image shows children in a classroom

The Curriculum and Assessment Review

The Government’s Curriculum and Assessment Review is a once in a lifetime opportunity to influence the evolution of an education system that works for all children and young people, preparing them to thrive at every age and stage and to reach their potential to live happy and fulfilling adult lives.

This Call for Evidence will inform recommendations for reform, which are expected to be published in Autumn 2025. It is open to anyone with an interest in the education and experiences of young people aged 5-19 and will consider the national curriculum and statutory assessment system in England, including qualification pathways. It aims to understand the strengths in the current system, the areas that most need change and to gather insights about how to do this in a way that is consistent with manageable and sustainable workload for practitioners.

The Review will place particular emphasis on driving positive change for three groups of learners who face more significant challenge than their peers:

  • learners from socio-economically disadvantaged backgrounds
  • learners with SEND
  • learners who are otherwise vulnerable.

Of course, we know that there will be much cross over between learners belonging to these groups, and for those of us invested in any of these three spaces, it is an important opportunity to share our long-standing views of an exclusionary system that is poorly equipped to meet the needs of all children and young people in England.

Adding to the complexities of intersectionality, is the fact that when we speak ‘specifically’ about SEND, we are again referring to the most enormous concept. It is important that the Review recognises that the SEND community embraces such a broad spectrum of needs and our approach must be adapted at a range of levels. Without this acknowledgement, there is a danger that our response could be seen as tokenistic.

Why does curriculum matter?

With evidence to show that school curriculum is inextricably linked to students’ life satisfaction and wellbeing, the importance of a broad, rich and fulfilling curriculum is clear. The challenge for the Review team will be how to ensure that their recommendations make changes to ensure that it is fully inclusive, accessible and addresses injustices.

When the Review is implemented, all state schools – including academies – will be required to teach the national curriculum, albeit there is awareness that some education settings – specialist schools, for example – may need to adapt it to suit the needs of their learners. Specific advice on how this should be done remains outside of the scope of the Review, but we know that our members will be pleased to hear that evidence from settings who use expertise and innovative practices to help learners engage with the curriculum and assessment system will be warmly welcomed

How can we expect the Review to improve assessments?

The Government acknowledges that the current system is failing more than a third of young people who do not achieve 5 GCSEs at grade 4 or above. There is a need to address these gaps in attainment – particularly for the three groups of significant interest – and move to a system that offers a broader range of well recognised routes, creating better choice and more equitable life-chances.   

While the Review does not intend to remove qualifications like T levels, GCSEs and A levels – in fact, it recognises their importance – it is an opportunity to consider a more flexible approach to qualifications in England with a view to creating a balanced assessment system that captures the strengths of every young person, removes limits and alleviates pressure. It will look for ways to reduce the assessment burden where possible, and promote meaningful qualifications that are manageable, valid, fair and reliable.

Practical information about taking part in the Call for Evidence

The number of unique responses to the Call for Evidence really matters. The more often common themes are voiced, the more loudly our message will be amplified. Please, therefore, do not let the opportunity to make your voice heard pass you by!

There are 54 questions in total, but you do not have to answer them all -  unless you want to! We have highlighted a few questions (see below) which may help you address the themes that are most important to you. Although it does not form our official response, we have added some of our thoughts around these questions following lively discussion session with some of our regional SEND leaders. We share these now with a view to helping you consider your own position and formulate your answers. Of course, you should feel under no pressure to agree or to use them.

Later this week, nasen  will be submitting a formal organisational response, based on the views and extensive experience of our in-house education team as well as our members, who have shared thoughts with us via an online survey and through online consultation meetings. We will continue to add to this as we move towards the deadline and will publish it in full as soon as it is available.

Submit your response to the Government's Call for Evidence

Relevant Questions in Section 3: Social justice and inclusion

We will be asking for better acknowledgement of the significant differences between mainstream and specialist setting – in view of their curriculum, assessment systems and qualification pathways. There are multiple layers of curriculum entitlement that need to be considered.

We feel there is currently a greater focus on attainment than on progress. For example, students often view GSCE grades 1-3 as ‘fails’ because of the perception that only grade 4 or above represents a ‘pass’ – an assumption that is widely reinforced in society.  We need to reframe what success looks like and a encourage a culture shift so all types of success can be celebrated, not just the conventional grade 4 or above.

