The current system of curriculum and assessment is not working well for students with SEND nor for those living in poverty.
Furthermore, the “construction and balance” of curriculum content in some subjects is inhibiting mastery and depth of understanding – effectively playing off breadth against depth.
And the current examination and testing system is “broadly working well” but with concerns over the volume of assessment, especially at GCSE level.
The interim report of the government’s independent Curriculum and Assessment Review, which is being led by Professor Becky Francis, runs to 45 pages and sets out a clear direction of travel for the next phase of work.
The review was launched by the government in July 2024 to look at the challenges to attainment for young people and the barriers which hold children back – particularly those living in poverty or with SEND.
The interim report confirms that it is focused on “evolution not revolution”, and rules out more fundamental reforms, including any wholesale changes to examinations or the number of subjects being studied.
At primary level, the report is “clear that formal assessments are an important part of key stage 1 and 2”, but does raise concerns about the impact of some tests, including the key stage 2 assessment on grammar, punctuation and spelling and the writing assessment.
At secondary level, it states that “traditional examined assessment” at GCSE remains the “primary means of assessment”, but does set-out the review’s intention to consider ways to “reduce the overall volume of assessment at key stage 4”. The report also raises concerns that the EBacc performance measures may “unnecessarily constrain the choice of students”.
The review received more than 7,000 responses to its call for evidence and the report identifies four broad areas for reform, which we can now expect to dominate the final report and recommendations – due to be made public in the autumn. These four areas are:
1, The system is not working well for all: The report is clear: “In practice, ‘high standards’ currently too often means ‘high standards for some’.” It points to a “stubbornly large” attainment gap between rich and poor, and young people with SEND who “make less progress than their peers”.
2, Challenges with specific subjects: The report identifies both minor and major issues within specific subjects, not least the balance between breadth and depth of subject knowledge: “The causes of this apparent imbalance between breadth and depth of content are not always clear. The next phase of the review will consider this issue closely.”
3, The curriculum needs to respond to social and technological change: The review commits to a “knowledge-rich curriculum” and is clear that “subject-specific knowledge remains the best investment we have to secure the education young people need in a world of rapid technological and social change”. However, it adds that attention is needed on issues such as artificial intelligence, media literacy, critical thinking, and digital skills: “Global social and environmental challenges require attention to scientific and cultural knowledge and skills that can equip young people to meet the challenges of the future.”
4, Technical and vocational qualifications at 16-19: While recognising the success of A levels and the “great promise” of T levels, the review warns that “a significant proportion of young people require a mix of qualifications, or cannot access A levels or T levels, or have not yet decided on career plans”. It also raises concerns that a “high number of differently branded and graded qualifications means that learners and employers are unclear about the purpose and value of some study programmes”, warning that this leads to “churn in the system”.
It also commits to the principle of students resitting GCSE English and maths post-16 if they fail to gain a Grade 4. However, it warns that provision for this “appears to be uneven” and that we must “reconsider the available pathways”. It adds: “Given the relationship between achieving grade 4 and above and access to future opportunities and life chances, we think the expectation for study of maths and English should remain, but with greater nuance in measures to ensure that as many learners as possible can achieve positive outcomes.”
The curriculum
The breadth and volume of curriculum content is the core theme in the interim report – with the the review setting out its intention to ensure more time and space for subject mastery at all levels. The report states:
Breadth vs depth: “We remain committed to the principle of a broad and balanced curriculum and recognise that the current shape of the curriculum at key stages 1 to 4 provides students with good exposure to a wide range of subjects. However, we have identified that some features of the current system make the delivery of this broad and balanced curriculum challenging. Many respondents cited the trade-off between breadth and depth, noting that while the curriculum has a large variety of subjects, there can be a challenge to address them all adequately.”
Primary phase: “We have consistently heard from primary practitioners and subject experts that the curriculum at key stages 1 and 2 is not effectively balancing depth and breadth. This is reported to lead to a struggle to cover all content with sufficient depth and negatively affects pupils’ ability to master foundational concepts. In the next phase we will review the volume of specified content at key stages 1 and 2 to ensure that a good level of breadth across the curriculum is achievable, while continuing to drive high and rising standards in all subjects, which includes mastery of foundational concepts in English and maths.”
