The New Visions for Education Group (NVEG), formerly chaired by Sir Tim Brighouse and now by Sir Alasdair Macdonald, was established over thirty years ago to provide a forum for debate on key aspects of education policy. Teachers, academics, journalists, governance experts and administrators from all parts of the United Kingdom contribute to the work of the group.
This submission to the Curriculum and Assessment Review responds to Section 6, a Broad and Balanced Curriculum and Section 7, Assessment and Accountability.
Section 6 A Broad and Balanced Curriculum
The Primary Curriculum is narrowly defined and heavily influenced by the assessment system and Ofsted’s evaluation criteria. This approach pressures schools to plan their curriculum in a way that focuses on short-term memory recall rather than long-term understanding and broad learning. There is an overemphasis on phonics instruction in early years, where the use of phonics schemes based on decodable texts limit children’s exposure to diverse sentence structures and vocabulary.
The SPAG (Spelling, Punctuation, and Grammar) tests distort writing instruction by focusing too much on grammatical features. The current system disproportionately affects disadvantaged students and those with special educational needs, often leading to a “catch-up” curriculum that isolates them from the broader curriculum.
Recommendation 1
We propose redefining the primary school curriculum to be age-appropriate and focused on broad, balanced learning rather than preparation for the next stage and reducing the dominance of phonics in early years providing a richer, more balanced curriculum that includes diverse literacy experiences.
As a result of various developments including the introduction of EBacc and its place in the accountability system, the majority of secondary learners do not have a broad and balanced curriculum in Key Stage 4. Key Stage 3 in many schools has become preparation for KS4. Subject choice at age 14 is curtailed with a devastating impact on the Arts and Technology. There has been a 70% drop in Design and Technology entries at GCSE and Creative subject entries have halved. The House of Lords Committee on Education for 11-16 Year Olds has pointed out that our curriculum is now almost identical to that regulated for in 1904.
There has been little in the way of promotion by successive governments of the arts in secondary schools or of creativity across the curriculum. The danger of the current direction is that the arts and creativity are seen as peripheral to state education, with private schools holding the key to arts education. The arts subjects – art, drama, literature, music, dance, design, poetry and creative writing – promote teamwork, creative thinking, problem-solving, confidence, critical thinking, self-esteem, communication skills, empathy and wellbeing. They also produce more employable and well-educated citizens.
Recommendation 2
We propose abandoning EBacc as a measure of secondary school performance and curriculum practice with immediate effect. Those learners currently in Year 9, or in some cases year 8, will not be constrained by the requirement to complete EBacc in their option choices. There would be a very clear statement affirming the importance of the arts, creativity and design technology. (There are staffing implications in this, and it might take some time to reverse the loss of teachers of creative subjects)
Knowledge and content have, to a considerable extent, taken over the curriculum at the expense of all the other skills that are listed above in making the case for the arts – the very skills that employers tell us they are looking for.
For example, the teaching of English has always rightly been driven to some extent by the learners’ need to attain the necessary grades. However, in recent years this has been ‘corrupted’ in many schools by having a syllabus that teaches, from the age of 11, only the very narrow content that is needed in the test at 16. In order to focus more narrowly the teachers are knowingly distorting the subject which they teach – and love. (This is also contributing to teachers becoming disillusioned and leaving the profession.) Theories of cognitive load, retrieval practice and knowledge in the curriculum debate have become ubiquitous, changing the teaching of Dickens into a history lesson on the plight of the Victorians or the teaching of A Midsummer Night’s Dream into a look at marriage habits in ancient Athens. The horror of Nancy’s death in Oliver Twist or the acting out of the Mechanicals rendition of Pyramus and Thisbe are experiences that many students will never have.
Similarly in Mathematics there has been a failure to recognise, in the words of Sir Adrian Smith, the President of the Royal Society, that “the current mathematical education system serves some well, but it fails too many. Around half of adults in the UK are no better with numbers than a child leaving primary school. We know that numeracy problems are particularly acute in the UK’s poorest places, which has knock-on negative impacts on health, social wellbeing and an individual’s economic prosperity. Providing all young people with access to mathematical and data skills is crucial if the Government is to achieve its mission of breaking down the barriers to opportunity.”
The Group believes that a creative, critical and learner-centred approach could apply to other curriculum areas. A core foreign language curriculum, for example, could be created from the existing year 7 curriculum. If a young person really knew Book 1 in any language course, they would be able to manage in Paris, Berlin or Madrid. The only reason students must attempt Book 2 and 3 is so that a small minority can go onto GCSE or A level. The system wires in failure.
Recommendation 3
We propose that pedagogy be a school responsibility, not dictated from the centre or by one group of professionals with a particular approach. Theories of cognitive load, retrieval practice and the knowledge curriculum have their place but should not dominate to the exclusion of other approaches.
For the vast majority of A level learners, from the age of 16, learning is restricted to 3 subjects.
The most recent changes, the virtual elimination of AS levels and the non-funding of a 4th subject have exacerbated this narrowing of the curriculum. Is it in the best interests of our young people to be studying, for example, only Maths, Further Maths and Physics from the age of 16?
As long ago as 1988 a national enquiry (the Higginson Report) gained widespread support for a 5 subject 16-18 structure, but this was vetoed. The Tomlinson Report advocating a rethink of 14-18 was similarly rejected. Students drop English/Literacy, Mathematics/Numeracy and Modern Foreign Languages in much greater numbers than in any other European country post-16.
And for the majority of our learners – those seeking technical and vocational courses – provision is low status, complex and lacking in public awareness and confidence. The so-called ‘forgotten third’ – those who are deemed by the exam system to have failed – should, in any review, become a priority. However successful our schools are in raising attainment and enabling social mobility, with our current GCSE model, this third will always be there. We need a curriculum offer post 16 that treats all our learners as deserving of equal importance as opposed to the current system which is focused on identifying those who will proceed to higher education.
