No one is more aware than this audience that the national curriculum is an investment in our young people – for their benefit and for the benefit of the nation. Education is inherently valuable, but it also plays a crucial role in preparing young people to address the civic and economic needs of our country and the wider world.
The national curriculum is of course the bedrock of the teaching and learning facilitated and directed by your leadership – and I’m continually inspired by the practice I see around the country, as trusts work to secure curriculum excellence and innovation across their schools, and as teachers bring the national curriculum to life.
So, it’s imperative that the national curriculum supports high standards in our education system, and it’s crucial that we build on the progress made in this country due to the longstanding determination and hard work of leaders and teachers. In doing so, we must be clear on two points.
First, that these high standards must extend to all our young people. In practice, “high standards” currently too often means “high standards for some”.
Our ambition is “high standards for all”.
And secondly, that the national curriculum is an aspirational entitlement, rather than the entirety of the school curriculum.
I’ll return to these themes in my talk.
When I addressed CST Conference a year ago, we were still in the opening engagement stage of the Review, and had recently opened the Call for Evidence. We received over 7,000 responses to that call, and many of you were among the generous individuals and organisations that took the time to share your experience and expertise with us. Thank you – I’m hugely grateful. The depth of curriculum knowledge coming from the trust sector was truly inspiring and humbling, reflecting a distinctive wealth of expertise that has developed from trusts’ role in our system.
If a week’s a long time in politics, a year’s a very long time! Our initial deadline of ‘the Autumn’ has become a more crowded space with two forthcoming sector White Papers – the Skills White Paper and the Schools White Paper.
As we approach publication of the Final Report in a few weeks’ time, I wanted to give you a sense of the approach and direction that we’ve taken.
Background
You are familiar with the Review and its formation, so I shan’t spend long on background. Just to remind you, we have an exceedingly ambitious scope and timeline, covering Key Stage 1 through to post-16, and focused on identifying any problems and blocks to progress.
You’re familiar too with the Review Panel, wherein we have deliberately foregrounded sector expertise across different phases of education.
Hopefully you’ll recall a bit about the Review’s terms of reference and it’s working principles. As you can see from the slide, these principles range from being evidence and data informed to taking a consultative approach, and I’m proud to say that I believe we have remained true to these principles throughout the Review. Mindfulness of trade-offs and avoiding unintended consequences has been an especially important challenge.
I’ll speak a little about our determination to be driven by evidence .
We polled over 2,000 young people, and their parents, and supplemented this with polling undertaken for us by other organisations, including polling of 5,000 parents by Parentkind.
There were a diverse range of respondents to the Call for Evidence, including educationalists as the mainstay, but also parents and carers, young people, and other members of the public, and organisations and advocacy groups.
We also met with over 4,000 stakeholders across the country through our ‘Roadshows’ – several hosted by members of this audience, thank you – and via a range of roundtables and webinars with young people, teachers, parents, subject experts and employers to hear their views directly.
And we gathered a wide range of research and statistical evidence (including analysis of learner data from the NPD and LEO datasets) to ensure a thorough understanding of the empirical evidence.
Findings
Turning to our findings. It’s important to start by highlighting that most pupils and parents are reasonably satisfied with the current curriculum. This is important to highlight: polling is often used to draw our attention to problems, and hence contentment remains unreported. The 2024 National Parent Survey shows that nearly three-quarters of parents agree with the statement “I am happy with the quality of education my child receives from their school”.
Regarding the curriculum diet, three-quarters of parents think the amount of focus on developing an in-depth knowledge of English, Maths and Science is about right (indicted in red on the left-hand side). Nine in ten parents also think that the teaching of subjects like Drama and Music is important, and a slightly smaller group – but still nearly two-thirds – are happy with the amount of school curriculum focus on these subjects.
International comparisons suggest that the current knowledge-rich national curriculum has had a positive impact on attainment. Despite disruption from the pandemic, England has continued to perform comparatively well in international tests in English, Maths and other core areas. This success reflects the enormous work of education professionals and leaders, and the engagement of young people, as well as a commendably longstanding policy commitment to high and rising standards.
