The Curriculum and Assessment Review: An Opportunity for Real Reform?

A member of the Curriculum and Assessment Review team recently described the interim report as primarily “problem diagnosis and definition”. It focuses on the evidence the Review Panel has heard so far, their assessment of the issues, and hints towards the direction of travel for the next stages of the Review which will publish in Autumn this year. In this sense, there is much to be positive about in the report.  But there are also areas where greater ambition is needed if we are to make the most of the opportunity; the Review comes a time of significant change in the further education and skills sector.  The reference to estimates that suggest 52% of employers do not agree that young people are well-prepared to move from education to work is worrying in the extreme.  Bringing the myriad of change programmes together in an ordered fashion, including the Review, will be crucial to delivering on the government’s missions of opportunity and growth, and have consequences far beyond for our young people and national success.

Positive start

The primary diagnosis in the report, that the current curriculum does not work well for all learners, reflects the experience of those in the sector. Addressing this disparity is a clear priority, including the arrangements that are made for those with SEND.  The Review is also right that having a more open approach to the possibilities offered different assessment methods can help here.

Pre-16, it’s encouraging that the Review intends to look at the Ebacc performance measures with a view to enabling a greater breadth of subject choice for learners, including increasing take up of arts and vocational subjects. 

It is also reassuring to see recognition that policy on English and maths resits has not achieved the outcomes intended, and the opportunity to look again at the approach taken to support all learners to progress in their English and maths post-16 is welcome and it will hopefully facilitate further changes to the aged-based arrangements for apprenticeships recently put into place

For 16-19 education, supporting the role T Levels play in the system is positive, as is the clarity that while high-quality these qualifications do not work for all learners. A range of technical and vocational pathways at Level 3 is needed to meet these needs. This appears to build on the pragmatic approach to qualifications that overlap with T Levels that the Skills Minister committed to last year. Additionally, the important role that Level 2 qualifications play, not only as a means of progression to Level 3 but to support learners into employment is key to a system that works for all.

However, by the time the review publishes its final report in the Autumn, the programme of qualifications reform at Levels 2 and 3 will have effectively been on pause for over a year, and the moratorium in place for far longer. There are improved and better technical qualifications awaiting approval.  A plan for progressing these should be an immediate priority when the final results of the Review are known.

Need for more ambition

While the interim report certainly holds true to the commitment that the Review would be ‘evolution not revolution’, there are areas where greater ambition would help to secure the change necessary to meet the needs of all learners.

Digital

Firstly, on digital. The requirement for digital skills is universal and immediate, so there is a strong case for alignment with the approaches in Wales and Northern Ireland where digital is recognised as part of a package of essential skills, alongside English and maths.

Range of Assessment

Secondly, on the range of assessment. To ensure all learners can reach their potential, we could go further in ensuring that the mode of assessment is matched with the skills it is designed to assess.  The Review stops short of discussing the role of formative assessment or assessment at KS5 (Further Education) in any detail.

English and Maths Resits

Thirdly, on English and maths resits. While we are pleased that the report recognises that the current policy is not working, the one-size-fits all approach is unlikely to succeed particularly for learners on a work-related programme of study where a greater level of application is required. It is important that we encourage everyone to at least begin a journey of development and progress in essential skills and there are plenty of options available, alongside building on the English and maths skills that are already included within Technical Qualifications and apprenticeships.

Information, Advice, and Guidance: Connectivity between the KS4 and KS5 Curriculum

Finally, while the bridge from KS4 to KS5 is well established for the academic route, there is still a need for greater connectivity between the KS4 and KS5 curriculum for the technical and vocational route. In part, this is a symptom of the lack of breadth and exposure to technical education pre-16. But it is also indicative of gaps in education Information, Advice, and Guidance (IAG). While careers IAG sits outside of the scope of the review, education IAG and getting learners onto the programmes that leverage their aptitudes and interests is key. There is much that technology has to offer us in this space.

What it doesn’t say

While broad in its scope, the Review’s remit does not extend to all the key areas of the further education and skills system. But these areas are significant for learner choice and the decisions providers make regarding provision. It is therefore crucial that the considerations of the Review are docked with the on-going reform to apprenticeships and the levy, greater devolution and local approaches to careers guidance, and the changes to support people into work.  

The challenges, including the growing number of NEET, requires joined up solutions across government. Where the Curriculum and Assessment Review could provide further impetus here, is with a greater focus on the purpose of the curriculum. The report continues to be couched in a mostly academic view of the education system, where the primary purpose is moving learners on to the next stage of education. By considering the purpose of the system for all learners and beneficiaries, we can go further in formulating an impact-based education system that is more aligned with workplace needs – and also meets a more diverse range of individual needs.

By Daniel Green, Policy Director at Federation of Awarding Bodies(FAB)