Curriculum and Assessment Review: trade-offs and challenges

Posted on 05/03/2025

Alpesh Maisuria, a member of Forum’s Editorial Board who teaches at UWE Bristol and leads the Education and Childhood Research Group, writes here in a personal capacity to report on a recent All-Party Parliamentary Group meeting at which Professor Becky Francis gave an update on the progress of the government’s Curriculum and Assessment Review.[1]

The government’s Curriculum and Assessment Review (CAR) consultation closed last November after eliciting 7,000 responses in two months. On 25 February I attended the All-Party Parliamentary Group (APPG) for Schools, Learning and Assessment, where Professor Becky Francis CBE provided an update on the CAR ahead of initial findings to be published in Spring. Sarah Kilpatrick, NEU President, was the discussant for this event. Daniel Kebede, NEU General Secretary, spoke at a previous APPG meeting about Teacher Workload, Recruitment, and Retention. At that meeting a key theme emerged – the lack of flexibility in a curriculum which left teachers with little professional autonomy over curriculum and assessment design.

The February meeting attracted the largest audience I have seen in three years of attending, testimony to the opportunity the CAR affords for education policy to take a new direction. The majority present seemed to be members of the House of Lords and included key figures such as Lord Knight, who chaired the influential Beyond Ofsted inquiry.

Professor Francis opened with a brief introduction reiterating the principles which have guided the CAR. She said the review will ensure that the curriculum appropriately balances ambition, excellence, relevance, flexibility, and inclusivity for all children and young people. It will be rigorously evidence- and data-informed. It will seek evolution not revolution, and build on the existing relative strengths of a system with finite resources. It will not seek to fix what is not broken. It will pay attention to the practicalities of implementation, and avoid unintended consequences and additional workload for staff. The Review cannot address every issue facing children and young people, or wider society, but it will maintain the commitment to a high-quality comprehensive curriculum for all to 16. It will identify barriers that prevent access to quality provision or to particular pathways, and develop solutions.

A brief statement by Kilpatrick was followed by Q&A. Among themes raised by questions were:

• The need for a revolution in the curriculum given the interlinked problems identified.
• The benefits of arts education, music, SEND, classics, languages, D&T, and PHSE.
• Problematic performance measures and the obsession with exams.
• Assessment at primary schooling.
• Reliability of qualifications.
• Misinformation and critical skills education.
• SEND.
• The so-called ‘missing third’: those approximately one-third of students who do not achieve at least a ‘pass’ in GCSE English and Maths.

The reply to each of these questions was broadly that there are good things happening, and so a “revolution” was not needed. In any case, the terms of reference for the Review meant that the scope and focus was limited. Furthermore, the CAR has not been tasked to deal with wider problems in the system. Professor Francis highlighted the following problems that implicate the CAR but were beyond its remit:

• Need for more resources.
• Funding.
• Shortage of subject specialist teachers.
• Cultural bias against vocational and creative subjects.
• School inspection challenges and transition.

Professor Francis referred to the uptake of subjects as an indicator of success; for example vocational qualifications, which, she noted are selected by that 44% of young people. She also drew attention to international comparisons (for UK comparisons, see this briefing). England’s education system is an international ‘outlier’ because of its focus on ‘comprehensive’ education and on ‘inclusion.’ Professor Francis noted that only Canada and the Scandinavian countries shared these focuses in relation to the curriculum and assessment. She felt these focuses were positive, and the review will build on these strengths.

She reiterated that the review would involve “trade-offs”. If more creative subjects are to be offered or emphasised, then something would need to be removed given the fullness of the curriculum. She was clear that finding the balance between these tensions would be very challenging and would take time. The CAR was just the beginning of the process.

Professor Francis mentioned the Review’s terms of reference and the imminent publication of its preliminary findings. She stated that nationally administered examinations would be kept because they are fairer than teacher assessments, as demonstrated during the pandemic. It is noteworthy that Professor Francis specialises in educational inequalities.

Sarah Kilpatrick provided a strident response, albeit briefly given the many questions allowed by the Chair. Among other things, Kilpatrick noted:

• We need a revolution, not evolution, to address deep problems.
• The obsession with accountability needs to change.
• The Progress 8 measure is problematic.
• There is not enough time for children to develop critical skills such as identifying misinformation.
• Everything is done to prepare for OFSTED, which has been weaponised as part of the Academies program. [I felt this point was timely given the changes proposed in the Children’s Welfare and Schools Bill and changes to School Inspection].
• Significant underfunding in the system cannot be ignored.
• There needs to be caution in using data because it is not consistently reliable. An example given was children being taken out of class to do other subjects.

Sarah Kilpatrick concluded by emphasising that the curriculum’s focus on testing is detrimental to fun, enjoyment, and joy.

In summary, Becky Francis provided an honest update framed by a strategy to manage expectations. The key messages were that the CAR’s principles gave it a limited scope and focus, and change would require trade-offs. Professor Francis was understandably reserved given that preliminary findings are to be made public imminently and she did not wish to pre-empt publication. I have been acquainted with Professor Francis since 2009 (she presented me with my PhD certificate in her role as Director of the UCL Institute of Education in 2015) and on this occasion she seemed frustrated and challenged. As one Peer half-jokingly remarked, the role of CAR Chair is a poisoned chalice.

The full report of the Review is due to be published in the Autumn.

[1] This blog had been reproduced, in an edited form, from UWE’s Education and Childhood Research Group.