds have often led to constant upheaval. Reducing the volume of assessment at Key Stage 4 has understandably been well-received, as is ensuring that the curriculum seeks to prepare young people to be ready both for work and life beyond school.
However, alongside these positive elements, there are also concerns about the balance between inclusion and the transmission of a coherent body of knowledge. While ensuring that pupils encounter a broad range of perspectives is important, there is a risk that an increasing emphasis on representation and identity can come at the expense of subject knowledge, cultural literacy and the teaching of a shared intellectual inheritance.
The inclusion of contested theoretical perspectives within the curriculum also raises questions about whether schools are equipping pupils to engage critically with ideas or inadvertently endorsing particular ideological viewpoints. Ultimately, the curriculum and assessment review is constrained by an educational philosophy which risks prioritising political objectives over the development of knowledge, understanding and academic excellence.
Alongside this, the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Act (2026) will require all academies and free schools to teach the revised National Curriculum from September 2028. The legislation represents a significant shift away from the original academy settlement, reducing some of the freedoms that were intended to allow schools to innovate. Additionally, the legislation reduces the freedom of academies around teacher pay and conditions, employing practitioners without qualified teacher status, and gives the Secretary of State stronger powers in relation to academy trusts.
Phillipson’s broader preference for a more active state is equally evident in her approach to family welfare, where expanding the role of the state has been a defining feature of her philosophy. Having described the two-child benefit cap as “a spiteful attack on children”, which she argued had had a “devastating impact”, she consistently sought its abolition, which ultimately took effect in April 2026.
Alongside this, free school meals have been extended to every child in a household receiving Universal Credit, which means that over a quarter of all children in England are now eligible for free school meals – a figure which has roughly doubled in a decade. Since April 2026, the rollout of non-means tested, universal breakfast clubs begun in 750 early adopter schools, with the programme expanding to more than 2,000 schools from September.
When it comes to free childcare, Phillipson went beyond government policy. Only parents who are both working are typically entitled to the offer of free childcare, but the former Education Secretary argued for universal early years education, despite some estimates that extending the entitlement could increase annual spending on free childcare from around £8 billion to approximately £15 billion by 2028.
There are key questions to be asked around the proper balance between state support and family responsibility. There is a legitimate debate about whether expanding state provision risks unintentionally weakening the expectation that families remain the primary source of responsibility, nurture and aspiration for children. There are also compelling philosophical, moral, societal and economic arguments for ensuring that public policy strengthens rather than supplants the role of the family in raising children.
But perhaps no area of Phillipson’s tenure has attracted greater controversy than her approach to independent education. Her October 2024 remarks that ‘our state schools need teachers more than private schools need embossed stationery’ was widely criticised as unnecessarily divisive and as reinforcing the perception that the Government viewed independent schools primarily through the lens of social class rather than educational contribution. The introduction of VAT on independent school fees has contributed to school closures and caused significant disruption for many families with growing evidence that the original impact assessments underestimated the policy’s consequences.
By mid-2026, sector analysis suggested that more than 100 independent schools across the UK had closed since the introduction of VAT on school fees in January 2025. What followed was staff redundancies, increased pressure on places in some state schools and reduced parental choice. Alongside this, 13,000 students moved from the independent to the state sector in 2024-25 academic year, against a forecast of 3,000. The Government justified the policy on the basis that it would help fund 6,500 new teachers – though official figures show that teacher numbers have fallen rather than increased.
Ultimately, the policy represents a significant shift in the relationship between the Government and independent education. Rather than recognising independent schools as partners within a diverse educational ecosystem, it has placed greater fiscal burdens on families who exercise educational choice.
The legacies of education secretaries are measured more by the philosophy they leave behind and the direction in which they set the system, than simply by the number of policies or initiatives that they introduce. While Bridget Phillipson’s tenure undoubtedly included some reforms that many school leaders welcomed, these were overshadowed by a broader vision of education which was characterised by greater central direction, an expanded role for the state and diminished institutional autonomy.
There is, of course, a legitimate role for government in ensuring high standards, widening opportunity and supporting the most vulnerable; the question is not whether the state has a role, but rather where its role should end. Flourishing occurs when responsibility is shared between government, schools, and above all, families. While many of Phillipson’s objectives were laudable, the educational philosophy underpinning them risks leaving England with an educational system that is more uniform, more centralised and more dependent on the state, and ultimately less willing to trust schools and families to fulfil their respective responsibilities.
The Government’s latest proposals to reshape elements of education around local labour markets demonstrate that these questions remain. They generate questions relating to whether economic problems are being mistaken for educational ones, and whether the potential downgrading of academic standards will hurt the most socio-economically disadvantaged the hardest.
The central question remains unchanged: should the future of English education be shaped principally by the state, or by empowered schools, responsible families and strong local communities? It is a debate that is likely to define education policy for years to come.
Dr Michael Gray is the Chairman of Hereford & South Herefordshire Conservative Association and the Executive Headmaster of a 3-18 independent school in the West Midlands.
Bridget Phillipson’s removal as Secretary of State for Education was met with very little public disappointment. A recent survey conducted by the National Education Union shortly before her removal, found that none of the more than 4,000 respondents believed that she was performing ‘very well’, while the same proportion believed that the Government was performing ‘very well’ on education.
Unlike many of her predecessors in the role, Phillipson served more than two years in the post and became the third longest-serving education secretary since 2010, with her ministerial role preceded by her appointment as Shadow Education Secretary in November 2021.
Although the policies that were implemented during her tenure varied considerably, they were united by a common philosophy: more central direction, greater reliance on the state and less emphasis on institutional autonomy and parental choice – which is likely to have profound consequences for schools, families and children in the years ahead.