There also seems to be a hierarchy in qualifications, where GCSEs / A levels are seen as the ‘elite’ qualifications and others are ‘less than’. This results in an exclusionary system. Even in alternative / specialist provision, there exists a notion that studying to GCSE level should be the aspiration for all students – an idea we would question when it results in learners with recognised needs being forced through inappropriate mainstream qualification pathways.

We would also argue that assessments rely far too heavily on written content, which does not match the way in which some learners are able to show their abilities.

In general, there is content overload and the amount of learning that needs to be evidenced in an exam makes it impossible for a great many learners to access, showing discord between this expectation and our understanding of cognitive overload. If exams could be 'chunked' so that students are assessed on one topic or theme before moving onto  the next element of the syllabus, the curriculum need not be narrowed, but there would be less emphasis on memory and ability to recall.

At the same time, there has been a reduction in the number of alternative qualifications on offer. For example, up until 8 years ago, there would have been the option of a range of ½ GCSEs which allowed students to study reduced content for an equitable qualification.

The reduction in non-terminal aspects of examinations – such as coursework – disadvantages some students with SEND who may benefit from the opportunity to work outside of exam conditions.

We find that the process to gain access to reasonable adjustments is too onerous and can be particularly challenging for new SENCOs. Problems can also arise as a result of having to use new technology as part of this.

Exams are too long in duration, especially where considerations around extra time for learners with additional needs comes into play. Having to manage this – especially when there is a reduction in TAs – is a challenge. Compounding this issues is the fact that exams are often back to back over several days.

We also believe that more alignment of curriculum content between key stages is required. At the moment, the focus of assessments is different – for example in English, there is a move from comprehension to analysis between key stages.  More alignment would help us look more carefully at ages and stages.

Transitions at all stages are important to enable the smooth movement between phases. There is an opportunity here to review that and make it better, and this is a theme that local authorities seem to be prioritising now, too. This should include transitions from education to employment, since at present, curriculum and assessment and employment don’t mesh together, this is especially relevant for more disabled young people. Beyond the scope of this Review, there is a need to work in partnership with the Department for Work and Pensions, as well as other key stakeholders.

Finally, we would question the wisdom of omitting the EYFS from this review. For example, significant issues with oracy can be – and are being – identified in the early years but the outcomes of this Review will only begin from Year 1. We know that the best teaching should be scaffolded, so if we are waiting until Key Stage 1 to lay the first building block, it feels like a missed opportunity that will leave a gap in the early years.

Among the Whole School SEND team, there is general agreement that there are enablers that currently aren’t being used to our students’ best advantage.

For example, entry level and level 1 qualifications mirror the content of mainstream and could be used to open up dual entry options for maths and English. Because they are assessed in a different way, they are easier for students with SEND to access. A greater deal of awareness and understanding among families and practitioners of this alternative offer – and, perhaps, more reassurance from Ofsted that it is an acceptable one – would help us make better use of an existing qualification. There are also courses available – for example through ASDAN and The Prince’s Trust – that could also be considered.

Another example would be the theme of Preparation for Adulthood from the Earliest Years. We know that this existing requirement is sometimes overlooked, but seen through the lens of the curriculum and assessment review, it could provide a useful thread from which to hang further structure. Helping practitioners to understand what good PfAEY looks like could help them to see more clearly what the end goals of a broad and challenging curriculum, accessible and fair assessments and appropriate qualification pathways are intended to be. It also prompts the important collaboration and partnership between education and employment sectors to which we alluded previously.

Of course, whether we opt for a system that favours knowledge over skills or vice versa, the thing that will really makes the biggest difference for learners with SEND is our ability to be responsive, flexible, free in our thinking. Put simply, adaptive teaching is what all learners need most. Whatever our focus is – SEND or otherwise – each learner, each environment and each scenario will be different and must be adapted to.

Unsurprisingly, there is much to be learnt from our specialist colleagues. The freedom granted a number of years ago for those settings to move away from the national curriculum resulted in all specialist settings designing their own age and stage curriculum and progression frameworks. Assimilating the very best of practice from the large number of different systems that exist could prove challenging, but these ‘small steps’ models, aligned to curriculum with key points mapped to national curriculum / age or stage targets are there and are being used to great effect already. Our question would be how to harness that and scale these up?

