This is the second installment of my blog series on the 2025 Curriculum and Assessment Review. You can read the rest HERE. In this brief blog, focus on the report's stated ambition to build a 'world class curriculum' which 'reflects our society'.

An Inclusive Curriculum?
One of the most interesting parts of this review is the inclusion of a commentary on the need for diversity within the curriculum. This is quite deep within the text (page 32) and is probably the element which most challenges the curricula status quo. It is really encouraging to see the commitment to ensuring all young people are represented through curriculum and that they should encounter ‘a wide range of perspectives that broaden their horizons’ (p32). It was especially good to hear the student voice coming through strongly here. The authors noted that pupils made ‘compelling arguments…that the curriculum needs to reflect society, support equality of opportunity, and challenge discrimination’ (p33). Again, the fact that this element is coming through so strongly highlights the failure of the paradigm of the previous curriculum reforms to deliver on these aims. 
 
It is hard however to be optimistic about the opportunity for reform when calls for more inclusive curricula go back decades. Nick Dennis for instance has highlighted the important work of educational activists such as Bernard Coard and Nana Bonsu, who were instrumental in the ‘Supplementary Schools’ movement; as well as numerous government reports (e.g. Rampton (1981), Swann (1985), McPherson (1999) etc.) which have focused on the importance of a diverse and inclusive curriculum. It is also notable that there is no recognition of the calls for decolonisation, nor the work which has been done to decolonise curriculum. The authors state that ‘mutual access to core knowledge, and curriculum coherence, efficacy and breadth for all children should remain central as we work to ensure the curriculum is more broadly representative’ (p33). But simply adding more stories into the curriculum is not the same as a truly inclusive curriculum. This treats curriculum as content choices only, ignoring its wider ontological, pedagogical, ethical and affective dimensions, and running counter to almost all theoretical work on curriculum. Inclusive curricula consider not only the curriculum content but the purposes of teaching, the pedagogies employed, and the agency enabled through teaching. Because the review is so wedded to the ‘knowledge-rich’ and ‘mastery’ approaches, it is hard to see how these aspects of inclusivity can be pursued at all.  
 
It is also notable that the phrase ‘a curriculum that reflects our society’, by definition, raises questions about what constitutes ‘our’ society, as well as encompassing the challenges society is facing. The report itself notes that children in Britain, and by extension the wider world, are facing an environmental crisis, ‘A curriculum that reflects our society’ therefore needs to tackle these aspects as well. Dale Banham has spoken many times about the importance of the curriculum acting not just as a mirror, reflecting our society back to us, but as a light to illuminate paths forwards. A curriculum should enable young people to reflect on societal (and global) directions, ethics and values with a view to shining a light on future paths. This kind of work has never been more important.  
 
Yet the solutions remain stubbornly unambitious partly due to their attachment- and unwillingness- to challenge the ‘knowledge-rich’ approaches and pedagogies laid down in  the last ten years. There is little evidence that the ‘powerful knowledge’ turn in schools has in fact allowed young people to ‘engage more effectively with issues affecting them and the world around them’ (p34). Rather, there is good evidence that the ‘powerful knowledge’ approach, as interpreted in the National Curriculum set by the last government, led to increasingly narrow curricula, especially in History, and actively blocked pupils from understanding global forces such as colonialism by making the subject taboo in schools.  ​

A World-Class Curriculum with no Planetary Perspectives 
The report also suggests that ‘it is crucial that young people benefit from an understanding of the climate crisis’s causes, consequences and possible solutions’ (p40) and that ‘subject-specific knowledge remains the best investment in preparing young people for these challenges and opportunities’ (p34). The lack of citations here is quite notable! In almost the same breath we are also told that pupils will need this knowledge so that they have ‘the necessary knowledge and skills to thrive in tomorrow’s industries and tackle the serious challenges facing our planet’ (p40). This is a set of outcomes rooted firmly in the idea that 'sustainability education' can be a means for continued economic growth. Such an analysis seems to sit a decade or more behind the current consensus on the planetary crisis we are facing. In his 2021 book, Critical Zones: The Science and Politics of Landing on Earth, Bruno Latour makes the case (supported by a significant scientific consensus) that the concept of sustainability and the maintenance of extractive late-stage capitalism have long since become non-options for future directions. His claim is that the planet is already beyond the point of total transformation. Humans have altered the Earth to such an extent, he argues, that we have left its surface altogether, the world has changed in our absence, and that our current challenge is to work out how we land again safely on this new Earth. Such a challenge requires education to, as Martin Gren put it at a recent conference, lift its gaze beyond societal concerns and consider questions which relate to what sort of planet we can and want to live on, through and with. Gren’s call is for traditional disciplines to consider how they collectively might contribute to the reimagining needed survive on a new Earth.  
 