Key stage 3: “The curriculum is at its broadest in terms of the number of subjects studied at key stage 3. Yet evidence shows that breadth is often being compromised. Due to the volume of content to be covered at key stage 4, many schools begin preparing pupils for GCSE in year 9, which narrows the curriculum offer and may curtail learning in curriculum subjects not selected for further study. Findings from the NFER show that 56% of schools begin teaching GCSEs in year 9 for all or most subjects, and some even begin doing this as early as year 7.”
Key stage 4: “We have heard two main barriers to achieving breadth and balance at key stage 4. As seen in key stages 1, 2 and 3, the first is a question of volume which is reported to challenge adequate curriculum depth and to squeeze the curriculum time available for mandatory but non-assessed subjects such as PE, RE and RSHE. The second relates to the EBacc performance measures. Responses from the call for evidence have highlighted that the EBacc may unnecessarily constrain student choice (and, consequently, their engagement and/or achievement).”
Examinations and assessment
On assessment, the report rules out fundamental changes to SATs or GCSEs and says that the system is “broadly working well”.
The report continues: “The review wants to ensure that the assessment system captures the strengths of every young person and the breadth of the curriculum, and that it has the right balance of assessment methods, while maintaining the important role of examinations.
“We consider that the system is broadly working well, and we intend to retain the mainstay of existing arrangements. However, there are opportunities for improvement.”
The report identifies concerns with some areas, “particularly the effectiveness of the key stage 2 statutory assessment of writing and the volume of key stage 4 assessments – we will carry out further analysis on these matters”. The report states:
Assessment at key stages 1 & 2: “We are clear that formal assessments are an important part of key stage 1 and 2. However, the call for evidence and our wider engagement has highlighted concerns with some assessments. In particular, many expressed concern that the standalone end of key stage 2 assessment on grammar, punctuation and spelling might lead to the teaching of textual features in isolation at the expense of a sound understanding of reading and writing. We will review the curriculum and how this assessment might better equip pupils to use these foundational building blocks fluently.
“We have also heard concerns that the writing assessment at the end of key stage 2 does not validly assess pupils’ ability to write fluently and does not incentivise effective teaching of writing. Evidence considered as part of the review reports that pupils instead spend considerable classroom time learning to reproduce writing containing textual features to meet writing assessment criteria, rather than developing fluency in writing. In the next stage of our work, we will examine how the assessment of writing at key stage 2 can be improved.”
Assessment at GCSE: “Externally set and marked exams are an important way to ensure fairness as part of our national qualification system. A particular theme in the call for evidence responses is the volume of assessment undertaken by students at key stage 4. Evidence shows that, compared to many other countries, students in England spend more hours sitting exams.
“We have also heard concerns that exams – coupled with the volume of content needing to be covered and their use in accountability measures – can lead to ‘teaching to the test’, with students spending too much curriculum time rote-learning facts and model answer structures and revision at the expense of depth of understanding of the content.
“The review will consider carefully whether there are opportunities to reduce the overall volume of assessment at key stage 4 without compromising the reliability of results. We will also take a subject-by-subject approach to consider assessment fitness for purpose and the impact of different assessment methods on teaching and learning. Given all of the evidence, we are clear that traditional examined assessment should remain the primary means of assessment across GCSEs.”
Next steps
The Curriculum and Assessment Review will now begin its work analysing the four identified areas. The report confirms that work will include:
- Considering concerns that have been raised across subjects about the specificity, relevance, volume and diversity of content, and conduct closer analysis to diagnose each subject’s specific issues and explore and test a range of solutions.
- Considering the impact of current performance measures on young people’s choices and outcomes.
- Exploring Level 2 and 3 pathways at post-16, with special attention to vocational routes and support for progression.
- Conducting further analysis of assessment at key stages 1 to 4 and considering any necessary improvements.
The review says that it “expects to recommend a phased programme of work across the subjects listed in the national curriculum” in order to allow reforms to be made “incrementally in a way that does not destabilise the system”. Its final report and recommendations are due to be published in autumn.
Review lead Professor Becky Francis said: “I have learnt much from our data analysis and research, and from the fantastic response to our call for evidence. The review panel and I have a clear picture of the present state of the curriculum and assessment system.
“We have a deep understanding of where the key challenges lie and where our efforts to improve the system will see the best result in ensuring all young people are able to achieve and thrive.
“This evidence gives us confidence in embarking on the next stage of the review which will see us do further analysis on these issues, including subject content.”
- DfE: Independent report: Curriculum and Assessment Review: Interim report, March 2025: www.gov.uk/government/publications/curriculum-and-assessment-review-interim-report