Evolution, Not Revolution: Reforming England's Curriculum

A: So, the 'Building a world-class curriculum for all' report, chaired by Professor Becky Francis CBE, just landed. It's a comprehensive look at England's education system, really digging into where things stand.

B: And what stands out immediately is that core problem: the stubborn attainment gap. We're talking about disparities for socio-economically disadvantaged students and those with Special Educational Needs and Disabilities. It's a critical, underlying issue they aimed to tackle.

A: Indeed. But crucially, their core stance is 'evolution not revolution.' They're not tearing things down; they want to build on the existing strengths, particularly maintaining that knowledge-rich curriculum approach that's been a cornerstone.

B: Precisely, refining rather than replacing. And the report highlights some really compelling drivers for this change: preparing learners for AI, enhancing digital and financial literacy, addressing climate change, and strengthening crucial oracy skills. Modern challenges demand a modern curriculum, it seems.

A: It certainly broadens the scope significantly beyond just the curriculum itself, touching on accountability measures as well. So, shifting gears to the core education system, a big shake-up here is the complete removal of the EBacc as a performance measure for schools. That's a significant accountability shift, moving away from incentivizing that specific subject combination.

B: And the evidence supporting that removal is pretty compelling. It wasn't actually driving the desired outcomes in terms of progression to higher education, and crucially, it was widening attainment gaps, especially for disadvantaged students. The intention was good, but the data showed it wasn't working.

A: Exactly. But Progress 8 is staying, which makes sense given its focus on individual student growth. They're just renaming the 'EBacc bucket' within it to 'Academic Breadth', which feels like a more descriptive and less prescriptive label.

B: A logical adjustment. On assessments, there's a proposed reduction of at least 10% in total GCSE exam time. How will that actually be implemented without compromising reliability?

A: It's a subject-by-subject approach, really focusing on assessment design choices, like the number of components or questions. The goal is to streamline without losing validity or fairness, which Ofqual believes is feasible. There's also a new proposal for diagnostic Maths and English tests in Year 8.

B: Diagnostic tests in Year 8 sound vital. What's the specific aim there? Is it about catching those foundational gaps before they become insurmountable by Key Stage 4?

A: Precisely. To identify and address those learning gaps proactively, especially for Maths and English, ensuring students are better prepared for GCSEs. And in primary, the KS2 GPS test for grammar, punctuation, and spelling will be amended.

B: Instead of just identifying grammatical constructs, the new test needs to assess writing composition and grammar application effectively. That's a crucial move away from rote learning, I think. And finally, Key Stage 4 pathways are ensuring entitlement to Triple Science, correct?

A: Yes, to ensure equitable access. Any student who wants to study Triple Science will have that opportunity, which is a major step for encouraging STEM progression across all backgrounds.

B: That's a vital step for STEM progression. But the report also delves into what happens after Key Stage 4, doesn't it?

A: It absolutely does. So, moving into post-16 education, it's clear the existing pathways, A Levels and T Levels, don't quite serve everyone. There's a significant portion of learners, especially those from disadvantaged backgrounds or with SEND, for whom these routes aren't the best fit.

B: And the report zeroes in on that, suggesting a distinct third pathway at Level 3. That's the new 'V Levels', right?

A: Precisely. The idea is for these V Levels to be a high-quality, applied vocational route. They'd sit alongside A Levels and T Levels, linked to broad, sector-level occupational standards, giving learners a credible, applied alternative.

B: So, A Levels are generally fine, no major changes there. T Levels show promise, but the report points to needing a reduced assessment burden to improve them. This new vocational option, V Levels, seems designed to address those who might fall through the cracks otherwise.

A: Exactly. And it's not just about Level 3. There's also a significant reform proposed for Post-16 Maths and English, introducing a new Level 1 'stepped' qualification for learners with a GCSE grade 2 or below. The aim is to build foundational skills more effectively before they re-sit the full GCSE.