Schools are used to the unintended consequences of government policy decisions. With both Ofsted and curriculum reform on the horizon, Pete Taylor says that headteachers are once again holding their breath...
The EBacc question: Only 15% of schools have met the government’s ambition of 90% EBacc coverage – is it time for this accountability measure to be scrapped? - Adobe Stock

Coverage of the national curriculum is rightly an expectation for schools and educators – it is a system-wide model that should ensure consistency nationally and guarantee a broad and balanced education for all young people.

The interim report of the government’s Curriculum and Assessment Review (DfE, 2025) recognises that many schools hold high ambitions for their young people and not only deliver the national curriculum but go way beyond it.

However, the review also recognises that the EBacc accountability measure may “unnecessarily constrain the choice of students” when it comes to the subjects they take.

It is a fundamental truth that headteachers are often torn between what the accountability system demands and what is in the best interests of our students.

We are in a period of change in education in England and government-led change often brings with it unintended consequences.

Professor Becky Francis, who is leading the Curriculum and Assessment Review, has raised her concerns about the “balance” of curriculum content in some subjects and the volume of assessment, especially at GCSE level, raising the spectre of yet more wholesale change. However, she has also promised that it will be a case of “evolution not revolution”.

The idea of evolution rather than wholesale change is welcome in a year when Ofsted is planning significant reforms to the inspection framework, including the planned introduction from September of a new school report card.

A principle that I would like to see placed at the heart of curriculum, assessment, accountability and Ofsted is the acknowledgement that as school leaders we know our contexts best and need to have the autonomy, freedom and empowerment to shape our school curriculum according to what our students need.

What lies ahead could be an opportunity to ensure that both curriculum and inspection align more readily.

However, with both the curriculum and inspection on the table for change, it is fair to say that as school leaders we are collectively holding our breath.

 

Broad and balanced

If the change that lies ahead could correct one thing, then it would be nice if we could iron out the contradiction between the push for a broad and balanced curriculum as described in the current Ofsted inspection framework and the high-stakes accountability measures put in place by the DfE. This has been an elephant in the classroom for some years.

If we genuinely want a broad and balanced offer, then we need to have honest conversations regarding the removal of some of these accountability measures. As school leaders, we need licence to make educational decisions that are in the best interests of our students, not simply to satisfy external measures.

To this point, the review’s questions about the unintended consequences of the EBacc are timely. Design and technology, the arts, drama – curriculum purists would love to offer the full range of subjects for all students, but for many schools the financial viability vs accountability vs recruitment equation simply doesn’t add up. Increasingly, much of our curriculum vision or ambition is limited to cost and dictated by the subjects ministers think are most important (and the teachers we can find to deliver them).

The report points out that barely 15% of state-funded schools are meeting the DfE’s incredibly ambitious EBacc target of 90%. This surely has to tell us something. I for one hope it tells us about the integrity of England’s school leaders.

In my own setting – a 1,122-student secondary academy – we are currently 9% for the EBacc, but students are on the best pathways for them. We paid no attention to the DfE’s target.

I often wonder what the unintended consequences of the EBacc policy will be in the long-run and how many young people have been coerced into sitting GCSEs in subjects they didn’t want to continue – or more to the point, forced to give up subjects that they did want to study?

All pathways have their suitability and place. We must allow schools to work with young people and families to personalise the key stage 4 offer – not to slot young people into a one-size-fits-all system.

Elsewhere, the report notes that RE and RSE are compulsory, but not part of the national curriculum, which it says has led to “a lack of national agreed content standards” and “national disparities in the quality of provision”.

This is another unintended consequence – subjects marginalised by default. In many schools, non-subject specialists are doing their best to deliver these subjects with very little curriculum time. Clarity around the long-term future for such crucial subjects is required.

It is also welcome that the interim report discusses the complex issue of English and maths post-16, where students are forced to resit their GCSEs if they have not yet achieved a Grade 4 at GCSE. The report supports the principle of this policy but warns that provision for this “appears to be uneven” and that we must “reconsider the available pathways”.

Another unintended consequence of the intention to ensure all students get basic qualifications is the road of continued failure that some have been pushed down as a result.

 

Breaking down barriers

The government’s stated mission is to break-down barriers to opportunity and as such much will be expected of the national curriculum “evolution”.

Accessibility is key – to break-down barriers all young people need to be able to access learning. The interim report is sobering in this regard, warning that “the system is not working well for all” and pointing to “stubbornly large” attainment gaps – not least for disadvantaged students and those with SEND.

As we know, the SEND system is broken nationally and there is simply not enough money. The report recognises this, but as long as the government continues to prioritise inclusion, without clearly defining what this means or funding it properly, then change will be piecemeal.

Once again, the ambition of a system of SEND support from 0 to 25 and a policy of inclusion in mainstream schools is admirable, but the unintended consequences are clear when the funding is not there to back up these ambitions.

Funding is at the heart of many of the challenges facing education and we hope that when the final curriculum review is enacted we will be given the resources to make it work.

Schools have lived through many unintended consequences of government policy in recent years and so while we want to see inspection reform and while we demand accountability reform, you will forgive us if we continue to hold our breath…

 

Further information & resources