We welcome the final report of the Curriculum and Assessment Review and applaud Professor Becky Francis for her leadership on what was undoubtedly a mammoth task. It is encouraging to see the Review’s recommendations align with much of what we called for in our submission and in our past work.
The attention given to the development of essential skills, as well as oracy and financial literacy, are welcome. In particular, delivering this by ensuring applied knowledge is ‘properly incorporated into the curriculum through all key stages’ is the right approach – in our submission, we advocated for the use of project-based and real-world learning to develop these skills, something that Edge Foundation’s Practice Team has significant expertise in. Given schools’ limited resources, we argued that this can only be achieved by adding time in the curriculum, so the Review is right to suggest slimming down GCSE content. While the Review is absolutely right to emphasise the value of enrichment for developing life skills, and the excellent work of partners like Duke of Edinburgh's Award, we are concerned that schools may struggle to deliver on the proposed benchmarks without adequate funding and resourcing.
The Review’s proposal to remove the English Baccalaureate (EBacc) measure, replacing it with a wider conception of curriculum breadth, directly echoes our call to rebalance the pre-16 offer. We have long pointed to the negative impacts of EBacc. The review is right to note that the measure has to ‘some degree unnecessarily constrained students’ choices’, echoing our own view that it has reinforced a traditional focus on core academic subjects at the expense of vocational and creative subjects in the pre-16 offering. This is particularly important to ensure the success of V Levels, which will only thrive if interest in vocational subjects is cultivated earlier on.
On the subject of V Levels, we are pleased that a ‘third pathway’ between A Levels and T Levels will be protected. As we highlighted in our submission to the review, the early specialisation and ‘two-culture’ divide between A Levels and T Levels makes England an international outlier. Instead we called for a broader baccalaureate-style 16-19 education system. While the system set out by the Government doesn’t go as far as that, we welcome the opportunity to ‘mix and match’ between academic and vocational qualifications, to allow for a more well-rounded education offer. The new Level 2 pathway in post-16 is also a welcome addition, particularly where it is designed to lead to an apprenticeship. It is crucial that learners are encouraged to pursue routes that will allow for further education and training, making use of Skills England’s Occupational Maps, so that they can progress further.
Olly Newton, Edge Executive Director“We welcome the clear rebalancing set out by the Review towards a focus on preparing young people for the changing world. It puts into practice changes that we have campaigned on for over a decade including the Ebacc. But the challenge now is to move from policy to practice. Implementation must be adequately resourced, inclusive and guided by evidence. What is more, this should be only the start of rethinking our education system to ensure that it is relevant for all young people.”
While out of the scope of the review, it is essential that these reforms are underpinned by a high-quality careers education strategy to ensure that learners have a ‘line of sight’ into the pathway that is best suited to their interests and ambitions. The Review’s emphasis on literacy and numeracy foundations aligns with our belief that all young people should continue developing these skills to 18. As the Review rightly recognises, is important to address failings in Maths and English teaching pre-16. Post-16, the proposed ‘stepping stone’ qualification to allow learners to progress to Level 2 is a sensible approach.