So, it’s important that we build on what’s working well, rather than instigating disruptive change for its own sake, or mending things that don’t need fixing.
We have been clear that this is about evolution not revolution – and there has been strong support for this approach from the sector. We are deeply attuned to the capacity of the system to deliver change, including the supply and needs of teachers. We have been clear about the trade-offs that will be needed in considering the implementation of changes to curriculum and assessment.
However, we have also heard strong support for change where it’s needed.
It is more than a decade since the national curriculum was last reviewed. It’s right that the national curriculum is now refreshed to ensure that it remains cutting edge and fit for purpose. And, that we take this opportunity to address problems with the current curriculum. The frustrations of professionals and subject experts regarding the constraints and limitations of the present curriculum came through strongly in the Call for Evidence, public events and from schools across the country.
So, rather than wholesale change, you can expect significant areas of continuity, but with attention and changes to address particular issues.
We said in our Interim Report that we judge our educational architecture such as the key stages, and our national assessments and qualifications, to be broadly working well – the latter including the Phonics Screening Check, the multiplication tables check, national tests at the end of Key Stage 2, GCSEs, A Levels, T Levels, and some vocational qualifications at post-16. That’s not to suggest there we won’t recommend any change across these areas, but these elements will all remain.
As you saw in our Interim Report, there are four broad themes to which we’ve especially attended. There is a real opportunity to make improvement here, and to deliver a curriculum that is better for young people, and better for teachers.
We’ve explored the evidence on each of the national curriculum subjects, along with the overall shape of the curriculum, and the assessment and accountability measures that contribute to this. The report will contain recommendations in each area, including for each national curriculum subject – many relatively minor, others more significant.
I’ll return now to the two points I highlighted at the beginning, starting with social justice and high standards for all.
I know everybody in this room shares a moral imperative to ensure that gaps in progress and attainment are narrowed (including where those gaps are largest – for young people from lower socio-economic backgrounds, and those with SEND). And you’re all familiar with the trends on this slide , the line graph on the left showing the attainment gap according to socio-economic disadvantage, and the table on the right showing Progress gaps according to socio-economic disadvantage and special educational needs.
Obviously, the curriculum is a relatively small element in the explanations for these trends – other school level factors have a more significant role, such as pedagogy, resources, institutional arrangements and so on; and factors outside the school have an even greater role. For example, unless child poverty is successfully addressed, we are all firefighting.
Nevertheless, the curriculum does have an important role to play in supporting good outcomes for all, and it’s important that we remove present blocks to progress.
One of the elements here that we are all concerned about is the significant number of young people who don’t secure a Grade 4 at GCSE Maths and English, firstly aged 16, and then by age 19 (given that those that don’t attain this must continue to study English and Maths post-16). Given the imminence of the Skills White Paper, and how the Curriculum and Assessment Review’s work has informed that White Paper, I will spend some time on our analysis here.
Post-16 proposition (E&M and L3)
Higher levels of attainment in Maths and English are strongly linked to positive social and economic outcomes, including higher earnings, better employment opportunities, improved health and life satisfaction and greater civic engagement.
Achieving level 2 in Maths and English is particularly important because it is commonly used as an entry requirement for many jobs and for progression to level 3 qualifications. Yet around 40% of learners each year finish Key Stage 4 without achieving level 2 in both Maths and English.
For the 2018/19 cohort (which is the latest cohort of learners whose GCSE and post-16 grades weren’t affected by COVID adjustments), 9% achieved level 2 in Maths but not English, 10% in English but not Maths, and 21% didn’t achieve level 2 in either.
Of those that then continued to study these subjects post-16, only 29% reached level 2 in Maths and English by age 19. There are differences between the subjects: a third of those studying English reached level 2 by age 19 and only a quarter studying Maths. Of most concern, however, is that approaching two-thirds of learners made no grade progress at all.
