The interim report of the Curriculum and Assessment Review, which was commissioned in July 2024 and led by Professor Becky Francis CBE, was published in March 2025 and provides a remarkably comprehensive and progressive overview of the educational landscape in England today. The result is a system that is partially working but still falls short of the ideal of excellence for everyone. The report highlights enduring disparities, particularly for students from underprivileged backgrounds and those with special educational needs, even though many facets of curriculum delivery are statistically balanced and fairly structured.
Examining this interim report helps one understand how intricate and multi-layered education reform has become, especially in light of the need for universal access while maintaining ambitious national standards. The objective is deliberate evolution rather than revolution, as Professor Francis underlined. This review is presented as timely and notably pragmatic due to its deliberate, evidence-based, and societally aware mindset.
| Curriculum Review Interim Report – Key Data (2025) | |
|---|---|
| Commissioned by | Department for Education (DfE) |
| Lead Reviewer | Professor Becky Francis CBE |
| Date of Publication | 18 March 2025 |
| Main Focus Areas | Equity, Curriculum Design, Assessment Reform, Digital Skills |
| Consultation Volume | Over 7,000 stakeholder responses including educators, parents, students, employers |
| Top Issues Identified | KS2 writing assessments, volume of KS4 exams, EBacc constraints, SEND support |
| Final Recommendations Due | Autumn 2025 |
| Official PDF Link | gov.uk curriculum interim report |
According to the report, strategic changes can have a significant impact in four areas that are especially important. First and foremost, the concept of “high standards” needs to be truly inclusive. High achievement has far too frequently been a privilege rather than a guarantee in recent years. The achievement gap continues to be excruciatingly large for students with SEND and those who face socioeconomic obstacles. This conclusion is remarkably consistent with earlier reviews that noted how strict accountability frameworks frequently make already-existing disparities worse.
Second, the review delves deeply into discrepancies at the subject level. Subjects like music are becoming less popular, as evidenced by the fact that only 7% of students chose them for their GCSEs. At the same time, English is still criticized for having a complicated and occasionally unclear syllabus. A scattergun approach to teaching is triggered by under-prescribed subjects, while over-prescribed subjects limit flexibility. Teachers often feel constrained by curriculum overload. Both depth and engagement are undermined by these structural imbalances.
A particularly creative thread is introduced in the third area, which focuses on how educational systems equip students for the rapid changes in society and technology. In a world where artificial intelligence and disinformation are changing the landscape, the panel highlights the critical need for skills like digital literacy, critical media analysis, and scientific agility. A specialist group has already been announced by the Department of Education to report on pedagogical integration and AI literacy before the end of the academic year, which is encouraging. Despite its subtlety, this proactive step effectively demonstrates a responsive policy ecosystem.
The report highlights a frequently disregarded issue in post-16 education: the poor outcomes of required GCSE retakes in maths and English. Only 50 of 3,400 students who started with a math grade of 2 were able to earn a Grade 4 on their November 2024 retakes, according to recent data. These figures are extremely disturbing in addition to being disappointing. This result, which has been called “indefensible,” highlights the shortcomings of a system that prioritizes compliance over success.
The report highlights persistent concerns regarding exam stress, performance pressure, and the prevalence of high-stakes testing in relation to the volume of assessments at KS4. The panel is currently looking into how other evaluative formats could be incorporated without sacrificing rigor, even though traditional exams will continue to be the main assessment method. Assessing mastery without compromising the welfare of the students is a delicate but essential balancing act.
The issue of curriculum overload, which is frequently brought on by unclear subject frameworks, keeps coming up. Teachers overcompensate when specifications are unclear, resulting in bloated lesson plans that put breadth before mastery. To improve specificity and expedite delivery, the report recommends a customized, subject-specific diagnostic approach. This approach is very effective at producing scalable improvements, despite being less eye-catching.
The English Baccalaureate is a further major issue. The EBacc is coming under increasing criticism for limiting student options, even though it is still a vital component of the government’s progress framework. According to responses, the EBacc may discourage students from pursuing artistic and vocational endeavors, thus strengthening inflexible academic hierarchies. The panel is actively investigating whether EBacc metrics are unintentionally distorting student trajectories, but it is still dedicated to progress-based evaluation.
The report’s criticism of the current KS2 writing assessments and the Spag (spelling, punctuation, and grammar) test is arguably its most striking feature. Teachers complain that neither creativity nor fluency are promoted by the assessment framework. Rather, students are frequently tutored to fulfill checklist-style requirements that do not fairly represent their writing skills. Rather than being praised for their uniqueness, incredibly adaptable writers might end up being punished for not fitting in. There is a pressing need to investigate this discrepancy between the purpose of assessments and their educational value.
Professor Francis stated at the ASCL conference that a lack of alignment between expectations at key stages is frequently the cause of curriculum imbalances. When schools start GCSE preparations too early in Year 9, it reduces breadth at KS3, leading to disengagement and redundancy. Furthermore, repetition of KS2 and KS3 material leads to frustration and slower progress. In the following stage of the review, improving sequencing and curriculum alignment will be a primary focus in order to address these discrepancies.
The National Centre for Arts and Music Education, which is scheduled to open in September 2026, is one especially ambitious project. In order to revitalize arts education in schools, this center will provide professional development, digital resources, and promotional assistance. This initiative is not only welcome, but long overdue in the eyes of many. The arts’ marginalization frequently reflects a larger cultural devaluation of artistic endeavors. This center seeks to change that by making strategic investments.
The interim report chooses to focus on diagnosis and guidance rather than making prescriptive recommendations. This restraint is especially advantageous because it maintains the emphasis on listening and improving rather than hastening the implementation of reforms. Additionally, it makes room for stakeholders to collaborate on contextually grounded solutions.
More than just leading a review, Professor Francis and her panel are pushing educators, policymakers, and the general public to rethink the definition and assessment of educational success. The review is incredibly durable as a guide for policy reform because of its emphasis on data, inclusivity, and practicality.