In this context, the continued failure to recognise the importance of challenging existing modes of thinking about the planet means opportunities for meaningful change are lost. Whilst the concepts of 'climate change' and 'sustainability' appear numerous times in the report, the intertwining issues of colonialism and planetary collapse are not highlighted at all. Instead, issues of climate and sustainability are framed in narrow, nationalistic ways, with an emphasis on enabling economic advancement. There is a call to ‘maximise young people’s opportunities’ and prepare them for ‘the rise of artificial intelligence (AI) and trends in digital information’ (p10) with its demands for ‘media literacy and critical thinking’ (p10). The solution proposed is to leverage sustainability education as a means to find children future work in economic fields connected with AI, digital information, media, and so on. The inherent contradictions in pursuing both of these aims are also ignored. Many of these industries are actively contributing to the crisis in our planetary system – not least AI. Of course, addressing global issues does not preclude the study of traditional subjects, but it does raise real questions about whether the content and core concepts of the traditional subjects (especially in isolation) are sufficient. To come back again to Latour’s framing, every discipline needs to become a geo-discipline which has a concern with the planetary Earth. 
 
It is also notable that this lack of engagement with the planetary is reflected in the review of the Geography curriculum itself, which is deemed as 'fit for purpose', and requiring  only ‘light-touch attention' (p82). Any reference to the need for a focus on planetary issues is subsumed under the somewhat inadequate heading of ‘green skills’ and the recommendation to focus on climate and sustainability education. The latter has already been noted as an inadequate response to the planetary crisis by many experts in the field, and I am convinced will have been raised by professional bodies, teachers, parents, pupils and scholars who contributed to the review process. Indeed, Martin Gren's 2021 article 'Climate Emergency - Another Mayday Letter from the Earth' makes an impassioned plea for Geographers to take the planetary dimensions of the current crisis seriously.

Similar is also true in the Science curriculum. Although there are more mentions of the climate in the notes for Science reform, the imperative is linked to ‘supporting the wider economy, with the growth of the green economy’ (p115) and is building from a previous curriculum iteration which made only limited reference to climate Science. There is also a continued focus on the concept of sustainability here too, despite calls for the concept to be left behind. It is notable that sustainability education has been a major focus in many European countries and is now beginning to be abandoned. By contrast, England is only just beginning to engage with an already defunct conceptual framing.
 
The fact that the global perspective is so absent from the reform of Science and Geography reveals already that the chances of meaningful shifts towards more global focuses across the curriculum, as suggested by Latour, will almost certainly not happen. If the planetary lens is not central to curriculum then whether or not teachers engage with it will be entirely dependent on the interests of individuals.  Curriculum specification could lead to significant investment in planetary-scale teaching, but the opportunity is squandered. The absence of the planetary leaves us on the edge of a lost decade in education when it comes to educating children meaningfully for the Anthropocene.

Thanks so much for reading. I would love to hear your thoughts and comments over at (@apf102.bsky.social) — Bluesky You can return to the main blog HERE.​

This is the first instalment in my blog series about the 2025 Curriculum and Assessment Review. You can find the other entries HERE.  In this blog I am looking at how the review has interpreted the breadth, depth and balance of the current curriculum, as well as the suggested changes. 

Broad Directions
The first point I really found myself 'nodding along' to in the review came on page 9, which states that the National Curriculum ‘is just one element in the education of every child’ and ’ was not intended to take up an entire school day.’ In a really welcome move, the authors note that schools are expected to ‘go beyond it to provide innovative practice, locally tailored content, and enrichment activities that help to ensure young people thrive in education and later life.’ In all honesty I think most schools do much of this already and would be more interested in how this might be enabled, but it is still nice to have the principle recognised early on. 
 
Another positive note in the report was the commitment to ensuring that the drafting process for the revised National Curriculum ‘must involve teachers, as well as be  informed by subject specialists’ knowledge of the discipline’ (p53). It would still be good to have more transparency about the selection of panels for such work, but this could potentially come further down the line. 

