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)

Most children who can't subtract in Y4 (or any other similar example) are unable to in spite of significant intervention. We need to accept that ability varies hugely across the general population. Some children enter Reception reading and forming their letters properly, some spend the entire year learning to recognise the numerals 1-10. That gap will never be closed by intervention, not least because the one who entered Reception reading will continue to have the same underlying abilities AND continue to have the same proactive parents.

Did you read those things in anything from the actual review team?

This is not in accordance with research and doesn't tally with practical experience as some schools are much, much better at bringing children up to the required standard than others. It is to do with teaching, and effective intervention.

I have worked with children who have problems with maths and it doesn't tally with my experience either.

The kids who enter reception with number skills will be those who have had some kind of input at home or at nursery. Experiences of children pre 3 have a huge impact. But the children without that input will still be able to be brought up to speed with the right input.

Incidentally, at the schools my DC have been to there has been zero, and I mean zero, intervention. The kids who are massively behind in their teens were massively behind at primary and there was no intervention. The kids who had extra help outside school do the best by some considerable distance.

I agree with you about differentiation. One of the things my DS did to improve his maths was working through the "key to" series, which is American from the 1990s I think. The work books are designed for children to work through on their own at their own speed and are just absolutely brilliant - covering fractions through to algebra etc. They are brilliant, brilliant resources. They really do transform children's understanding.

When I was younger this was often how the classes were managed, children working through resources and getting help as and when needed.

thanks for your response.

DC are fine at maths but only with hard work, and the only one of these they found difficult at primary was the division with large numbers which they got better at as their brains sped up with age. So i agree with that.

The rest was not difficult (and honestly maths did not come naturally to them and they went to a mixed ability school) and made maths more interesting than just bogstandard adding up etc.

So not sure I agree with you. I think better resources enabling differentiation might be a better way to go.

Okay, well it very much is my experience over the past 15 years. There are plenty of children who, in spite of intervention, cannot be brought up to speed because they don't yet have the cognitive development. Children who are capable of achieving year group objectives by and large achieve them through quality first teaching. Wave 2 intervention can certainly help some children, especially if they have gaps in learning for specific reasons like having missed school through illness, but in plenty of cases whilst it can help children progress, it won't necessarily close the gap.

I've never worked in a school without interventions and don't really understand how you would get through an Ofsted inspection if that were the case.

@toohotforjeans I completely agree ,and there isn't time to go back and get the basics in.

The self esteem of these children is shattered by a very early age then you get disengagement and it's hard to ever get them back.

I saw today praise for doubling down on phonics when we know how phonics is barrier to many children .

When you say There are plenty of children who, in spite of intervention, cannot be brought up to speed because they don't yet have the cognitive development is there any source for this, as in, where did you get the info from? I ask because I have not seen research saying this and I'd be interested to see it - there is a tiny percentage of children who do not have the cognitive ability, nowhere near the 40 percent of children not achieving basic levels.

Maria Montessori was the first female to qualify as a doctor in Italy and in the early 20th century set up a school for children considered "retarded", and through her methods the children were able to pass exams along with "non retarded", and in some cases outshining them. The modern thinking so far as I am aware is along these lines - that the brain output reflects the input - so if the extra help for children is not working, it simply isn't being done right (other than in a tiny percentage of cases).

I think phonics is fine in the early stages - eg c-a-t, b-o-g - but something like 70 - 80 percent of English words are not remotel phonetic and so need to be learned as sight words. Literacy levels were high in the 1950s because of how children were taught at the time, and phonics - other than the basics as above - didn't exist at the time.

You get non English children with higher levels of literacy than English children not being taught with phonics.

There seems to be no objective justification for it to be used in the UK or the US.

The bit about needing to learn 70%+ of words by sight shows you don't understand phonics. I believe we've swung too far with phonics but that just isn't true.

And too much on fractions! The primary maths curriculum becomes abstract far too quickly and that’s when many children come unstuck. The 2014 Gove curriculum shows no regard to children’s cognitive development. Children’s brains are not ready to learn abstract concepts until at least 9. And that’s the average, so for some it will be later. Children need time to master and consolidate their understanding of number and place value through concrete and pictorial learning right into year 4, if not later. The current curriculum is so jam packed it doesn’t allow time for this.
The standard expected at end of year 6 is ridiculously high and that’s why so many children seem to fail (which is horrible for them to experience and no doubt, turns many off formal learning as they become disillusioned and lose motivation).

It's not full at all. There are some kids who struggle, sure, but it doesn't mead it has to be dumbed down.

You do realise that significant number of children excel at current curriculum and love math? I'm really struggling with idea that in our time, with such focus on STEM, anyone can think about reducing math level instead of giving kids extra support. Our maths curriculum is most definitely not harder than in other countries

That doesn't mean dumbing down at all and yes it is extremely full. Maths mastery should be more of a focus.

Thats not what is being said at all. There's no time to go into detail on areas of math which need a more in depth exploration to be fully mastered. The breadth includes things that really don't need to be there. Our maths curriculum is know for being broader and shallower than much of Europe and this has a huge impact on overall understanding and retention.

And do you realise that a significant of number children do not cope with the current curriculum? For those that excel, extension work can be provided. But let’s move away from the current situation where so many children are made to feel they are failing at such a young age. There’s just no need for it.
Also, drop the excessive fractions and random stuff like translating shapes and Roman numerals to focus more on number and place value. Why do 10 year olds need to know how to multiply and divide fractions?

Exactly.

It is too full, and abstract too quickly. If sufficient time is not given in maths to secure the basics, further progress is hampered. There’s just no time with the current overcrowded curriculum (all subjects) for consolidation and practice. Then children are assessed in an excessively complex way at the end of year 6 where multiple mathematical concepts are wrapped into complex word problems (reasoning papers x2 that leave many children in tears). Just stop with the unnecessary level of difficulty. It’s cruel.

What do you mean by 'history that doesn't exist' @toohotforjeans?

Theories which have not been put together by reference to accepted historical method and not written by people with appropriate qualifications and experience

A quick google comes up with 50 - 75 percent
When I was last looking at this in a serious way, the number was around 79 percent from good academic sources

I am not sure what you mean when you say it shows I don't understand phonics - how so? What exactly do you mean? Are you able to express what you mean, or this just a "you don't understand" answer because you aren't sure enough to explain properly?

What I can tell you is that I see a lot of older children writing long words phonetically having no idea that they are doing so incorrectly...

You say we have swung too far - what exactly do you mean, at what point would say we should have stuck at?!

As I said, literacy levels of the generation educated before the 60s are far higher than today - they did not learn to read using phonics.

You say "Children’s brains are not ready to learn abstract concepts until at least 9" this isn't true - can you provide a source for what you are saying? If possible also refencing a source which identifies the specific maths concepts which are taught at too young an age?

They aren't coping because of failures in teaching and behaviour management and care issues.

As others have said, curriculums in other countries are as complex or more complex. Children educated before the 60s achieved higher standards.

Children in private schools are way ahead in maths - would you not like to work towards bridging the gap a bit?

High levels of education help children out of cycles of poverty and greater increase quality of life.

You are doing children a huge disservice taking your approach.

Teachers and professors in some countries in Europe are also lamenting huge drops in standards and dumbing down so I think you might be wrong there.

why do children in China and Russia master this though? is this genetic stupidity of ours that they can't?
Why don't we focus on improving teaching instead of dumbing down curriculum? especially in maths, especially in the age of AI.

ETA: as PP said, children in private schools grasp current maths curriculum just fine. Are they all just more intelligent? or the issue is with teaching still?