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 it's not. I am a primary teacher and have a first class linguistics degree. That's not at all what a linguistics degree is about. Phonics teaches alternative pronunciations so things like oo can be the sound in moon, door or book. It's not just the sounds of individual letters. By Phase 6 phonics, you can decode the vast majority of words.

And my source: typing in 'percentage phonetically decodable words English' to Google. Take your pick from the results.

You have a first class degree and you are a primary teacher and you think that the best way to help children to learn to read is to learn how to phonetically decode 87 percent of words?

You will find highest levels of literacy amongst those who did not learn how to read by learning to phonetically decode 87 percent of words according to OECD research.

And you are saying that a linguistics degree does not cover at all phonetic decoding at all? Phonetics is a central branch of linguistics but it is not covered at all in a degree? Genuine question - I did a history degree and then converted to law so I can tell you what my courses covered, and would be interested to know what your course covered - what did you cover in your 3 years of linguistics, what courses did you do, and at what stage did you study phonetic decoding if it was not part of your degree? And when you were at primary school did you get to phase 6 phonics or are you old like me and you learned to read in the old fashioned way?

‘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)’

Shocking. Poor kids have been failed. And yet they’ve just been given the vote by this gvt.

That isn't what the gov website says, as I said upthread
But I understand your point, that when determining how easy or not any particular paper is they will look at results... I understand your point but your methodology isn't reflected in what the gov website says. I admit I haven't looked at your subsequent link.
What you are saying isn't hugely relevant here to be honest (I am not being rude) - the point is that we should be doing much better than a 40 percent fail rate and whether or not grading criteria changes is not relevant to that.

There is academic research for and against.
Though according to some in the US the "against" is suppressed quite forcefully in the US - no idea about the UK
If you look at outcomes, in fact you will find highest levels of literacy in those who learned to read by sight reading.

I have helped children learn to read and without a doubt children in my personal experience most children, especially those with trauma or high stress levels (most of the kids who fail) will learn to read better and faster using sight reading rather than wasting time trying to get their head round phonetic decoding and applying it.

I think it might just eventually be exposed as a crock
Gove tried to bring back grammar learning, because not teaching grammar had led to shocking levels of illiteracy and generations of people wishing they had been taught properly at school, and there not being enough teachers competent to teach grammar. My generation wasn't taught grammar in most schools - I went to an academic private school and I was taught grammar - in terms of outcomes, most of my private school pals ended up in top roles in various different professions, significantly more than those who had suffered in progressive schools not being taught maths or grammar. It is a no brainer for anyone who is not agenda driven.
If you ever wanted to do research, have a look at the insane theories academics came up with in the 60s, 70s in relation to language. There was significant pressure on those academics to be "radical" and to uproot everything which had been known before. It is pretty shocking in hindsight, it caused a lot of damage.

I studied, amongst many other things, phonetics and phonology which is quite distinct from school phonics. It's certainly not about things like split digraphs. I'm not sure why you would think what is taught to four to seven year olds is what would be studied at undergraduate level. My first post actually said I didn't think phonics was the be all and end all but I think there's far more to it than you seem to understand.

In answer to your other question, I was at primary school shortly before structured phonics programmes were introduced but yes, much of what I learnt was through phonics. Magic e is just a split digraph by another name. I learn that c and h make a ch sound and many other rules. That is phonics but in those days it was unstructured and mixed with other methods.

I think that even noblegiraffe agrees with me that a fixed proportion will not fail each year. The gov website confirms that too.
You are a teacher?

I think there's far more to it than you seem to understand
You think i don't "seem" to understand what exactly?! The fact that you say that indicates that you don't have an objective overview of the subject. If you genuinely think there is any point I have not understood, be specific.

I think it is a crock but I will continue to be straightforward in response.

Your last paragraph is exactly correct - it is exactly as I was taught.

Over 70 percent of words are sight words
Yes you can use phonetics to decode but for the majority of children if not all children this is an unnecessary and confusing step. It is especially unhelpful for the children who are struggling due to trauma or stress ie who will make up the 40 percent of children who are failing.

What I said about phonetic decoding being more suitable for degree level is exactly correct - you are saying it has been adapted for primary school children, but the point remains the same - it is not useful. It is only really suitable for people who want to study linguistic theory.

As I said, if you genuinely think there is any particular point I don't understand, give exact details.

Such as?

I don't think it suggests that at all. I'm sure you will see this as me not being able to argue my case, but I'm throwing in the towel here because you have absolutely no interest I'm actually learning about the subject. You don't have a background in education or linguistics. Specifically I don't think you understand what is covered in a phonics scheme, how to use phonics to decode words and what is covered in a phonology unit at degree level.

Even @noblegiraffe agrees with you? Blimey.

I'm not contributing more about phonics but I'm quite gobsmacked you've accused me of rudeness given your complete dismissiveness of my views. I'm sorry if it came across that way because that was not my intention and I'm quite saddened that that is your interpretation given I tried to contribute relevant views to a discussion.
(And for what is is worth, yes like you I studied beyond undergrad level).