Primary Curriculum
Also, welcome is the recognition that the Primary curriculum is currently extremely overloaded and has too much breadth at the expense of depth. What feels slightly more confusing however is that the implied solution seems to be to support ‘greater breadth and depth’ by specifying coverage in more detail. This sounds like adding more demand in terms of curricular specification and feels like it runs counter to other suggestions that pupils’ experiences of education need to be more than the curriculum. However, on the theme of specificity the report seems to suggest the need for greater specification without adding to the volume of content or impeding teacher autonomy. I am fascinated to know how this will look. 

Secondary Curriculum
With regard Key Stage 3, structural challenges are noted as a cause of low learning motivation. However, the core challenges are noted as being resource prioritisation compared with Key Stage 4 (probably fair) and limited continuity between Key Stage 2 and 3. Again, this feels like another implied case for greater control over the content of the Primary curriculum and modifying its role to serve the development of subject knowledge for secondary. Given this has already been a direction for the last 10 years, I cannot imagine it would be helpful. It certainly does seem to mean even greater specification of curriculum content at Key Stage 3: ‘Our recommendations are designed to tackle these challenges by improving curriculum content, specificity and continuity, introducing a diagnostic assessment tool to support progress and strengthening the educational experience during this critical stage.’(p45) I can’t help but feel like we have been here before back in 1989…  

It is interesting I think that there is a broad acceptance of the current Key Stage structure. Given the extreme dip we see in student engagement in transitioning from KS2 to 3, it might suggest there is something for fundamentally amiss here. I do wonder if any studies were done / data explored in relation to middle schools, which bridge the KS2-3 divide by taking pupils from Years 5-8. ​

I was however pleased to see a challenge to the dominant EBacc structure in Secondary schools. This will of course present challenges for subjects like History but is a lifeline for those subjects whose time and resources have been stripped by leadership teams seeking to maximise P8 scores at the expense of pupil choice. It is important I think that the authors emphasise that, if we are to widen choices, ‘we must particularly avoid facilitating trends for young people from some backgrounds to take routes that are narrower or less demanding’ (p30). By the same token however, I hope they will also support the idea that students who are more academically able should also take a broad range of subjects, so that breadth does not become something pushed only for those deemed to be ‘disadvantaged’ by the system. Curricular narrowing is not just an issue for those seeking vocational pathways post 16. However, there is a fundamental contradiction in the announcement of the removal of EBacc. The Progress 8 measure will be retained and whilst the EBacc bucket in Progress 8 will be renamed as ‘Academic Breadth’, its function and role in calculations will remain unchanged, still incentivising schools to enter pupils for at least one of the three foundation subjects: history, geography or MFL. In effect it means that the EBacc will no longer exist but it will still exercise nearly the same impact over curriculum choices as Progress 8 hold much greater sway for schools in proving performance than the EBacc entry and attainment measure. 
 
Moving beyond the puzzling and into the realm of the actively discouraging is the continued adherence to the ‘knowledge-rich’ approach established under the last government. Indeed, retaining the ‘knowledge-rich’ approach is a core principle of the review, continuing to cite Young and Muller’s work on the subject, though without acknowledging the many critiques, including those by Young himself who argues that a ‘powerful knowledge’ curriculum must also be a ‘resource rich’ curriculum! Many aspects and implications of the knowledge-rich / mastery approach are left unexamined and unexplored. Indeed, the now familiar drivers of mastery, coherence and sequencing remain as core curriculum principles, once again sidelining wider ethical considerations. The report however seems to be even less sure what mastery might mean, pointing out that it is both important but should not be seen as repetition. Again, the pedagogical and affective implications of a mastery approach are not unpicked. However, the report itself notes that these approaches ‘have not yet benefited all’ (p7). It is an odd faith to put in an approach to education which has not only failed a significant minority in terms of transition into secondary and academic outcomes (I’d argue the majority in terms of affective outcomes), but has also widened gaps for the most disadvantaged pupils and those with SEND. Indeed, the report itself highlights this exact gap yet still commits itself to the same educational paradigm.  

Thanks so much for reading. Please click HERE to go back to the main blog.

This is the third instalment of my blog series “Being proud of our history?”. The question I have been trying to address is whether “the history teacher community” has a good sense of what it has and had not done in relation to challenges raised in recent years, especially in terms of dealing with racism. In this blog I want to look more closely at the discourse of “the community”. Once again I hope this is taken in the spirit of honest reflection and apologise as this is quite a long piece.

The power of discourse
In myprevious blog I explored the ways in which curriculum constructions do not always live up to the self-narrative “the community” has created. However, in making such a statement, I am also aware that not every curriculum construction has engaged deeply with "community" discourse. When Priggs (2020), for example, wrote her excellent article about not just “doing diversity”, it was clear that she was drawing on a rich “community” discourse encountered via conferences and journal articles. It is this discourse I want to explore today.