And, for learners with lower prior attainment (below a GCSE grade 3), the proportion reaching level 2 during post-16 study is substantially lower. Of those with a GCSE grade 2 in Maths at age 16, only 13% achieved a level 2 by age 19, and it was 21% for English. For those with a grade 1, the figures drop to around 5% for both subjects.
Where students don’t achieve level 2 at 16, the Review supports the policy of young people continuing to study Maths and English given the importance for their futures. But our analysis points to the need for two things.
Firstly, a renewed effort to narrow the pipeline of young people not achieving level 2 Maths and English at age 16. Our recommendations will seek to support this.
And secondly, a more nuanced, evidence-driven approach at post-16, rather than an inflexible approach to retakes. Conference, do you know that in 2024, of the 3,400 17-year-olds with grade 2 in GCSE Maths who were re-entered in November, only around 50 of them achieved a grade 4? That’s around 1.5%. The vast majority achieved another grade 2. The cost – both to young people’s morale, and to the public purse – must be significant.
So, we are making recommendations which we hope will better support more young people to make good progress post-16, and these will be reflected in the forthcoming Skills White Paper.
You will also see there the reflection of our analysis and recommendations on post-16 pathways, with a strong focus on level 3 provision. Our Interim Report was clear that we see the need for a third, vocational pathway alongside the academic and technical pathways offered by A Levels and T Levels; and, of course, a strong offer is especially important to support the large number of young people seeking such routes, among whom those from socio-economically disadvantaged backgrounds are disproportionately represented. Our Final Report will share details of our vision for the nature of these vocational qualifications. We even came up with a name – no prizes for guessing what it is!
Curriculum Shape
As you can imagine, one of the most common refrains I have heard this last year is “It should be taught in schools...”. There are calls for an array of additional topics to be added to the curriculum. While some of these are somewhat surprising(!), others are clearly worthy causes – yet there are very many. So chairing this Review has required strong adjudication and a tight focus on not continually adding.
This is especially important given that we’ve heard repeated complaints from teachers and leaders that the curriculum has grown overloaded, damaging standards.
The statutory guidance for the national curriculum says that it is ‘just one element in the education of every child’; it wasn’t intended to take up the entire school day. Yet Oak National Academy analysis supports what teachers tell us, suggesting that for a primary school to cover every national curriculum subject at Key Stage 2 across a week would take around 25 and a half hours, exceeding the approximate teaching time available of around 22 and a half hours a week. They suggest a similar problem at KS4, with excessive GCSE time squeezing mandatory subjects such as PE, Computing, RE, RSHE and Citizenship.
It's important that the national curriculum maintains its position as an ambitious entitlement for all. However, trusts and schools must have the space to go beyond it to provide the innovative practice, locally tailored content, and enrichment activities that help ensure young people thrive in education and later life. We know that it’s here, in the wider school curriculum, that much of the work to create those “cultures of belonging, connection and engagement’” that Leora spoke of so compellingly yesterday, takes place. And, to support ‘a broader view of success’, via sports, performance and work experience, and the development of transferable skills that set young people up for the future; and which young people and their parents value so highly.
We have also been concerned about the impact of an overcrowded and shallow curriculum on teaching and learning. While we are keen to maintain the current breadth across all existing subjects, evidence supports the need to build secure foundations and mastery of key subject concepts, to enable the development of expertise. But, in some subjects, the current construction and balance of content appears to be impeding young people developing an appropriate depth of understanding, hindering their progress and undermining standards. Our recommendations are intended to ensure that teachers have enough flexibility both to stretch high attainers and to make sure that those who are struggling with learning can master core concepts.
The causes of the tension between breadth and depth are complex. We have therefore analysed these subject by subject. We think it's important that there is space in the curriculum for depth and mastery, as well as for the development of a school's wider curriculum offer. Getting this right will have a beneficial impact on the capacity of schools to make sure children and young people have access to a full range of subjects, and to provide vital enrichment activities - thus ensuring that all children and young people get the best from the curriculum.
Curriculum Principles
We have explored the evidence on the features of high-quality curriculum design, including consideration of international best practice, and how effectively each Programme of Study currently works.