The Group asks that the curriculum should give considerable thought to adopting the Tomlinson type of approach and look at two phases of Secondary education – 11-14 and 14-18. There could be opportunities for academic or vocational pathways with perhaps opportunities for pathways that combine the academic and vocational. No-one underestimates the scale and complexity of this challenge, and the Group are very aware that, currently, were such a change proposed for speedy implementation, teachers would cry out “Please, not more change”. On the other hand, if we continue to ignore this problem we will, well into the 2030s and even the 2040s, still have a curriculum suited for the late 1940s, when it was designed.
Recommendation 4
We propose revisiting the concept of a 14-18 curriculum, as laid out in the Tomlinson Review, but from the outset making it clear that this will be a 5-10 year development. (This would, we feel, allay the fears of the profession regarding more change.) The 11-14 phase would continue to provide a very broad range of curriculum opportunities.
Section 7 Assessment and Accountability
In the Primary Phase there are too many statutory assessments and unnecessary tests such as the phonics screening check and SPAG tests. Currently the methods of documenting children’s progress are limited and fail to capture a wider range of skills and knowledge. Additionally the assessment system fails to support all children, in particular those from disadvantaged backgrounds and those with special educational needs. The one-size-fits-all approach fails to recognise the need for differentiated support based on broader diagnostic assessments.
Recommendation 5
We propose reducing the number of statutory assessments in KS1 and KS2, eliminating unnecessary tests, developing richer methods of documenting children’s progress that capture a wider range of their progress and ensuring the curriculum and assessment system support all children.
At Key Stage 3 in some curriculum areas (English, Mathematics, Science, a Modern Foreign Language) there could be a criterion-based assessment to which all students should aspire. Such assessments would be school-based with some light moderation. Such an approach is supported by the Royal Society which suggests that a new assessment structure should be established in Maths around the age of 14. The assessment would be low stakes, would assess competence in fundamental ideas and the application of concepts in meaningful contexts.
The Group believes that the poor motivation and attendance of many secondary students in Key Stage 4 can be directly related to their experience of studying GCSEs. GCSE is a normative process and the ‘bell curve’ of results defines a student’s school achievement. While the system may not technically be norm-referenced, the reality is that every year there is the same normal distribution outcome.
The secondary school curriculum is structured around this normative process; essentially most subjects are taught in a sequence that prepares a minority to obtain higher GCSE grades and entry to Advanced study. At least a third of young people gain grades that have no significance either to them personally or in terms of future education and employment opportunities and thus do little for their confidence or self-esteem. The media love to show successful learners on Exam Results Day. They never show young people who were awarded grades 1,2 and 3.
The commentary on this question in the Review states that ‘England is not an outlier in having assessments at age 16’. We believe this statement to be deeply misleading. No other European country has such high stakes, subject by subject, highly expensive assessment at age 16. GCSE is deemed to be an end of school leaving examination in spite of nearly all learners staying in education or training until aged 18.
Many learners will be writing as many as 20, or even more, two hour GCSE papers in a 2-3 week period. It is hardly surprisingly, that we regularly read that our young people are some of the most unhappy and stressed in the world. Most countries, with the support of limited external exams and moderation, trust their teachers to assess their learners’ work. There is a huge cost in setting and administering exams, but this is not just financial.
The present system significantly impacts on the motivation and self-esteem of many young people, especially those who obtain the poorest GCSE grades. The Group questions whether such an education provides a foundation for moving on to the sorts of vocational and skills education so desperately needed for economic growth. Too many young people say ‘they didn’t do very well at school’ because the normative structure of GCSE makes this their inevitable fate. The restricted range of learning styles, the over emphasis on timed written examinations and the lack of motivating ‘hands on’ practical experience contribute to the negative experience of so many young people. The whole GCSE process also means that schools effectively shut down for Year 11 students for the whole of the summer term.
Several reviews have challenged the wisdom of such a stark break at 16 including The Curriculum and Qualifications Reform in 2003 (Tomlinson) and the Nuffield Review of 14-19 Education and Training in 2009. In 2024 The Royal Society, as noted already, has added further weight to a critique of the existing system.
The second phase running from 14-18 with multiple routeways, including those based on vocational skills and learning opportunities, would employ a range of assessment strategies, not simply utilising total dependence on final written examinations. The group believes that the pathways provided should not be overly complex. In any academic pathway students would have to continue with at least five subjects through to the final assessments, including some external examinations. The Group stresses the importance of making the learning experience and assessment of many more young people as active and practical as they move through a reformed, continuous, 14-18 curriculum pathway.
Those defending the present system often conflate assessment for learning with accountability. The GCSE in particular is used extensively as an accountability tool despite the overriding evidence that the ‘learning experience’ of half or more of young people is impoverished by this process. It is also widely accepted that when any form of assessment is used for accountability it leads to corruption of the process and the gaming with which we are familiar.
Whatever curriculum model is favoured we would make a very strong plea that the external assessment outcome highlights what each young person has achieved – not, as at present, what a third have not achieved. The North American model allows every 18 year old who has completed all their courses to graduate. We need an equivalent.
Recommendation 6
We propose that a timeline be drawn up for the phasing out of GCSE and A levels as part of the introduction of a 14-18 unified curriculum and assessment structure in which every learner feels that their achievements are recognised and celebrated.
Recommendation 7
OFSTED and other accountability measures must be aligned with the objectives of a new curriculum and assessment system, in particular with a focus on inclusion and the achievement of every learner.