The government accepted the Curriculum and Assessment Review's recommendation that Progress 8 should remain the headline key stage 4 performance measure. The government subsequently consulted on possible reforms to the composition of Progress 8 and Attainment 8 and is currently considering the consultation responses. The government will publish its response to the consultation in due course. There was no available Progress 8 data in 2025 because prior attainment data was not available for that cohort. The department has therefore not undertaken modelling of the effect of proposed breadth slots on the ranking of the 50 schools with the highest Progress 8 scores in 2025.

The government accepted the Curriculum and Assessment Review's recommendation that Progress 8 should remain the headline key stage 4 performance measure. The government subsequently consulted on possible reforms to the composition of Progress 8 and Attainment 8 and is currently considering the consultation responses. The government will publish its response to the consultation in due course. There was no available Progress 8 data in 2025 because prior attainment data was not available for that cohort. The department has therefore not undertaken modelling of the effect of proposed breadth slots on the ranking of the 50 schools with the highest Progress 8 scores in 2025.

The government accepted the Curriculum and Assessment Review's recommendation that Progress 8 should remain the headline key stage 4 performance measure. The government subsequently consulted on possible reforms to the composition of Progress 8 and Attainment 8 and is currently considering the consultation responses. The government will publish its response to the consultation in due course. There was no available Progress 8 data in 2025 because prior attainment data was not available for that cohort. The department has therefore not undertaken modelling of the effect of proposed breadth slots on the ranking of the 50 schools with the highest Progress 8 scores in 2025.

Intensive training and practice (ITAP) is designed to strengthen trainees’ knowledge, understanding and classroom practice by supporting them to engage with evidence-based approaches, apply learning in practice and receive focused expert feedback.

ITAP was introduced as a requirement for all initial teacher training (ITT) courses leading to qualified teacher status from September 2024 and continues to be an important part of ITT. The department has provided funding to support the implementation of ITAP. This academic year, ITAP funding is conditional on providers ensuring that trainees are well-equipped to teach pupils with special needs and disabilities. This is a condition of grant funding only and the ITT criteria requirements on ITAP remain unchanged.

The department continues to monitor the effectiveness of all the ITT quality requirements but has no current plans to amend ITAP requirements for courses beginning in September 2027.

Ofsted’s initial teacher education inspection framework provides an independent evaluation of the effectiveness of initial teacher education providers. Inspections consider the quality of education and training, leadership, governance and compliance with the department’s initial teacher training criteria.

The framework does not specifically assess a provider’s processes for appointing academic staff or its research integrity arrangements and there are no plans to change this. Universities are autonomous institutions and are responsible for their own staffing and research governance arrangements, subject to the relevant legal and regulatory requirements.

Effective mentoring is critical to high-quality initial teacher training (ITT) and the trainee experience. Trainees remain entitled to 1.5 hours of dedicated weekly mentor support during placements.

Following feedback from schools and ITT providers, the department removed the minimum 20-hour initial mentor training requirements in November 2024, giving schools and providers greater flexibility where mentors have relevant prior learning, avoiding unnecessary repetition of training.

The change did not remove providers’ duty to ensure mentors receive sufficient high-quality training on the mentor role, the Initial Teacher Training and Early Career Framework and the trainee curriculum. These requirements are set out in the ITT criteria.

Ofsted inspects accredited ITT providers and independently evaluates training quality. To achieve the expected standard, trainees must benefit from high-quality mentoring that meets all entitlements and mandatory requirements. The department continues to monitor inspection outcomes to assess the effectiveness of the ITT quality requirements, including mentoring.

The Secretary of State for Education sets the initial teacher training (ITT) criteria, which accredited providers must meet to deliver ITT that leads to qualified teacher status. These criteria include the requirements for high-quality training, including the Initial Teacher Training and Early Career Framework (ITTECF), which draws on the best available evidence to set out the knowledge, skills and behaviours that define great teaching.

Accredited ITT providers are accountable for ensuring that their provision is compliant with the ITT criteria, including governance criteria to ensure management structures facilitate the effective operation of high-quality ITT programmes. Ofsted independently inspects all accredited ITT providers to assure the quality of ITT provision and compliance with the ITT criteria.