Academic educational discourse
I want to begin briefly with academic educational discourse. That is to say the books and articles which are part of university level research. At this level, there certainly is a huge amount written. There are numerous studies of how children are impacted by concepts of race, class, gender etc. in the classroom. One book which really shaped my own thinking in this regard was Archer and Francis’ (2007) “Understanding Minority Ethnic Achievement” for example. There are also a range of studies which look at curricular diversity, or explore the ways students encounter specific historical examples of complex concepts. So far, so good.

In my last blog I began looking at whether we should be proud of “the history teacher community”. I argued that one of the most crucial factors in determining this would be to establish, with honesty, what we had and had not done in relation to challenges raised by society at large, and made the case that we need to be careful of complacency through over-congratulatory self-narrative. In today’s blog I want to explore the ways in which we have been thinking about curriculum in “the community” and to ask if our curricular planning has lived up to the narrative we have told ourselves.

Facing ourselves
Writing in Nazi occupied France, Jewish historian, Marc Bloch argued that “the scholar who has no inclination to observe the men (sic), the things, or the events around him will perhaps deserve the title…of a useful antiquarian. He would be wise to renounce all claims to that of a historian” (Bloch, 1992, p. 36). Nowhere is this more obvious at the moment than in terms of our understanding of race and racism. The last few months have seen a widespread outcry at our collective failures in Britain (and England especially) to face our colonial past and deal with the cancer of racism. And the challenge now is more than simply " being non-racist", but in being actively "anti-racist."

This blog is related to my analysis of the draft 2019 Ofsted inspection framework. You can find the index page HERE and a main blog introduction HERE.

Leadership and Management
Unlike the previous framework, leadership and management are moved down to the final, rather than the first spot for judgement. This is an interesting shift of emphasis away from the “heroic leadership” paradigm we have seen for the last 30 or so years. That said, leadership still receives considerable focus. Here are my key takeaways:
 
Issue 1: Much of the discussion of leadership focuses on the vision for curriculum. Leaders are held accountable for setting the values and policies which lead to a high quality education. As such this is directly connected to the “quality of education” element.
 
The implication here is that the leadership of a school needs to be setting the framework in which curricular excellence can thrive. Christine Counsell has written some excellent blogs on this. It is notable that this focus mean SLT are no longer prescribing pedagogy but creating the policies to enable high quality education. This might be a very big shift for schools where centrally directed pedagogy decisions have dominated. On this theme, I think James Woodcock’s blog on subject sensitive senior leadership is excellent, as is Nick Dennis’ post on engaging subject leads in curriculum planning.
 
Issue 2: There is a large focus on senior leaders developing the subject and pedagogical knowledge as well.
 
In terms of subject and pedagogical development I think it will be important for senior leaders to engage with subject associations and explore the possibilities of joint working to develop subject expertise in regions. In history for example, both the Schools History Project and Yorkshire History Forum offer excellent subject development for schools in and around Leeds (and nationally for the SHP), but few schools engage. There are also implications for the provision of appropriate support and training for new staff and trainees. For too long the ITE provision in schools has been quite patchy. Senior leaders will now have direct responsibility for ensuring high quality, subject specific training is being supported in school. Again, links with local HEI education departments may be helpful here.
 
Issue 3: There is a significant thread related to workload throughout the two main elements of the framework. Senior leaders are held responsible for taking account of staff pressures and managing workload in a realistic and constructive way. This is hugely important as the adage in schools when I trained to teach was that good was never good enough. Increasing accountability demands overburdened teachers with little discernible effect.
 
The key takeaway here is that policy decisions can no longer be a case of keeping adding new things on. Senior leadership teams will need to consider the efficacy of what they are doing and whether it sits coherently with their whole school approach. The days of fortnightly triple lock marking were already numbered, but this makes it clear. If your school has not reviewed the workload impact of its policies and their effectiveness since 2014, then now is the time to do so. The Key provide a useful flowchart for deciding whether a new policy is necessary, and I really like James Woodcock’s version too.
 
Issue 4: There is a much publicised paragraph about not “off-rolling” or “gaming”.
 
I don’t think this needs much exploration here, but may be a challenge in some contexts.
 
Issue 5: There are also sections on engagement with parents and governors, and to ensure appropriate safeguards are in place to protect staff and students.
 
