Labour risk stifling social mobility in education reforms that will hit vulnerable hardest

Over the past four decades, I've committed considerable time and resources toward s helping young people receive a better education. My most significant contribution has been the founding of a city technical college - later transformed into Ashcroft Technology Academy (ATA) - in south-west London in 1991. ATA provides free education for more than 1,500 children aged 11 to 18 and, as Chairman of Trustees, I can honestly say it's not fashionable ideologies that transform their life chances.

It's the quiet, relentless pursuit of excellence in every aspect of school life and an ambitious curriculum. By setting demanding standards, by nurturing a culture of ambition, by promoting the benefits of hard work and success, our students - particularly those classified as disadvantaged - achieve exceptional results. These experiences and successes are the reason I find the Government's proposed reforms to secondary education so deeply concerning.

We welcome a significant number of students from disadvantaged backgrounds and who have known Special Educational Needs (SEN), yet we are one of the 15 top performing schools in England. Our absence rate is the lowest in the country, and our disadvantaged and SEN students outperform national averages.

This is true social mobility and this success is achieved through hard work, a dedicated teaching and support staff, a well-rehearsed and exacting set of daily routines and expectations and, finally, a huge amount of care. Yet Education Secretary Bridget Phillipson's reforms serve to reduce the content, and therefore the overall standard, of the current curriculum, and to discourage the study of academic subjects.

They favour "soft" subjects that will, over time, erode knowledge and artificially reduce the attainment gaps she seeks to narrow. Instead of raising standards, Phillipson looks set to preside over a calamitous drop. Over time this will make social mobility even more difficult for our most vulnerable young people.

Previous reforms under then Education Secretary Michael Gove between 2010 and 2014, saw English schools steadily raise standards. These prioritised core knowledge, academic challenge and accountability, and their impact has been positive: English pupils now outperform many of their peers across Europe.

By contrast, in parts of the UK, including Scotland, where standards were relaxed, outcomes have declined sharply. That's why Gove has stated Philipsson's reforms will lower standards, limit opportunity and set back social mobility.

Improvement in education always requires demanding more - from schools, from teachers, and from pupils. Such demands are never popular. They bring pressure, scrutiny, and a degree of discomfort. Yet by holding the line, we help young people flourish.

The English baccalaureate (EBacc), which the Education Secretary now plans to scrap, encouraged schools to steer all students - not just the privileged - towards academic and knowledge-rich subjects such as languages, history and science. These subjects open doors to elite universities and global careers. Importantly, for students from disadvantaged backgrounds, they also provide knowledge, cultural capital and a global awareness, all of which Phillipson's reforms threaten to deprive them.

The Education Secretary started this process when she announced plans to remove the additional funding state schools need to operate the International Baccalaureate, itself an academically rigorous, global qualification which demands knowledge and civic mindedness.

Now she has gone further by rejecting some of the most important recommendations of the curriculum review, namely choosing to dilute "Progress 8", used to evaluate English secondary schools by tracking academic progress from the end of primary school and GCSE examinations.

In doing this, she risks reversing progress. In independent schools, academic subjects will remain at the heart of the timetable. In the majority of state schools, however, I predict they will quietly be replaced by less demanding and less examined courses. Principals and headteachers will not take these reforms lying down.

Many have observed firsthand that social mobility cannot be built on lower expectations. I genuinely fear for the consequences of Phillipson's reforms and an ever-increasing decline in standards for the next generation of children unless the Government sees sense.