Curriculum and Assessment Review Final Report

A full review of the National Curriculum from Key Stage 1 through to Key Stage 4

The Review has always signalled evolution not revolution. I’d been expecting some modest nudges to the curriculum (it’s huge — a full rewrite always felt unlikely). What I was hoping for was a much bolder rethink of assessment, especially moving away from high-stakes, end-of-course exams.

That’s not what we got. Instead, we’re getting a full review of the National Curriculum from Key Stage 1 through to Key Stage 4, in almost every subject. The new curriculum will be finalised by Spring 2027, with rollout starting September 2028 for most subjects; GCSEs will phase in after that, with A levels to follow.

The report (and the Government’s response) makes clear what’s missing from the current curriculum. Some of it’s making a comeback after being taken out before, and much of it reflects changed societal needs over the past decade, especially when it comes to preparing young people for adult life.

Oracy gets a special mention, as it has in every other report this term, and rightly so! Yet it’s an area private schools have always valued more than the state system. Oracy is more than “speaking and listening”, but that’s the basic foundation. When the 2014 Primary Curriculum came out, it contained just 12 statements across Years 1–6, and when the pre-key stage standards landed in 2018, they covered only Reading, Writing, and Maths. Speaking and listening were practically erased.

The Review has kept a focus on knowledge over skills, but oracy is a skill. You can’t learn it by rote or parrot it in an exam hall. It’s about speaking in different contexts, questioning, presenting, and debating. These skills take time to develop, not just to teach but for students to practise and grow in confidence. So what will be cut out to make room? And why is there no proposed assessment framework for oracy?

If the Government measures what it values (or values only what it can measure), I worry oracy will become a token add-on.

The report champions mastery and depth, yet also says the curriculum should “fit into lesson time”. Many schools already don’t finish the national curriculum before starting GCSE prep. So where is the space coming from, especially with proposals to reduce exam time by at least 10%? The Review doesn’t say what might be removed. They know that any area within a subject cut now would trigger uproar. But if everything is “essential”, then nothing is.

SEND gets a mention, several, in fact, but not with much substance. There’s the usual line: teaching must be inclusive, assessments must be accessible, teachers need more training, and so on. But there’s nothing concrete about what tailored assessment or truly inclusive practice would look like.

Where is the change to assessment?

The biggest disappointment for me in the report is around assessment. Let’s start with one of the first bits of detail we heard about, that Year 9 SATs are basically back (but moved to Year 8): a statutory reading test and teacher assessment for writing and maths.

Where are the opportunities for students in secondary school to read? The secondary curriculum is broken into chunks and fed to the students on a conveyor belt to get through all the required content as quickly as possible.

A new Year 8 accountability measure means schools will inevitably teach to the test. The cost? More pressure, more narrowing, more stress. Is that really what will improve reading?

Doubling down on written exams

Then we come to GCSEs, where I was hoping to see genuine change. There is no change.

We’re keeping exams as the only form of assessment (except where a skill can’t be assessed in an exam) until at least 2042. The Government’s love for exams and seeing them as the only way to assess learning is shocking.

Last year in Wales, every pupil from Year 2 to Year 9 took adaptive reading and numeracy assessments. They’ll do so annually from now on. These are for feedback and progression, not accountability.

That’s real change. So why is England doubling down on written exams, a model our universities are already moving away from?

A 2025 Jisc report shows higher-ed is redesigning assessment around authentic tasks, digital methods, student choice, and programme-level design. Meanwhile, at GCSEs, we stick with 20th-century assessment for 21st-century learners.

A wasted opportunity to better support SEND learners

School should prepare young people for life. Not how to regurgitate pre-taught answers under fluorescent lights.

I have two neurodivergent daughters, and supporting them through GCSEs was heart-breaking. The anxiety and stress built throughout secondary school, all peaking in that final exam month. Watching my daughter sit through it was maddening.

With 1 in 5 pupils now neurodivergent, and with daily headlines about how we’re failing our SEND learners, this review has failed them again, and will keep failing them for the next 15 years.

Too many young people won’t get to follow their ambitions, not because they lack ability, but because they couldn’t perform in a specific way, in a specific moment, in a hostile environment. A student who gets a 5 in History but needs a 6 for A level has no real pathway to prove themselves. Where’s the chance to retake a GCSE History course?

And the mental cost before exams, during, and after results day, is huge!

Exams are only one form of assessment!

There are others; coursework, portfolios, teacher assessment, creative projects, and these are just as valid. So, what’s really behind the decision to stick with written exams? Standardisation? Cost? Convenience? It’s certainly not inclusion or fairness.

Even the “standardised” exams have marking inconsistencies, just ask the thousands who have papers remarked every year and gain not just one or two extra marks, moving them to the next grade or even higher.

I could keep ranting and ranting about the negative impact of exams, not just at the end of secondary, when they are sitting their GCSEs, but how they are used throughout secondary. I really hoped for change. I had high hopes for this report and I am extremely disappointed by the lack of change in assessments. We have had so many reports over the last few years (and so many this term) about the failings around SEND and mental health. So many reports that aren’t really being listened to.

Today’s report is also an indication of when the upcoming schools white paper will come into effect, it is also probably going to start coming into effect from September 2028. We still have a number of years of failing children with SEND ahead of us.

It appears the phrase “SEND is not a bolt-on” applies everywhere except GCSEs.

What do others in the SEND community feel about the Curriculum and Assessment Review Final Report?

B Squared: helping you navigate the changes

At B Squared, we’re passionate about making education more inclusive and flexible. The Curriculum and Assessment Review, the new Ofsted framework, and OCR’s recent recommendations all talk about celebrating every student’s unique potential. But how can this be achieved?

We’re here to help schools adapt to these changes with our assessment tools that work for all pupils, not just some. Using one system for SEND pupils and another for non-SEND? That’s not inclusion – that’s a divide! Let’s break down those barriers and make learning work for everyone.

Take action

Read the report – The Curriculum and Assessment Review: Final Report

Look at our blog to learn more about the Curriculum and Assessment Review – Curriculum and Assessment Review and Other Changes – B Squared

Want to know more about how B Squared can help your school – Book a FREE online meeting