Earlier, we reflected on the emphasis on attainment. It is from the specialist sector that we could learn a great deal about how to measure and demonstrate progress instead.  This also applies to the early years, where seemingly small steps of progress are often important milestones.

Those of us who remember the introduction of the national curriculum will remember that it was challenging, but because all learners had access to the same curriculum it was one of the most inclusive and levelling changes we have seen. There are concerns that the curriculum could be ‘shrunk’ for learners with SEND and we would argue strongly that this review must not be seen as an excuse to narrow the curriculum for learners with SEND.

We don’t want practitioners to believe that they need to do something radically different, instead, we would like them to see this as a continuum and to understand that small steps and plenty of collaboration with the specialist sector will help progress to happen.   

Relevant Questions in Section 4: Ensuring an excellent foundation in maths and English

In general, there is a sense that the curricula are far too overloaded, expectations are unrealistic and transitions to next steps need to be carefully considered.

Constantly having an expectation of where children need to be at every age and stage compounds the deficit model and leads to more demand for SEND support. For example, where a child isn’t meeting early years milestones in SLCN, by the time they move into school, their behaviours may lead to identification and support of SEMH needs and we end up addressing the symptoms instead of the cause. Getting it wrong at the earliest stages for children is placing yet more pressure on children, their families and the whole SEND system.

Expectations of reading ability are often too high, and can mean that learners who don’t find reading easy experience problems accessing curricula and understanding what they need to do in assessments across all subjects, not just English and maths. Providing a range of learning hooks and assessment options that don’t rely on reading ability would be beneficial for many learners.

There is recognition that Oracy could be an enabler but speaking and listening aspects – certainly in English – have been removed from assessments. This would be important to reintroduce so that opportunities can be widened at all key stages and it has a place in all subjects. Voice 21 could be a useful enabler. We also need to ensure that there is shared understanding of what oracy means for children with speech, language and communication needs. We need to maximise input from specialists – for example working with Speech and Language Therapists to co-construct appropriate curricula would enable greater scaffolds and support for oracy. This will be increasingly important when we maximise opportunities for digital technology, including AI.

It is also felt that there needs to be a cut off point for learners who struggle to attain these qualifications despite their very best efforts. One example of this is that English and maths requirements impact the delivery of many post-16 routes, included Assisted Internships. Some young people with a learning disability might never achieve a maths and English GCSE grade 4 or above but that does not necessarily mean that they could never contribute as a member of the workforce. It can be heartbreaking to see a young person opt out of an assisted internship – and all the benefits for the individual and society that entails – because they don’t want to be forced to go to college for two days a week to repeatedly ‘fail’ in English and maths. Linked to this are the changes to assessment and curriculum that have taken place in BTEC and T levels. Where once these presented great options, the increase in content coupled with a move to exam-only assessment means that they are no longer accessible to young people with cognition and learning needs. It feels like vocational pathways need to be reconsidered.

Relevant Questions in Section 7: Assessment and accountability

It’s been good to see that we are moving away from single word judgements and towards a better understanding of the context of settings when they are inspected. It would be good to build on this by finding other ways for Ofsted to publish its findings as the current approach does not foster inclusion, rather it supports the ‘moving along’ of children and young people with SEND so that performance and reputation are protected. There is a need to celebrate the schools who are genuinely inclusive, often working in communities that face significant challenges, yet are penalised by the current accountability approaches.

Also unhelpful is the lack of clear guidance and an engaging dialogue of what inclusion involves – if we aren’t told what great inclusion looks like, how can we mirror it? Clear guidance isn’t readily available until we reach the point where at a young person receives an EHC Plan. There is very little other than vague information on Graduated Response and Assess, Plan, Do Review before this stage. With the majority of learners who have SEND accessing mainstream education, this clearly needs to change.

We also believe that moving to a standardised EHC Plan system would provide a genuine incentive for inclusion because there would be greater transparency.

Too often we see the enforcement of a rigid approach to curriculum that doesn’t adapt to learners. The strength and value of the ‘braver’ education leaders who give their teams ownership of the content they deliver and the freedom to plan bespoke content that both reflects specific cohort’s needs as well as the curriculum should be acknowledged.

There is a final reiteration that collaboration between specialist and mainstream is crucial, as is connectivity between services. We need a consistent approach and a clear, shared understanding if we are to move forward effectively.