I've just reread your post and seen the last paragraph. Just shocking! I was genuinely trying to discuss children's education.

I will re-post without my last paragraph but FYI your above post here is why I was so disgusted with your posts and why I was rude in the deleted post. Specifically the following (ie most of your post) is incredibly rude and dismissive, and clearly untrue as I had asked you to be specific about what (on earth) you thought I did not understand - your words were "because you have absolutely no interest I'm actually learning about the subject. You don't have a background in education or linguistics. Specifically I don't think you understand what is covered in a phonics scheme, how to use phonics to decode words and what is covered in a phonology unit at degree level" - what an utterly ridiculous post in the context of the discussion. Very rude, very dismissive, very inappropriate.

Anyway, I will post what I wrote again next without the final paragraph.

@Pyramyth The below is my post without the offending paragraph:

"There is recent research around significant increases in literacy where children watch shows with subtitles on. We are talking about children who are not doing well at school and are spending too much time on screens. This is more evidence which, if you are able to interpret it, indicates that children who are otherwise failing learn well with sight reading. It would be better obviously if the children were reading with an adult who corrected and explained as the child went along and talked through with them various ideas. But the research indicates that more sight reading will enable the 40 percent of children failing to reduce.

As for your personal comments, my profession is generally acknowledged to be more intellectually challenging than most, and being educated to the same level as you, though in a different subject, and possible to a higher level as you (not sure what you did after your first in linguistics) and of helping children learn to read, and of putting dc through education.

I don't mind you throwing in the towel, please do. You don't understand anything I have said and seem to think making personal comments or trying to blindside is a decent way of having a discussion - and even when the rudeness and inappropriateness is drawn to your attention you don't apologise."

@Pyramyth just to be clear, if you decide that you would like to be specific about what you think I don't understand, please do so by reference to things I have said. Don't just say "you don't understand how to use phonics to decode words" but refer to the specific thing I have said which indicates that I don't understand how to use phonics to decode words. I trust that is clear.

Obviously I do understand how to use phonics to decode words and obviously that was very rude of you, but I am still otherwise open to listen to anything you have to say which is polite and relevant and cogent if you would like to try to turn things around.

I have just bought DC14 a copy of 1984 and I am gobsmacked by the lengthy "introduction", footnotes, other notes - in total it is extremely partisan, mentioned existing politicians in a somewhat inappropriate way, not at all balanced, is basically thinly veiled propaganda in one direction (how ironic!).. This is an example of what this thread is about, it is not acceptable to be teaching about literature in this way.

"Big Brother had it right" is an interesting take.

Hmm. Big Brother wanting to simplify language in order to simplify thought rings a bell.

Not to mention the department dedicated to re-writing history.

I don't agree with you, sorry, Big Brother didn't have it right.

Sounds partisan

This is quite a good article about problems around how phonics is used in teaching in the UK (except NB the percentage of children failing seems to differ from other reports - the interim setting it at around 40)

https://clpe.org.uk/news/rigid-approach-teaching-phonics-joyless-and-failing-children-experts-warn

In terms of anecdotal evidence, in my experience children who have been taught to read exclusively by reading the Biff Kipper etc books aloud with an adult and discussing various themes with children as recommended in the books with almost no other phonics input (ie no separate explanation of "digraph" and "trigraph" etc) get to higher levels of literacy more quickly than children spending significant chunks of time learning phonics. If we are seeing 60 percent of children meeting standards at the moment, it might be that those 60 percent are being taught to read outside the school phonics classes and that is behind their success rather than phonics. Meaning that phonics is absolutely failing the 40 percent.

The article refers to phonics inclusion being a politically driven decision and that might well be key, too.

I've just had a thought (I think it's interesting, others might disagree) reading for pleasure rates are falling massively and children themselves report they don't enjoy reading for pleasure (I think it's 28% compared to 42% internationally). What if that is linked to phonics as well as modern technology etc.

Wow, 28 percent is such a low percentage. I think that what you say was indicated in the research which was linked in the article which I linked. It might also be to do with the books being made available.

@Pyramyth could you tell us what percentage of time with 4 - 9 year olds you spend on phonics and what percentage you spend with children reading from texts with adults? And also do you still use the Biff Kipper books, just out of interest? Another thing I thought about, about learning to read with Biff Kipper etc, those books not only taught vocabulary and spelling, and some were sight words, but it also taught a fair bit of grammar - they included a lot of grammar, a large number of tenses, punctuation etc. The more advanced books had a lot of historical and classical and science and maths references as part of the stories. Are these books still used at your school?

Just chipping in. I have two children; one learned to read with Biff and Kipper, the other wasted a whole year on phonics when they could already read. They spent an HOUR a DAY on the stuff. What a complete and utter waste of time. And now...guess what? From being an avid reader, they were completely put off reading because of phonics.
I am a lawyer and Oxford educated. I wouldn't be able to pass Year 1 phonics!