The final report of the Curriculum and Assessment Review, along with the Government’s response, was published last November. Work is already beginning as we move into 2026, but will the changes reflect what you want to see? 

As your professional body, we put your voices at the heart of our submissions. We shared data from projects such as Rethinking Curriculum; Impact articles showing how different schools implement curriculum and assessment approaches; and we held a number of dedicated focus groups. Thank you for your input. 

You said you were excited about:

A stronger focus on knowledge and skills for life

You were clear that the focus on knowledge has been helpful and should continue, but that applied and practical knowledge, and ‘skills for life’, should be part of the curriculum alongside academic knowledge. While subjects like maths and science prepare students for careers in science, you wanted more support for students to live well in the world, learning about things like how vaccines work and what climate change is (and how to combat it). 

The Review considered a number of areas of applied knowledge: financial, digital and media literacy; climate change and sustainability; oracy; and political knowledge. It recommended strengthening financial and media literacy, and political understanding, through statutory Citizenship education at primary and updated Citizenship Programmes of Study for secondary; digital literacy as a focus for Computing; climate education and sustainability as a focus within geography, science, D&T and Citizenship; oracy as part of the English curriculum and through a broad oracy framework. It also noted the role of different subjects (eg science and history) in developing the critical analysis that underpins media literacy.

A stronger focus on creativity

You were pleased to see a greater emphasis on arts education, and suggested removing the Ebacc to help schools broaden the curriculum and include more arts teaching. You were also clear that curriculum changes need to be accompanied by increased funding for resources, high quality facilities and more specialist teachers, if creative subjects are to thrive. You welcomed the idea of enrichment for all, while recognising that schools must also focus on developing strong foundations for student learning. 

The Government committed both to strengthening the arts, music and PE curriculum subjects and setting out a core enrichment offer for all students beyond the statutory curriculum. This offer should include access to civic engagement, arts and culture, nature, outdoor and adventure, sport and physical activities, and developing wider life skills.

Creativity is not just about the arts though, and you were clear that you wanted a creative approach to curriculum, to learning and assessment, and to teaching. In your responses, creativity was often linked with agency, both for students and for teachers. The Review notes that the national curriculum should be only one part of the school’s overall curriculum, and that it should leave room for teachers and leaders to exercise their professional autonomy, to be creative and innovative. Teachers are described as ‘curriculum makers’, and the review recommends space for the profession to develop the curriculum to enable stretch and support, and to reflect their students’ lives and experiences.

An improved way of recognising progress for all students

While you felt there was a place for endpoint assessment, both at primary and secondary school, you said that it did not work for all students. You wanted 

• options for those who struggle to reach Grade 4 or 5 at GCSE that will support those students with options choices and future employment
• to ensure high academic aspirations and access for all across a broader range of subjects than the EBacc promotes
• assessment that recognises where students are in their learning rather than where they are not (yet), that acknowledges that learning is ‘spiky’ and not linear
• teacher professionalism and agency to be recognised in assessment without adding to workload or reducing consistency. 

The Review recommended some detailed changes to primary school assessment, but no major reform. This included strengthening the teacher assessment framework for writing and the moderation process, with caution to be mindful of resource pressures and teachers’ workloads. It also recommended diagnostic checks of maths and English at key stage 3, which the Government rejected. Instead we will have a statutory reading test in year 8 and a requirement to assess pupil progress in writing and maths. For students who achieve grade 1 or 2  at GCSE maths or English, the review proposes new level 1 qualifications at 16-19, focused on mastery of the fundamentals and with modular assessment. The government has removed the EBacc measure and will consult on a changed Progress 8 model.

Student progress was important to you in other ways too, and you pointed to the impact of transitions on student learning. A new curriculum needs to improve transitions, particularly between key stages, to avoid gaps and unnecessary repetitions or contradictions. The Review agreed strongly, and proposed supporting transitions through improved curriculum coherence, making better use of data from key stage 2 assessments, and developing the national curriculum as a digital tool to make clearer the links between phases and subjects. 

However, you also voiced concerns about a number of things, including:

Increased teacher workload

You were of course concerned that implementation of any changes – including training, rewriting curricula and other documents – will take time. 

The Government’s response to the Review is clear that they ‘do not underestimate the work that [change] will require.’ To reduce workload, they propose a new digital national curriculum; the use of technology and AI; and access to Oak National Academy’s new optional curriculum materials. They rejected the idea of a phased introduction, believing it would be disruptive, and have committed to publishing the final revised national curriculum by spring 2027, giving schools four terms to prepare for the changes.

Crowded curricula

Many individual subjects are very content-heavy – you pointed to English, maths, science and the humanities as containing too much content to cover meaningfully. New content has been added without removing outdated content – for example in the sciences, including computer science. Assessment and the accountability system focus content on narrow, theoretical – and easily assessed – knowledge. Subjects (and the parts of subjects) which are nationally assessed and examined take up much of the teaching time, crowding out other important aspects of learning for students.

You also highlighted the importance of space within the curriculum to do things differently, to meet students’ additional needs, interests and local contexts, to increase diverse representation and encourage deeper learning. Teachers need professional agency to build curriculum and assessment that works for them and their classes, and you wanted the Government to create time for that work by removing curriculum content and unnecessary tasks. You proposed greater consistency across subjects about the amount of content, and the freedom for teachers to choose or adapt themes, and to pursue local and diverse interests, in order to engage students.

The Review acknowledged the overcrowding. Work is underway to remove and update content in a range of subjects across the national curriculum. It has attempted to balance additions with streamlining, build a national curriculum that allows space for teacher agency, and increase depth without compromising breadth or increasing workload.

A focus on ideology over evidence

Policy-makers are keen to focus on ‘what works’, but the question of ‘for what’ or ‘for whom’ is rarely asked. You asked for a review of the purpose(s) of a revised curriculum, and in particular the balance between education for work, for society and for individuals. 

The Review was not invited to consider aims and purposes, but to encourage evolution rather than revolution. This meant that some of the ideas and approaches underpinning the current national curriculum were not fully explored. The focus on exams as ‘the best and fairest way’ of assessing older students ignored evidence of their impact on lower attaining students and those with SEND who need different ways of demonstrating what they know and can do. The focus of the current curriculum on ‘the best that has been thought and said’ led to narrow choices, ignoring the evidence that greater diversity engages more pupils and tells a broader story. The focus on ‘progression’ ignored evidence that learning is ‘spiky’ and neither linear nor consistent across all areas. Although the Review has addressed some of these issues, it has not explicitly addressed the underlying ideologies.

Conclusion:

A review of the national curriculum and assessment on its own was always going to be unable to solve the profession’s many concerns about the education system and its impacts on students and teachers. The Review has begun a process of aspirational change. If those changes are to make the difference we need to see, the profession must be truly engaged throughout the change process. Ongoing evaluation will be vital, to see whether your aspirations are met.