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)

I suppose that's what I took from the remit. When they were talking about broader skills and vocational offerings.

Plus they have delayed some oc the changes to btechs etc pending the review, so I assumed that was part the remit too.

I also feel that those able to access gcses are already well served by the current curriculum so the focus would be on those groups badly served.

Hi Hotspot. This thread isn't a consultation for parents, the public or teachers. This thread is asking for information.

I agree this is needed for some learners but for a small but significant percentage, perhaps around twenty per cent, the primary curriculum just moves too fast for what they are cognitively ready for. The objectives for telling the time are particularly problematic for this. There is also a limit to how much intervention you can put in place daily before a child becomes overloaded, especially as a child needing intervention in one subject very often also needs it in others.

Interesting to note that the OP was happy to respond to the quoted post above but not happy about other posts which were contributing to the discussion in a similar vein...

I’ve completed the online consultation. I shared my experience of teaching and how I feel the curriculum needs simplifying and focusing on basics. Feedback from teachers seeing the impact of the curriculum is the best feedback.

You may not think you were rude, but you were. That's fine, I've no wish to engage further with someone with such bad manners, I wish you the best and hope you get whatever it is you want from this thread.

When you say the "remit" what do you mean? Do you mean how the government has described the review? Sorry if that is a stupid question.

Becky Francis is leading the review and she had said she wanted to completely change the curriculum from the top to the bottom, so I don't think it is only vocational - my question here and the purpose of the thread was to get info on what exactly Becky Francis and her team wanted to change in terms of subject matter.

In answer to your question (rather than the general discussion I was joining in with) I dont think clearer information is available as I keep sitting in meetings where people say 'depending on the outcome of the curriculum review'

I gave a brief response to both - I said I agreed with one and not the other. So what you say is not true on any level.

Okay, that is fine. I wish you the best too. Please do start a new thread about the topics you want to discuss, I am sure lots of people will join in.

Please could you link the online consultation link? Many thanks.

The consultation (actually it was a call for evidence) informed the interim report and is closed. I saw details of the regional meetings in a DfE update, but it was also publicised in Education media and on Local Authority websites. There were also some online sessions.

Do you mean meetings in schools, are you a teacher? So, is the general feeling that there will be significant changes or people really have no idea? Thanks!

Ok, thanks. Yes, there were references to the call for evidence in the interim report. Were there questions on changes to subject matter which were intended to inform the part of the review currently underway, ie about changes to subject matter?

Im not a teacher. Im a clerk, so i sit in governor/trustee meetings for a lot of schools.i work for 3 trusts. They discuss the curriculum intent at this time of year (and coordinating responses to consultations etc) the schools offering vocational courses for gcse or sixth form seem a lot twitcher, but in general people seem to have no idea at all what's going to happen.

I know lots of subject organisations made submissions the call for evidence, including content, scope and assessment. At the regional meeting there were a number of discussion groups. I was in a group that discussed the Maths curriculum, and another about KS4 qualifications.

I agree there is too much content in the KS1/2 maths curriculum (can’t speak for higher than that).

case in point: I taught a y4 class on supply, subtracting fractions with the same denominator. As all you have to do is subtract the numerators, the children are able to do this extremely easily. However I had a number of children come unstuck at 20/7 - 13/7, because they couldn’t do 20-13. One told me he couldn’t do it as he didn’t have 20 fingers. Should children who have no strategy for addition and subtraction other than counting on fingers be learning to subtract fractions? Do they truly understand what is going on? Or do the follow the process in the lesson and appear successful but instantly forget it because they are just not cognitively ready for such things?

The primary maths curriculum is full of stuff like this that a number of children just aren’t ready for. It would be far better for children to spend time really embedding addition and subtraction, than faff around with calculating with fractions.

And what was Charlie Kirk right about?

As a ks1 teacher I completely agree. The children are having to apply their knowledge before they are totally secure. Place value and secure calculation methods alongside number bonds and spotting patterns in numbers should be fully embedded.

