The Department for Education (DfE) has published the final report on its independent review of the curriculum, assessment and qualifications system in England. Although recommendations on inclusion, representation, enrichment, clearer transitional phases and a broader curriculum of real-world skills are welcomed, there are still substantive issues related to the breadth of curriculum, an enduring assessment focus and a lack of clarity about how these ideas can be applied practically in schools. In this article, Dr Louisa Dawes, Dr Elizabeth Gregory and Dr Rosa Archer respond to the proposed reforms by drawing upon the extensive knowledge of the Manchester Institute of Education (MIE) Teacher Education and Professional Learning (TEPL) research and scholarship group.
- The Curriculum and Assessment Review identifies the need for change – without actually committing to substantive change.
- Research from The University of Manchester demonstrates areas where recommendations from the Review do not go far enough.
- Further curriculum reform, innovation and enhanced autonomy for teaching staff are all required to promote equity.
Key messages in the curriculum review
The Department for Education’s Curriculum and Assessment Review, published in November 2025, positions itself in a reform philosophy of ‘evolution not revolution’. Rather than a complete overhaul of the curriculum, the government have chosen to strengthen what they consider is already working and enhance what is not.
However, at first glance, the review appears to propose an ambitious vision for the twenty-first century. It acknowledges the need to address the skills needed in an era of significant technological, environmental and social change, ‘to maximise young people’s opportunities and equip them to meet challenges presented by our fast-changing world’. It also responds to years of critique levelled at the overwhelming amount of content within ‘knowledge rich’ curricula across phases and subjects and instead, it favours greater coherence and the development of a “love of learning”.
Another strength is the recognition that clearer pathways are needed to ensure smoother transitions for children between primary and secondary school, as well as between key stages. Transitional periods can offer huge opportunities for children both academically and socially, with new subjects to study, increasing levels of maturity and independence to demonstrate, and expanded friendship groups to explore, but this is also a potentially vulnerable time in which students can require additional support. However, rather than support mechanisms, the focus in the review is largely on outcomes and prioritises maintaining momentum, particularly between KS3 and GCSEs. – suggesting, for example, diagnostic tests in English and Maths in Year 8 so that “problems” can be remedied before KS4.
Continuity rather than reform?
TEPL members have analysed the review and were sceptical about how far these aspirations would translate into real change in schools. As one participant noted, “it all sounds very sensible, but it doesn’t actually say how you do any of it.” This lack of specificity is particularly evident in the broad, bold statements about subjects such as Maths and Science being ‘pivotal for young people now and for the future’, yet the review lacks clear, practical guidance or a real ‘on the pulse’ understanding of what is happening in these classrooms.
We note that for many subjects the review signals a commitment to continuity rather than reform. In Primary English, for example, the continued strong emphasis on early skills assessment potentially risks undermining the government’s stated aim to foster a love of learning. Evidence from The University of Manchester demonstrates how the focus on phonics has had a detrimental effect on reading for pleasure.
Elsewhere, the review identifies a need for change but – we feel – does not go far enough in its recommendations. For example, we welcome greater clarity around the distinct purposes of English Language and English Literature at GCSE’s, and the recognition that non-literary texts are worthy of study in their own right.
Although the review highlights the need for a more diverse range of literary voices in the curriculum, it falls short of committing to substantive change. The core canon of literature remains narrow, with students continuing to study Shakespeare and 19th century literature, and whilst we do not call for this rich tradition of literature to be erased, we feel that a curriculum that fails to reflect students’ own lives and cultures raises issues about wider representation and equity.
More freedom for teachers?
Similarly, the recommendation that teachers have more freedom in choosing poetry selections was welcomed, but there is concern that this flexibility is superficial and will be undermined by the reliance on standardised, off-the-shelf resources rather than creating space for teachers to develop their own. Our ongoing research on the support available for teacher professional development suggests that such approaches are inequitable, privileging compliance over professional judgement and failing to recognise the differing contexts, experiences and needs of pupils and teachers. Furthermore, statistics show this approach, intended to retain teachers, has had no impact: 2024–25 data show over a quarter of new teachers (26.8%) leave within three years.
In short, we felt that the government whilst creating hyperbole about raising standards and creating modern curricula for the real-world, lacked confidence to radically change some of the deep-rooted issues of equity that have been widely acknowledged by teacher practitioners and widely researched. Our research, for example, argues that the teach-to-the-test culture based on prescribed standardised ‘what works’ approaches has had a significant and negative impact on our most vulnerable and disadvantaged pupils. It is disappointing therefore that this has not been addressed in the review.
Equity for pupils and teachers
Given our critique, based on many years of experience both as practitioners and academics, we offer our recommendations based on principles of future curriculum reform with a focus on equity for pupils and teachers:
Curriculum purpose: future reform should be underpinned by a clear educational purpose. If the curriculum is focused on educational success based on inclusion, equity and developing a love of learning, this should be prioritised over narrow sets of performance metrics and the restricted access to cultural variety in education.
Subject-led innovation: The Department for Education should consider curriculum design built on strong foundations by creating an advisory group who, with expertise in all curriculum areas can promote a love of learning of their subject through innovative, creative and inspiring evidence-based teaching, learning and assessment practices.
Transitions: a deeper consideration is needed of the social, emotional and academic changes experienced by students across key transitional points, such as the emotional wellbeing assessment scale developed by The University of Manchester PS-WELLS team, with more support for school staff in facilitating successful transitions for all learners.
Enhance teacher autonomy: The government should revisit teachers’ workload in order to give time and space in order to effectively support their professional learning as an intellectual endeavour. We believe that offering standardised resources restricts teacher freedom and creativity and runs the risk of de-professionalising teachers
Our analysis highlights the need for more radical reform to address structural and curricular practices that perpetuate inequity, including weak sequencing, a teach-to-the-test culture, and standardised approaches to learning. Without more innovative and inclusive reform, these patterns are likely to continue to have a detrimental effect on disadvantaged pupils.
