The English Association is the leading cross-sector Subject Association for English language, literature, and creative writing in the UK. We connect individuals and organisations from all sectors of education and all areas of English studies. Through our publications, events, and networks, we promote dialogue, share expertise, and celebrate our discipline. We are committed to working with partners across SHAPE and STEM subjects to create the future through education.
The final report of the Curriculum and Assessment Review can be found here.
Introduction
The English Association, drawing on its expert communities in Primary, Secondary, Further, and Higher Education, welcomes the Curriculum and Assessment Review.
We thank Professor Becky Francis, the panel, and the team at the Department for Education for producing a significant review, and we commend its aspiration to build a world-class curriculum and assessment system for all.
As educators, we applaud the concern for a “high-quality and inclusive curriculum for all” which is “ambitious, broad and balanced” and “supports life chances, irrespective of background” (p. 30). Given the pressure at all levels of the education system, we are pleased, too, with the desire for ‘evolution not revolution’.
We welcome the Review’s commitment to social justice and to reducing the disadvantage gap caused by social economic inequalities alongside and intersecting with other factors including ethnicity, sex and geographical location.
Working in the arts and humanities, we are pleased to see that the Review notes that “understanding of human culture through the humanities, languages, and arts” will “remain pivotal for young people, now and in the future” (p. 10) and that an “understanding of communication and culture, through the humanities, languages, and the arts” (p. 34) is crucial for addressing social and environmental challenges. We note that these are also crucial attributes for the world of work.
English in the Curriculum
The EA welcomes especially the Review’s explicit understanding that curriculum coherence and sequences of learning “will vary between subject disciplines”: we strongly agree that these “look different in subjects that are largely hierarchical in nature to those that are largely cumulative” (p. 47-48). As highly robust evidence shows, hierarchical pedagogical methodologies that work in mathematics (and, by extension, in the sciences) do not work effectively in English.[1] More, some forms of sequencing in English (for example, a chronological sequencing) fail to deliver mastery of the subject, in the way the Review defines (“as acquiring a deep understanding of subject matter, which involves secure knowledge retention and the ability to apply this knowledge in different scenarios” p. 48). While welcoming the need for coherence, we look forward to future discussions between DfE, awarding bodies, and the subject community on these matters.
We very much welcome the strengthening of media and digital literacy in both English and Citizenship, including the study of how “the nature and expression of emotive language… can be used to persuade”. English as a subject, since at least the Newbolt Report, has been closely allied with the idea and ideals of citizenship.
We praise, too, the concern for professional autonomy, and the space for teachers to exercise their professional judgement and innovate.
We note the “the distinction between English and literacy”. We hope that the ground of this distinction can be made clearer over time, without precluding the productive synergistic overlap between them.
The EA strongly supports the emphasis on oracy in English, in drama, and in citizenship. We want to confirm that this will extend into primary education; that the framework will not become a ‘tick box’ burden on teachers; and that oracy develops as talk for learning and in dialogic pedagogy. We welcome, in this regard, the recommendation that “requirements for speaking and listening are given greater clarity and the curricular aims and outcomes are better specified,” and the creation of an oracy framework. Within this, we hope that the curriculum will recognise the diversity of spoken English.
While, as educators, we are aware of the problems around non-exam assessment, including the risks of generative AI, we note that exams are not without challenges too, especially in a context that seeks social justice and quality for all. Exams are not an effective assessment for many areas of English studies. To this end, we welcome the Review’s encouragement to “DfE and Ofqual to continue working together to explore the range of assessment methods available whilst balancing the risks presented by AI” (p. 136). We look for a broader vision for assessment that includes innovative methods, such as spoken assessments and media literacy, while also addressing the importance of supporting students with English as an additional language and integrating digital literacy into the curriculum.
English through educational phases
We advocate for a balanced reading curriculum that incorporates phonics as one of several components, rather than prioritising phonics checks. We note the selective use of evidence in the report on this matter, and its potential impact on curriculum development. We emphasize the need for a more inclusive approach in the further development of the curriculum in this area.
