ePolitix.com reports on Monday's children, schools and families questions, in which ministers dafend the national challenge programme.
Evidence on the national challenge programme must not be "false, a fiction or sexed-up" Liberal Democrat education spokesperson, David Laws said today.
Speaking at children, schools and families oral questions, Laws referred to reports from Ken Boston, former head of the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority, which claim that ministers evidence provided to a committee was incorrect.
Shadow Conservative secretary Michael Gove also challenged schools minister Jim Knight about details of his meetings with Boston in the run-up to the SATs fiasco.
Siobhain McDonagh (Lab, Mitcham and Morden) asked how many schools were expected to be opened under the national challenge programme.
McDonagh, joined by Kevin Baron (Lab, Rother Valley), drew attention to her Conservative local council's opposition to two city academies.
Schools secretary Ed Balls replied that mistakes were corrected when mistakes were found.
He added that academies were regularly created and that government influence over primary schools would not be withdrawn.
In response to a question from David Evennett (Con, Bexleyheath and Crayford), Balls rejected the claim that a national curriculum for primary schools was "unnecessary bureaucracy".
Calling Michael Gove's announcement of primary academies "highly acclaimed", Conservative shadow schools minister Nick Gibb asked why the government had rejected the proposals.
Ed Balls did not accept the plans for primary academies.
He argued that the national curriculum enabled a focus on "literacy and numeracy".
Balls insisted that the commitment to early years and primary school learning required a national curriculum.
Eric Illsley (Lab, Barnsley Central) raised the topic of the financial difficulties in the Building Colleges for the Future programme.
Illsley pressed in particular for a decision in relation to Barnsley College.
Pressing the secretary of state, Mike Penning (Con, Hemel Hempstead) accused the projects of being forced into cut backs.
Mark Pritchard (Con, The Wrekin) highlighted the difficulties of a college of arts in his constituency, which had been advised not to "think big" in its plans but was now on hold.
Balls replied that the Learning and Skills Council was consulting on which projects needed to be "prioritised".
The secretary of state sought not to get involved with the consultation process and stressed that no project would be left uncompleted.
Balls repeated that "£80m would be brought forward now" to help those colleges in such an "advanced state".
Balls stated that we would maintain the funding "which the Tories would cut".
Lynda Waltho (Lab, Stourbridge) then challenged the government over proposals to abolish appeals panels for excluded children.
Kelvin Hopkins drew attention to a shortage of residential accommodation for permanently excluded pupils.
John Bercow also stressed that children with special educational needs were nine times more likely to be excluded.
Shadow children's minister Tim Loughton took a different tack, criticising the fact that 40 per cent of excluded children were allowed to return to school.
This was despite "serious racial and sexual abuse" being committed by the excluded children, he added.
Loughton called it unacceptable that permanent exclusion was not an option for serious offences.
Sarah McCarthy-Fry, children's minister, responded by calling for balance in the reporting of statistics.
She accepted that in some cases permanent exclusion was needed, and highlighted the government's commitment to adopt the recommendations of Sir Alan Steer's report on behaviour.