We've carefully looked at features of curriculum design that support learners to retain, build on and apply their knowledge.
Clearly, should the Government accept our recommendations, it will then be the DfE and those it commissions to undertake the re-writing of the national curriculum aims and Programmes of Study, that implement the changes we will set out. And in many ways, this is the most critical bit – the devil being in the detail. To this end, in addition to making specific recommendations for individual subjects we have also developed a set of principles to guide this work, as follows.
The national curriculum should be an entitlement for all children and young people. The refreshed national curriculum must be an aspirational, engaging and demanding offer that reflects the high expectations and excellence our young people deserve, irrespective of background.
It should retain a knowledge-rich approach, ensuring skills are developed in conjunction with knowledge in ways that are appropriate for each subject discipline.
It should be constructed so that it supports children and young people to master core concepts, ensuring sufficient space for them to build and apply their knowledge and deepen their understanding.
Building deep understanding in a curriculum area requires vertical coherence through all phases, carefully sequenced to build on the content and essential concepts in each phase, and thus supporting transitions. It’s also important to ensure horizontal coherence in the curriculum, to highlight where content in one subject relies on content in another.
Specificity and precise language are essential to securing curriculum continuity, coherence and aiding mastery. The Programmes of Study for some foundation subjects currently lack specificity, which can result in teachers feeling pressured to ‘cover all bases’ or repeat content across years and key stages. We are clear, though, that greater specificity shouldn’t not mean greater volume of content and should not unnecessarily impede schools’ or teachers’ autonomy.
The refreshed national curriculum should ensure this professional autonomy is maintained, including the flexibility to choose lesson content and how to teach it. As, as you can see, we argued in a Conceptual companion Paper to our Interim Report that curriculum excellence supports great teaching, and it is teaching that brings the curriculum to life.
The national curriculum is for all our children and young people. As such, it should reflect our diverse society, and the contributions of people of all backgrounds to our knowledge and culture.
The national curriculum documents should be a resource for teachers and teaching, not a set of rarely accessed pdfs. We recommend that the national curriculum be developed as a digital product that can support teachers to navigate content easily, and to see and make connections across key stages and disciplines.
And we also recommend that the drafting process must involve teachers as well as other experts and include consideration of the curriculum time available. Doing so will help ensure that the national curriculum achieves its aim of being an ambitious and aspirational entitlement and that it supports high standards for all.
I hope I have given you a flavour of some of the issues we are considering and the direction of the Review as we move forward to publication of the Final Report. I’d like to end where I began, with some thank yous.
It was a huge honour to be asked to lead the Curriculum and Assessment Review, and it has been a fascinating experience. I have had the privilege to work with a fantastic panel of experts, [some of whom are here today], who are testament to the exceptional commitment and expertise within the sector. As you know, they bring a diverse array of interests and experience to the panel, which has made for incredibly rich and educative debate, always with the best interests of children and young people at their heart. I’d therefore like to thank them for the time and effort that they have committed to this Review.
As I’ve mentioned, we’ve engaged in a huge amount of stakeholder engagement since launching the Review. I’ve been heartened and inspired by the passion of so many people who are driven by a desire to ensure that every young person has access to an excellent education. Thank you to everybody who’s participated – your insights have been invaluable.
As you’ll be aware, it’s been quite the rollercoaster – I’ve been ascribed a range of new monikers in the press, from ‘Left-wing firebrand’ at one end of the continuum, to ‘Timid technocrat’ at the other! I’m extremely grateful for all of the messages of support I’ve received, and I hope that – if the Review is seen by some as too radical, and by others as not radical enough – then we may be in a sensible place.
With the culmination of this Review, we have a big, and rare, opportunity to fix what isn’t working in curriculum and assessment in this country. The work we have done, and the work that you will do implementing any changes in the coming years, will impact the life chances and educational experiences of millions of children and young people. I hope that we can continue to work together as a sector to make the most of this opportunity to build an inspiring curriculum for all.
Thank you.
