Firstly, I think we need to look at Key Stage 4 of the curriculum quite seriously. At the moment, in computing, we have a programme of study for Key Stage 4, but it seems to be honoured more in the breach than the observance. If we are serious about tackling Simon’s category C — the idea that everyone should know enough computing for digital citizenship — then Key Stage 4 is the place where we have to do much more.

Key Stage 3 provides a good foundation, but let’s be serious about computing for everybody at Key Stage 4. The problem, of course, is that what happens in schools at this stage is driven by the qualification landscape. It’s fine for category A — the students who are going to take GCSE Computer Science. Good for them. But what about the rest?

I don’t think we’ve properly fixed computing for his category B - the future knowledge workers - yet either. Yes, we’re focused on category C today, but if we’re thinking about computing for everybody, perhaps it’s time to replace GCSE Computer Science: not remove it, but make it one part of a broader GCSE that covers the whole of computing. That way, categories A and B would both be well served by a qualification that mirrors the full computing curriculum.

Imagine, if you will, that GCSE Science only offered a paper in Physics. Important though Physics is, I don’t think any of us would see that as a sensible solution—and it would affect the way Science was taught at Key Stage 3. That’s the situation we’re in with computing at the moment. You can take a GCSE in Computer Science, but you can’t take one in Computing, and you can’t take one in ICT.

I think a broader qualification would help category C as well. If there were a rigorous, aspirational GCSE in Computing, some of those students interested in digital citizenship might choose to take it. Even if they didn’t, its existence would raise expectations and improve what’s taught at Key Stage 3. We should get serious about that.

My work, of course, is teacher training, and I think we need to think carefully about that too. Back in 2012, you couldn’t qualify as a teacher without demonstrating a cluster of IT skills. I still think that’s important. If we’re serious about digital literacy for all, and about computing being an essential part of every child’s education, then nobody should qualify as a teacher without showing they have a degree of skill in digital technology and artificial intelligence.

We already have mechanisms for that. We could put it into the Teacher Standards. We could build it into the Initial Teacher Training and Early Career Framework. It’s about shaping the curriculum—something I do for my own PGCE course—so these are fixable things.

We also need to look at access to equipment. At the moment, with pupil premium funding, headteachers have a list of things they can spend that money on. It’s funding that supports the most disadvantaged pupils. I think we’d be moving in the right direction if we said to headteachers: yes, you can use that funding to buy laptops, or to pay for home internet connections. That would be an easy and sensible fix. Many pupils already have this technology, but for those who don’t, that kind of support could make all the difference.

An edited transcript of my remarks at the launch of the Royal Society’s System Upgrade Required report