King's College London

The government’s review of the school curriculum and assessments has now published its interim findings. The review team sifted through 7,000 submissions and identified four key areas for improvement: ensuring high standards for all, addressing subject-specific challenges, responding to social and technological change, and ensuring pathways beyond GCSEs work for all.

The review has a strong focus on evidence – unsurprising given Professor Becky Francis, who is leading the review, is the CEO of the Education Endowment Foundation, an organisation dedicated to improving the evidence base for effective and fair education.

In this piece, members of the Policy Institute’s Children, Young People and Education theme share their reflections on some of the key areas highlighted in the interim findings, and how our research contributes to addressing the gaps in what we know.

Ensuring high standards for all

The review found that the present curriculum arrangements have had a positive impact on attainment. However, persistent gaps remain, particularly for those from disadvantaged backgrounds and for young people with special educational needs and disabilities (SEND). More active efforts are needed to make the curriculum and assessment more inclusive and equitable, addressing demographic and regional inequalities.

Interventions targeting specific disadvantaged regions in England are key to reducing socioeconomic inequalities. The Policy Institute is undertaking a range of projects on this, from our partnership with The Brilliant Club to our evaluation of the Opportunity North East Challenge 1 initiatives for the Department for Education.

From our research, we know the importance of combining curriculum interventions with place-based and pupil- or family-centred approaches to ensuring all children realise the benefits of a British education.

Addressing subject-specific challenges and ensuring the curriculum is consistently achieving depth and breadth

While the review highlights the need for curriculum and assessment to adapt to new technologies, including generative AI, it reiterates the benefits of a knowledge-based curriculum and the need for students to be secure in foundational concepts in maths and science.

 It further highlights the trade-off between covering a large volume of content and achieving depth of understanding, recognising the need for mastery-based approaches to equitably improve learning outcomes.

The Policy Institute is partnering with Herts for Learning ltd to evaluate their programme. “Making Fluent and Flexible Calculators” programme, which develops students’ foundational knowledge and understanding of a range of mental calculation strategies that were not secured at the end of Key Stage 2. Rigorously assessing such programmes will highlight effective teaching strategies, focusing on fostering deep understanding and helping to guide the development of a more robust and balanced curriculum.

We also welcome the review’s recognition that a broad and balanced curriculum includes access to subjects and experiences that go beyond the English Baccalaureates (EBacc), such as creative arts. Our evaluation of the Burberry Inspire programme suggested that encounters with artists-in-residence improved important non-cognitive aspects such as self-esteem, aspirations and locus of control. These are important skills and opportunities for young people to have, to help prepare them to live positive and well-rounded adult lives.

Responding to social and technological change

The review highlights the many challenges pupils face beyond the academic curriculum and considers how education can help better prepare students for the future. Digital skills, media literacy, and scientific and cultural knowledge are increasingly important.

The review cites a poll conducted with parents and students in Key Stage 4 which asked what areas they would like to have focused on more from Years 7 to 11. The most popular answer, chosen by 43% of parents and 34% of learners, was financial education.

Although perhaps less prominent in popular consciousness than fake news and climate change, financial skills and knowledge are vital, so it’s welcome to see such recognition of their importance, not least given the increasing complexity of the decisions that Key Stage 4 learners will very soon need to make for themselves. Through our work with the Financial Times’ Financial Literacy and Inclusion Campaign, we are seeing the challenges that arise when adults are not well-prepared for their financial futures.

However, by the time learners reach secondary school many key financial attitudes have been set, but evidence from a meta-analysis suggests there is more scope to change attitudes with younger children. The Policy Institute has been working with RedSTART Educate to evaluate the impact of their “Change the Game” programme. We’ve found that this initiative can improve financial knowledge from as early as Year 2. We would therefore encourage the review to consider how the primary curriculum can also support the development of financial skills and attitudes that prepare students for the future.

Ensuring pathways beyond GCSE work for all

Young people deserve a clear, high-quality post-16 qualification landscape that supports all learners' needs and career goals. The review rightly highlights the role of technical pathways, such as T-levels, as a rigorous alternative to academic Level 3 qualifications.

The key strength of T-levels is their connection with industry, and this should be expanded to provide more inclusive pathways for all learners. Young people with SEND experience some of the greatest barriers to suitable post-16 qualifications and progression into work. The Policy Institute is undertaking an evaluation project with the Youth Futures Foundation to assess the impact of a programme that coordinates supported internships for young people with learning disabilities and/or autism.

The curriculum review also highlights the importance of achieving a Grade 4 (Level 2) in GCSE maths and English for future prospects. However, 40% of students have not achieved this by 16, and even though they’re required to resit, only 29% achieve it by 19.

While there are clear benefits in English and maths skills, there are also evident failings in the current system. The review recommends continuing with resits as condition of funding, but calls for “nuance” in outcomes and pathways.

At the Policy Institute, we are trialling virtual peer-support networks for resit students, who can feel isolated in college. Our interventions aim to foster connections and motivation, improve study support and reduce barriers to learning. We hope to see if light-touch solutions can work alongside deeper structural changes to support improved outcomes.

Reflections

More evidence is good, but more good evidence is better. This review reinforces the need for targeted, high-quality research to guide education policy. To academics and researchers, the review serves as an invitation to focus our agenda on interventions that can increase social justice in education.

The government’s What Works Network has made enormous strides on this already, with the Education Endowment Foundation, the Youth Futures Foundation, the Youth Endowment Fund and What Works for Children’s Social Care (now Foundations) all expanding the evidence base on how schools and colleges can address the challenges outlined in the review, through the curriculum and beyond.

Wholesale reform may not be the answer; adaptation and development of what works is key to reducing the burden on practitioners. Whether through GCSE resit support, vocational pathways, financial education, arts and humanities development or curriculum refinement, the challenge is clear: education must work for all, not just some. At the Policy Institute, we’re committed to testing and scaling practical solutions that bridge the gap between research and real-world impact.