The significance of these wider questions has been highlighted almost immediately by the direction taken under Burnham’s new premiership. His first major announcement on education proposed devolved responsibility to local leaders, schools and employers over technical qualifications from the age of fourteen. The proposal makes it clear that the wider debate around who should shape education – central governments, local institutions or individual schools – is far from settled.
Few areas within education are more important than what is taught within the classroom. In November 2025, the Department for Education published its 197-page curriculum and assessment review. In many senses, the contents were relatively uncontroversial and represented – in the words of the report – a ‘refreshing’ of the curriculum, rather than any sort of radical overhaul.
While some might argue that the review was too cautious, it is also helpful to maintain continuity in a profession where ministerial merry-go-rounds have often led to constant upheaval. Reducing the volume of assessment at Key Stage 4 has understandably been well-received, as is ensuring that the curriculum seeks to prepare young people to be ready both for work and life beyond school.
However, alongside these positive elements, there are also concerns about the balance between inclusion and the transmission of a coherent body of knowledge. While ensuring that pupils encounter a broad range of perspectives is important, there is a risk that an increasing emphasis on representation and identity can come at the expense of subject knowledge, cultural literacy and the teaching of a shared intellectual inheritance.
The inclusion of contested theoretical perspectives within the curriculum also raises questions about whether schools are equipping pupils to engage critically with ideas or inadvertently endorsing particular ideological viewpoints. Ultimately, the curriculum and assessment review is constrained by an educational philosophy which risks prioritising political objectives over the development of knowledge, understanding and academic excellence.
Alongside this, the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Act (2026) will require all academies and free schools to teach the revised National Curriculum from September 2028. The legislation represents a significant shift away from the original academy settlement, reducing some of the freedoms that were intended to allow schools to innovate. Additionally, the legislation reduces the freedom of academies around teacher pay and conditions, employing practitioners without qualified teacher status, and gives the Secretary of State stronger powers in relation to academy trusts.
Phillipson’s broader preference for a more active state is equally evident in her approach to family welfare, where expanding the role of the state has been a defining feature of her philosophy. Having described the two-child benefit cap as “a spiteful attack on children”, which she argued had had a “devastating impact”, she consistently sought its abolition, which ultimately took effect in April 2026.
Alongside this, free school meals have been extended to every child in a household receiving Universal Credit, which means that over a quarter of all children in England are now eligible for free school meals – a figure which has roughly doubled in a decade. Since April 2026, the rollout of non-means tested, universal breakfast clubs begun in 750 early adopter schools, with the programme expanding to more than 2,000 schools from September.
When it comes to free childcare, Phillipson went beyond government policy. Only parents who are both working are typically entitled to the offer of free childcare, but the former Education Secretary argued for universal early years education, despite some estimates that extending the entitlement could increase annual spending on free childcare from around £8 billion to approximately £15 billion by 2028.
There are key questions to be asked around the proper balance between state support and family responsibility. There is a legitimate debate about whether expanding state provision risks unintentionally weakening the expectation that families remain the primary source of responsibility, nurture and aspiration for children. There are also compelling philosophical, moral, societal and economic arguments for ensuring that public policy strengthens rather than supplants the role of the family in raising children.
But perhaps no area of Phillipson’s tenure has attracted greater controversy than her approach to independent education. Her October 2024 remarks that ‘our state schools need teachers more than private schools need embossed stationery’ was widely criticised as unnecessarily divisive and as reinforcing the perception that the Government viewed independent schools primarily through the lens of social class rather than educational contribution. The introduction of VAT on independent school fees has contributed to school closures and caused significant disruption for many families with growing evidence that the original impact assessments underestimated the policy’s consequences.
By mid-2026, sector analysis suggested that more than 100 independent schools across the UK had closed since the introduction of VAT on school fees in January 2025. What followed was staff redundancies, increased pressure on places in some state schools and reduced parental choice. Alongside this, 13,000 students moved from the independent to the state sector in 2024-25 academic year, against a forecast of 3,000. The Government justified the policy on the basis that it would help fund 6,500 new teachers – though official figures show that teacher numbers have fallen rather than increased.
Ultimately, the policy represents a significant shift in the relationship between the Government and independent education. Rather than recognising independent schools as partners within a diverse educational ecosystem, it has placed greater fiscal burdens on families who exercise educational choice.
The legacies of education secretaries are measured more by the philosophy they leave behind and the direction in which they set the system, than simply by the number of policies or initiatives that they introduce. While Bridget Phillipson’s tenure undoubtedly included some reforms that many school leaders welcomed, these were overshadowed by a broader vision of education which was characterised by greater central direction, an expanded role for the state and diminished institutional autonomy.
There is, of course, a legitimate role for government in ensuring high standards, widening opportunity and supporting the most vulnerable; the question is not whether the state has a role, but rather where its role should end. Flourishing occurs when responsibility is shared between government, schools, and above all, families. While many of Phillipson’s objectives were laudable, the educational philosophy underpinning them risks leaving England with an educational system that is more uniform, more centralised and more dependent on the state, and ultimately less willing to trust schools and families to fulfil their respective responsibilities.
The Government’s latest proposals to reshape elements of education around local labour markets demonstrate that these questions remain. They generate questions relating to whether economic problems are being mistaken for educational ones, and whether the potential downgrading of academic standards will hurt the most socio-economically disadvantaged the hardest.
The central question remains unchanged: should the future of English education be shaped principally by the state, or by empowered schools, responsible families and strong local communities? It is a debate that is likely to define education policy for years to come.