Next year I’ve decided to do a weekly lesson on these core facts, building skills gradually through the year

Modgepodge, I originally just wanted this to be about info about the changes actually on the table, but it seems no one knows anything so I will respond to this.

Can you see that you are sort of contradicting yourself here? Some of the class did it easily, some could not do it as they struggled with 20 minus 13 - this means that those who struggle need to be helped differently in years 1 - 3 - it doesn't surely mean that children who can subcontract, add, multiply, divide should be held back? The problem is surely to do with how things are being taught rather than content?

In my experience, children in year 4 who cannot subtract have been greatly failed in the years before that. That is the problem. Even worse, problems I have seen personally is teachers shaming children, putting pressure on slow thinkers to work under clock, so closing down their thinking ability, not repeating work from previous years (a lot of repetition is needed) etc. So teaching methods could do with a shake up.

Just out of interest, what should the maths curriculum be for years 1 - 6 in your opinion? Other than adding, subcontracting, mulitplication and division, what should be covered? What subjects which are being covered now should not be covered?

Same question to @hotspot and the other posters who said similar things.

Next year I’ve decided to do a weekly lesson on these core facts, building skills gradually through the year
This sounds excellent but why is this not being done as standard? Children need reminders at this age, while at the same time learning new concepts in outline terms.

Other countries which are generally successful in terms of education don't do number bonds/classes on noticing number patterns nearly as obsessively as the UK, though, nor things like phonics re reading to the extent they are used (especially not suited to the English language).

The sort of changes I had read about were not those now being discussed - it was to do with droppiing huge chunks of knowledge up to senior level as it was not necessary - such as algebra, huge chunks of history. Adding history which didn't exist to make people feel included. Dumbing things down so that children who are behind don't feel bad. Introducing things which are not researched at all and are about terror. Really bonkers suggestions. Also suggesting using AI instead of teaching children. That sort of thing.

@toohotforjeans

I’m not sure what your experience is of teaching. Please share.

I’d also be interested in how you propose teaching multiple lessons to one class at the same time. I am alone with 34 children. Many who need a great deal of support. Teaching number facts to a group, fractions to another and applying fractions to another is a recipe for disaster. I know, I’ve tried something similar. A surefire way of no one learning.

I do actually do a weekly lesson on Maths skills already. But it’s a very broad lesson applying all of the skills learnt so far in the year to ensure all remain embedded as requested by our Maths lead. Based on my experience however I feel this often leads to children being overwhelmed with content. I am going to make these lessons much narrower, focusing on key skills allowing children to master the basics.

Really? This is concerning. I’m glad two dc are or will be through already.

I think there needs to be different expectations of different children. The current curriculum and the mastery approach and ‘keeping the class together’ doesn’t work for anyone. There seems to be an assumption that if we start in reception and do enough intervention with the ones who struggle, the gap won’t widen and all the children will learn at the same rate. This approach ignores that children entering reception have differing starting points.

Some children need to really focus on the basics. Some children are ready for the curriculum content as is. Some need harder material than is currently available on the curriculum. But it seems that differentiation and setting are dirty words, and all children must receive the same explanations and do the same work. Children must never be given work from an older year group!!

But as someone else has pointed out, this is very hard to achieve with a teacher and no support, especially in smaller schools where sets aren’t an option (I’ll say it, I like sets. Used well they can allow the most able to be challenged and the least able to have support with the basics.)

I don’t know what the answer is, I just feel
s bit hopeless about my own child’s schooling.

Things I would ditch: Roman numerals, and most of the fractions objectives in y5/6 (adding and subtracting mixed numbers, multiplying and dividing fractions - most adults can’t do this!) I’m not sure whether algebra and ratio really need time spent on them in y6 as it’s such a basic introduction, I wonder if they wouldn’t be best left to secondary- though most kids don’t find them too hard to be honest. Ditch dividing by a 2 digit number over 12. I’d also bring back the use of calculators in y5/6.