Much of this is not new.
​

This blog is related to my analysis of the draft 2019 Ofsted inspection framework. You can find the index page HERE and a main blog introduction HERE.

Behaviour and Attitudes
The behaviour an attitudes of students are separated out from personal development and welfare in the new framework. Although the three clearly overlap, this should allow greater focus on the specifics of behaviour and attitude within the school. I have certainly worked in schools in the past where behaviour was lacklustre, but where it would have been unfair to say that student welfare was compromised overall. This usually resulted in the school being graded better for the old behaviour and welfare element than perhaps behaviour alone would have allowed. In some senses then I can see the logic of divorcing this element. I suspect there are also concerns with relation to teacher retention and recruitment, hence the increased focus. I have tried to draw out some of the key points below:
 
Issue 1: Much of the focus in this very brief (compared to “quality of education) section is on high expectations and positive attitudes. The language is actually not too dissimilar to that used within the Teachers’ Standards. The school needs to show “high expectations”, to apply these “consistently and fairly”, to enable students to have a positive attitude towards learning, and to encourage resilience and pride in their work.
 
From a school point of view, I suspect that much of this will be uncontroversial. There is no fixed idea about how these things might be achieved, nor of the level of behavioural intervention as long as things are fair, consistent, and have a positive impact on conduct. Where schools may want to take more note is if they have systems which work in theory, but in practice are subverted because they don’t work in practice, or because staff are not supported when they do use the behaviour systems. There is an implicit focus on the idea that good behaviour needs to be supported at all levels in school. This is something Tom Bennett touched upon in his 2017 Behaviour Report: “Creating a culture: how school leaders can optimise behaviour”
 
Issue 2: One challenging element in the new framework draft is the re-wording around attendance. Previously this was termed “prompt and regular”, but now the demand is “high attendance” and “punctual.”
 
This will clearly present much greater challenges to some school than others. We won’t really know until the framework has been in operation or a while where the inspectorate will se the line for this. Or indeed, whether this will be related more to local circumstances. The new challenge however is balancing attendance with the curricular demands outlined in the rest of the framework. One approach to improving attendance for some student was to reduce curriculum. There is no knowing at this point which of these aspects might take priority.
 
Issue 3: A nice addition to this framework is the focus on staff and students reflecting a positive and respectful culture.
 
Whilst this presents some challenges, I suspect that most schools hold this principle as fairly central. It does however mean some considerable thought before adopting extreme zero tolerance approaches to behaviour management, or by contrast, extreme laissez faire approaches. Sensible policies which are widely supported by the school and staff seem to be key.
 

Personal Development
As already noted, personal development is separated out from the welfare heading in this framework. Interestingly, personal development also overlaps with the “quality of education” element, reinforcing the strong focus on curriculum in the draft. Again, here are my key takeaways:
 
Issue 1: There is a balancing of the language of academic challenge from the “quality of education” section with a focus on curricular breadth in non-academic areas. This chimes to some extent with the Activity Passport idea mooted by Damien Hinds before Christmas. However there is a focus on helping students to develop interests and talents beyond academic, technical, or vocational subjects.
 
In principle I cannot see many schools disagreeing with this. However I think it raises significant challenges for some institutions. First, those schools who prioritise examination results above all else, cutting back broader educational provisions and limiting freedoms of choice for students at risk of not hitting targets. Second, those schools for who fail to offer provision beyond the curriculum at all. This is actually much more challenging as financial constraints have meant schools being unable to fund extensive extra-curricular activities and having to rely heavily on the goodwill of staff. I do fear that this focus will lead to increasing pressure for staff to offer extra-curricular provision. This was an issue discussed at length on Paul Dwyer and Will Bailey-Watson’s podcast recently.  There may also be implications for the school day. Many Yorkshire schools now have a 30 minute lunch break, leaving little time for extra-curricular provision. For schools with large numbers of children who are “bussed-in” this is really the only time for a fully accessible provision. 
 
Issue 2: There is quite a heavy focus on “character development”. This seems to include things like resilience, confidence and independence, as well as physical and mental wellbeing. So far this feels like the least coherently thought through point. A huge range of things are covered here and there is a lot of debate now about where the remit of schools ends. That said there is a reduction of “listed” topics e.g. healthy eating, internet safety etc. This might encourage a more coherent and locally applicable approach to what an appropriate pastoral curriculum might look like.
 
I do worry here that there will be a flurry of consultants offering resilience lessons and the such like. For my money, this needs couching much more in terms of how the school supports student development. The obvious answer to a lot of this is a functioning pastoral system, but that doesn’t seem immediately obvious from the text. My plea here: don’t try to tick the boxes without proper consideration for the whole school pastoral approach. 
 
