Changes to the curriculum 2025

[toohotforjeans]

There is a review underway, headed by Becky Francis. The interim report was published in March 2025. The review is currently reviewing subject matter with the final report due to be published in Autumn 2025. Initially extensive changes were mooted, to do with "inclusivity", but last time I looked no information about changes to subject matter had been made available to the public, no information since March and the information in the interim report about proposed changes to subject matter was quite vague and wishy washy.

Is clear information about proposed changes now available?

Does anyone have any concrete information about what is going on?

Thanks

(NB The interim report did however highlight some problems such as the fact that 40 percent of 16 year olds are not at the required standard in maths and literacy, and around 16 percent of 16 years olds were not at the required standard expected of 11 year olds so is worth a read generally)

No idea but bumping as I'd also be interested to learn more about this

Hm. Concerning your last paragraph; the National Curriculum for Maths and English is not a problem -it is clear and comprehensive.

If you want to raise attainment, you don't need to mess around with the curriculum, but focus on supporting learners through early interventions at the first sign of difficulty, thus enabling pupils to stay on track with age related expectations. Once gaps in attainment occur and pupil progress veers from the expected trajectory, it becomes increasingly difficult for a child or young person to catch up, unless appropriately supported. And this is the issue. I have worked in schools where this is done brilliantly: targeted, bespoke intervention is rigorously used to make sure that, as far as professionally and cognitively possible, no child is left behind. But it takes an enormous commitment to providing the necessary resources, from school leadership to teachers to support staff who all bust a gut assessing forensically, planning for real support, and delivering interventions to learners as if life itself depends on it -which it does.

Best possible outcomes for learners will not be achieved through tinkering with the content of the Maths and English curriculum, but through the day-to-day commitment to individual pupil progress and the relentless grind of plugging gaps. It really is life-changing and children get one chance at statutory education.

If the ‘required standard’ they’re talking about is a grade 4, they don’t understand the system - which nobody seems to. There will never be a situation where everyone passes

I completely agree with you.

I don't think it was misunderstood in the interim report and yes, it is possible for all children and adults bar only a tiny minority to be able to reach the required standard.

They can't though, because the marking is norm referenced. The grade boundaries are set afterwards to ensure roughly the same proportion of candidates get each grade each year. So if everybody does better, roughly the same proportion still 'fail'.

Is there anyone on MN who works for the Department for Education who could provide the information about exactly what changes are being proposed by any chance?

Am I right in thinking that the proposals will be made public in time for the public to provide input?

How can the public give feedback?

I'd also really like to know if there is a particular mindset which relates to this, and that whether it is becoming quite pervasive across education in terms of appointments. I have read quite a few threads where teachers and SLTs seem to be agreeing with some extreme ideas about what should and shouldn't be taught, and there seem to have been a lot of changes in some areas already.

No, this is a misunderstanding. Perameters for grading change to reflect questions being easier or harder from year to year to keep standards the same. Nothing to do with a pre-set proportion which will pass or fail. If you look on the government website this is explained clearly.

The curriculum for maths is way too full, it would be better for children to spend more time mastering less of a range.

No it wouldn't.

I agree. We spend far too little time on number and calculation.

It really would.

It wouldn't. It isn't the curriculum content which is at fault. It is the whole host of other issues facing schools and children and parents which need to be addressed. Think of the children who want to do degrees in science, maths, engineering, medicine - very unfair to them to start chopping bits off the curriculum. Very unfair to children who are not yet sure but who would benefit from the opportunities and choice provided by a high standard of education. If you have any sources to back up your views, then I'd be happy to look, but it is off topic, this thread is asking for information about proposed changes. Thanks.

I have the evidence from myself and thoseI work alongside, as well as many others i know working in education. It is not off topic at all to suggest that one of the main changes needed to the primary maths curriculum is that it focuses more on te core elements that can then be mastered. This change would ensure maths becomes far more helpful to those children wanting to do science, engineering or maths. Maths mastery would benefit those children hugely, in fact it would benefit all children.

It's a shame your tone is so rude and you aren't willing to hear a range of views.

I agree @Jumpthewaves
My source is 20+ years of teaching Key Stage One Maths.

The Maths Curriculum should focus on basic number facts, calculation and place value. It moves too fast from these core skills. There’s no point looking at fractions and measurement and statistics when the core concepts aren’t embedded.

Im not sure public input in necessary as its quite a complex area. I hope they get input from more than just a few high profile academy chain ceos though.

I got the impression a lot of the change was meant for the vocational qualifications.

I don't think my tone is rude at all, it is exasperated as you clearly haven't read my posts very carefully. This thread is in politics asking for information about proposed changes, not asking what changes you think need to be made to the curriculum.

I have been on countless threads where people say the same thing as you and other people have disagreed. If you want to chat about this then there are plenty of threads for you, better for you than this one, or start a new thread maybe, and @ me and I'll come and join you there to discuss what changes I'd make.

”I don’t think my tone is rude “

followed by a whole rude response.

The general public do not have the same level of knowledge and experience as teachers on the curriculum. I’m interested in what teachers have to say because they know what they are talking about.

@toohotforjeans

Other posters have given opinions that you have agreed with and responded to readily. However when posters haven’t agreed with you, you’ve criticised them for commenting. It seems to me, you are wanting to only engage with like minded posters. Healthy discussion involves differing opinions and experiences.

It is of utmost importance that parents and the public in general are aware of what is being proposed and given the opportunity to comment. It isn't a complex area. What makes you think that "a lot of the changes was meant for vocational qualifications"?

In that case start a thread and only ask for teachers' opinions....

So parents and the public can comment but not teachers? How odd.

I went to one of the regional events and there were a number of delegates attending as parents. You could also have completed the online consultation. I don't know if the same level of feedback will be sought again.

Not true. I responded briefly to both.

Then the second poster I responded to and others kept coming back even after I nicely explained that this thread was about getting information only. So i don't think you are wanting to engage and genuinely exchange ideas at all. If you did, you'd do as I asked and start your own thread.

I think Charlie Kirk might have been right about this after all.

Thanks for this. Could you let me know how you were notified of the event and who by, and when this was? Please could you link the online consultation you completed?