We strongly welcome the review and streamlining of grammatical content in the primary Programmes of Study. We agree that emphasis on using and applying grammar rather than on “identifying theoretical constructs by name” (p. 75) is crucial. We hope that this will avoid students engaging with decontextualised exercises.
We cautiously welcome the developing diagnostic English tests to be taken in Year 8, which build on current good practice. We note that formative assessment (in year 8 and elsewhere) serves as a diagnostic test, and we hope that this test will be focused on supporting “teachers in identifying and remedying any problems” (p. 12) and will not become a burden in its own right.
The English Association has long campaigned and advocated for GCSE reform, and we are delighted that this call has been heard. We commend the reduction of duplication between GCSE English Language and GCSE English Literature.
We strongly welcome the new, more coherent and more focussed GCSE English Language, which will include “multi-modal and ‘ephemeral’ texts (such as online content and print media)” and a “greater focus on the nature and expression of language”. We welcome, too, “more extended writing tasks” and hope that the drawing on a “broader range of writing genres to increase students’ opportunity to demonstrate their capabilities” will specifically include appropriately scaffolded creative writing in fiction, non-fiction, poetry and drama. We note that the creative industries are crucial for economic growth in the UK, and English, and the creativity it fosters.
We welcome the changes to GCSE English Literature. We especially welcome the opportunity for students “to explore a more diverse array of authors” so that “students are able to see themselves in the curriculum, as well as be exposed to a wide range of perspectives that serve to broaden their horizons”. We welcome the review of the “specified amounts and types of poetry studied” in order to “encourage more flexibility in the poetry studied”. While we warmly welcome the continued study of Shakespeare, we note, with some regret, that the Review still limits the GCSE to texts from the British Isles: English is a world language and there are many works of significance from across the globe. We note, too, that the inclusion of a Nineteenth Century novel limits range and choice, and – as research suggests – does not encourage or support wider reading for pleasure. We are pleased to see the inclusion of drama at Key Stage 3.
A particular interest of the English subject community, and the topic of much debate, has been learners in English who did not achieve a Grade 4 at GCSE. As a consequence, we cautiously welcome the new Level 1 ‘stepped qualification’ for GCSE during 16-19 study, designed to consolidate the foundational skills and knowledge needed to prepare lower prior attaining students (grade 2 or below) before they then take a GCSE resit. This ‘stepping stone’ will bring its own challenges of delivery and support.
We express our concern about the apparent advocacy for Oak National Academy, which is mentioned nine times. Eight of those mentions sound ‘advertorial’ (e.g. “high-quality exemplification resources, for example, from Oak National Academy” p. 52). The subject community notes that resources from Oak National Academy for English have been widely criticised and that, as the press has pointed out, their take up, especially in English, is extremely low. If these resources are to be so strongly recommended, we suggest that their creators are encouraged to engage proactively, positively, extensively and over a long period with subject experts to improve their offering.
Conclusion
The Review recognises that English, like Maths, is a foundational subject that equips children and young people with essential skills that have “a strong impact” on their “life chances” (p. 31). It offers welcome acknowledgement of the importance of literacy, oracy, and creativity, and the study of English language and literature to empower them.
In addition, and, most importantly, the English Association, working alongside other cross-sector bodies in the subject community, welcomes the chance, opened by this watershed Review, to be involved in the further evolution of our national education system.
You may wish to also explore responses from other organisations in the English Studies ecosystem:
- AQA
- English and Media Centre
- Get Further
- HE Policy Institute (HEPI)
- National Literacy Trust
- Pearson
- UKLA
- Voice21
[1] See Simon Burgess, Shenila Rawal, Eric S. Taylor (2023), ‘Teachers’ use of class time and student achievement’ Economics of Education Review (94: 2023), 102405 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0272775723000523. Professor Eaglestone has written a summary of this article which can be accessed by members of the EA: ‘Two recent articles we all ought to know about to help shape the future of English GCSE, in Boys and English: Why are young men turning away from our subject? EA Newsletter 238 (2025).
