Commenting on the Curriculum and Assessment Review
report, Billy Huband-Thompson, Head of Research and Policy at the
Sutton Trust, said:
‘Overall, we welcome the Curriculum and Assessment Review, which
looks to build on the successes of recent reforms while making
actionable, incremental changes, where necessary. For instance,
it's good to see the recognition of the importance of externally
set and marked Key Stage 4 examinations, while also recognising
the need to reduce GCSE exam volume.
This review promised ‘evolution, not revolution' and this is
welcome for a sector that has become accustomed to significant
changes in the context of severe capacity constraints.
‘We welcome the great emphasis placed on disadvantage gaps and
the importance of considering the outcomes of pupils with SEND
throughout the document. Following the publication of our
‘Double Disadvantage?'
report, we look forward to working with the government to ensure
that their response to the Curriculum and Assessment Review and
the forthcoming White Paper ensures that all pupils, regardless
of background, can access an excellent education.'
On the diagnostic test in English and Maths at Year
8:
‘For young people to access a broad and balanced curriculum,
Maths and English are absolutely essential. With that in mind, we
support the introduction of diagnostic assessments in English and
Maths in year 8 and the strengthening of writing assessment in
year 6 to ensure all pupils can get additional support where they
need it.'
‘We know that the transition between primary and secondary school
can be difficult and that Key Stage 3 is a key point at which
disadvantage gaps can widen. If well designed and implemented,
these assessments could be a positive development. This should
form one part of a wider review of the transition between primary
and secondary.'
On the removal of the EBacc:
‘While the EBacc rightly sought to ensure all children and young
people can access a broad academic curriculum, there have long
been concerns about whether this has constrained pupil options
and their access to arts and vocational subjects.'
‘The Review also notes a significant EBacc attainment gap between
disadvantaged and non-disadvantaged pupils, noting a difficult
balance between promoting access to academic subjects while
ensuring that this does not come at the expense of other routes
that may be well-suited to some young people. We therefore
welcome the recommendation to remove the EBacc measure but to
maintain an Academic Breadth 'bucket' in Progress 8.'
On the retention of Progress 8:
‘Progress 8 is an important measure that views pupil achievements
in the context of their prior attainment. Progress 8 doesn't
currently account for wider contextual factors such as
socio-economic disadvantage and how this may affect progress
among different pupils and between schools.
‘While such context is important in understanding school
performance, we appreciate the value of maintaining a Progress 8
measure that's easy to understand and has strong currency across
the system. We also recognise that there would be significant
challenges in which contextual factors to add to such a measure.
‘With this in mind, we welcome the maintenance of Progress 8 in
its current form but we'd also want the government to consider
contextual measures that may be calculated in addition to, and
not instead of, the current measure. The development of a digital
benchmarking tool is welcome and we look forward to sharing
insights from our Fair School Admissions work to inform this.'
On the introduction of an entitlement to Triple Science
at GCSE:
‘We know that currently those from socio-economically
disadvantaged backgrounds are less likely to take triple science
as a GCSE option, even after holding for prior attainment. As the
government looks to deliver on its Industrial Strategy, improving
access to triple science could be an important step forward.
‘However, given the particular challenges in science teacher
recruitment, this will need to be accompanied by more ambitious,
targeted teacher training bursaries as well as a renewed emphasis
on teacher retention. The subject review here will also need to
ensure that the separate science course is of good quality and
that it justifies the extra time and resource dedicated to its
study and examination.'