As autonomous institutions, universities are responsible for their own staffing decisions. The department does not prescribe individual providers’ internal appointment processes, arrangements for verifying academic qualifications or research integrity arrangements, and does not have plans to do so.

The Secretary of State for Education sets the initial teacher training (ITT) criteria, which accredited providers must meet to deliver ITT that leads to qualified teacher status. These criteria include the requirements for high-quality training, including the Initial Teacher Training and Early Career Framework (ITTECF), which draws on the best available evidence to set out the knowledge, skills and behaviours that define great teaching.

Accredited ITT providers are accountable for ensuring that their provision is compliant with the ITT criteria, including governance criteria to ensure management structures facilitate the effective operation of high-quality ITT programmes. Ofsted independently inspects all accredited ITT providers to assure the quality of ITT provision and compliance with the ITT criteria.

As autonomous institutions, universities are responsible for their own staffing decisions. The department does not prescribe individual providers’ internal appointment processes, arrangements for verifying academic qualifications or research integrity arrangements, and does not have plans to do so.

The department has not been in contact with the University of Cambridge since 1 July 2026 regarding its status as an accredited initial teacher training provider.

The University of Cambridge is an autonomous institution that is rightly establishing an independent investigation. The university published further details about this on 4 September, which are available at their website.

It is not for the government to dictate the terms of the university’s investigation. My right hon. Friend, the Secretary of State for Education, and I have both met with the vice chancellor of the university and other senior leaders to seek assurance that their investigation will be rigorous and conducted with urgency.

The Office for Students (OfS) is the independent regulator of higher education in England. The OfS has an independent board, which makes its own decisions about how to use its regulatory powers, including when and how to engage with registered providers regarding their compliance with the conditions of registration. The statutory basis for the OfS’ regulatory powers is set out in the Higher Education and Research Act 2017.

The department awaits the outcomes of the investigation, and I understand that the OfS currently has no plans to open regulatory action on this issue.

The University of Cambridge is an autonomous institution that is rightly establishing an independent investigation. The university published further details about this on 4 September, which are available at their website.

It is not for the government to dictate the terms of the university’s investigation. My right hon. Friend, the Secretary of State for Education, and I have both met with the vice chancellor of the university and other senior leaders to seek assurance that their investigation will be rigorous and conducted with urgency.

The Office for Students (OfS) is the independent regulator of higher education in England. The OfS has an independent board, which makes its own decisions about how to use its regulatory powers, including when and how to engage with registered providers regarding their compliance with the conditions of registration. The statutory basis for the OfS’ regulatory powers is set out in the Higher Education and Research Act 2017.

The department awaits the outcomes of the investigation, and I understand that the OfS currently has no plans to open regulatory action on this issue.

To ensure initial teacher training is consistently high-quality, the department regulates the initial teacher training (ITT) market by accrediting ITT providers to deliver courses leading to qualified teacher status and the setting of ITT criteria, which all accredited providers should follow as a condition of their accreditation.

Ofsted independently inspects the quality of ITT provision and compliance with the ITT criteria. Where an inspection identifies that a provider is not meeting the expected standard in all evaluation areas, Ofsted will re-inspect within 12 months.

The Secretary of State for Education may withdraw the accreditation of an ITT provider where the provider no longer meets the requirements of accreditation. The circumstances that may lead to withdrawal are outlined in the ITT criteria and include non-compliance with one or more of the specified criteria, or failure to achieve the expected standard in Ofsted re-inspection.

The department has not withdrawn accreditation from any ITT provider since September 2024.

First, to reiterate what I said, it is right that institutions themselves are responsible for maintaining academic standards. It is a fundamental part of the reason for the success of our higher education system that they continue to maintain high academic standards. The noble Baroness raises an important point about regulation with respect to teacher training, where I think there is a role for Ofsted, but I will come back to her with more detail.

With regard to the university itself, as I have made clear, the Office for Students already has the ability to regulate with respect to academic standards and processes that might be undermining them. She makes an important point, which I touched on earlier, about the extent to which the system itself, rather than simply individual institutions, maintains the quality of academic standards. That is something that we and Universities UK will want to look at in more detail.