Issue 3: British values finds its way in here again.
 
Until genuine consideration is given for how we teach civics and politics to students under the age of 16, there will be little real progress in this area. As a history teacher I know that I have often had to pick up elements of civics with students because our provision in the UK in this area is so dire. Even when we have had citizenship lessons in the past, the content had been far too vague. Any school which develops a proper civics programme in response to this would get a huge thumbs up in my book!

This blog is related to my analysis of the draft 2019 Ofsted inspection framework. You can find the index page HERE and a main blog introduction HERE.

Quality of Education
In the Ofsted framework draft, quality of education goes into the top spot. It is split into three key areas: intent, implementation, and impact. These three encompass a large amount of what was once covered in the old framework under quality of teaching, and pupil outcomes. However there is now much more focus on coherence. I have drawn out some key points below:

Issue 1: References to teachers and teaching are grounded in the knowledge of teachers and their ability to ensure content is remembered. The phrase “cultural capital” is central. This could be interesting in shifting the focus onto what is learnt by pupils rather than how.

All of this has great implications for the way schools organise and run CPD. Teachers will clearly need supporting in their subject knowledge and pedagogy development, as well as updating their knowledge of the processes of learning and how students remember. This also implies trusting departments much more to be able to identify and meet their developmental needs. An interesting starting point would be to ensure curriculum leads have read current research finding such as those from the How People Learn project HERE and HERE, and Willingham HERE. It would also be worth exploring what local university education departments are offering (for example at Leeds Trinity HERE). For subject leads, engagement with their subject associations will also be key (The Historical Association, or Schools History Project for historians for example).

Issue 2: Ambition and curricular breadth get heavy emphasis. The implication here is that students should not be prevented from sitting challenging qualifications, nor have their curriculum reduced to promote higher outcomes on a narrower range of subjects (especially relevant in exam years e.g. Y6 and Y9).  

This has big implications for schools who have narrowed their KS2 or KS3 curricula to allow more time for exam preparation. There are also implications for the ways in which pathways are used at KS4. Some schools for example still prevent students from sitting “academic” subjects if they are considered to have little chance of achieving a grade 4 pass. There is some reference to national exams where appropriate as a measure, but the parameters of what will constitute “achieving well” are not defined (yet!).
 
Issue 3: There are interesting references to assessment systems being used systematically to check pupil understanding and facilitate feedback without creating workload burdens for staff.

This may be a challenge for schools with very regular data drops, or schools using GCSE type questions regularly as a proxy for assessment through KS3. This form of assessment does not have much basis in identification of barriers or misconceptions, and often fails to enable effective feedback for students. I have written on this subject before HERE.

Issue 4: The teaching focus is shifted to clarity of presentation and sequencing. Much less emphasis is put on the style of teaching, promoting an emphasis on what is being learned by pupil and the impact of teaching on this.

Whilst this suggests a shift in focus onto what students are actually learning there are some risks here of performative response. There seems to be a danger that schools may insist on regimes of knowledge checking or regular, detailed feedback to meet the demands of the new framework without considering the efficacy of such an approach or the workload implications. It does however suggest that some subject specialists observers will be needed in all schools to identify and comment on the impact of curricular intentions. This could be very powerful if devolved to a departmental level, and might in turn encourage the kinds of curricular development desired in point 

Issue 5: Finally, there is a large focus on ensuring that learners are prepared for the next stage in their education or employment, rather than just exam results. Helpfully the problematic phrase that students should meet or exceed age expectations is gone as this became a proxy for counting numbers at Level 4 or Grade C in the past. There is also an interesting shift away from pupils being prepared for future qualifications or jobs which meet a national or local need to jobs and qualifications which match their aspirations and intentions. In my view, this is much more positive framing.
​
I have written at length about the fact that too many schools focus on the performative aspects of passing exams, whilst ignoring the longitudinal aspects of student development. This is often seen in the learning of “exam technique”: tricks which create an illusion of understanding without laying the necessary groundwork for future progress. Here schools will need to engage again with their subject specialists and draw on the expertise in subject associations in order to really consider what it means to prepare for the next stage. Schools will most likely need to revisit their thinking around progression and consider whether their models of progression and assessment are actually fit for this purpose. A helpful starting point from a whole-school point of view would be to read the Report of the NAHT Commission on Assessment which was published shortly after the abolition of National Curriculum Levels in 2014.