Curriculum and Assessment

What is the context?
The government has proposed changes to the 16–19 accountability framework for English and maths, particularly relating to how student progress in resits is measured. The proposed changes would introduce a more punitive calculation where students who achieve lower grades in resit attempts could negatively impact provider performance scores more significantly than under current arrangements. These changes are intended to strengthen accountability but would alter provider incentives around resits.

ASCL position: ASCL does not support the proposed changes to the English and maths performance measures at this time and would recommend maintaining the existing approach.

Why are we saying this?
The proposed measure introduces a harsher penalty where students achieve lower grades in resit attempts. This risks discouraging providers from entering students and undermining inclusive practice, particularly for those who need the greatest support to achieve level 2 and/or for whom engagement with continued study of English and maths is challenging.
 

What is the context?
Foundation Certificates have been proposed as part of a reformed post-16 study programme offer, primarily aimed at students working below level 2. These qualifications would typically be between 240 and 300 GLH and are intended to support progression to level 3 study. They are positioned as a preparatory stepping stone within a simplified qualifications landscape, but are relatively small in size compared to existing full-time study programmes for similar learners.

ASCL position: ASCL does not support Foundation Certificates being set at 240–300 GLH. ASCL calls for larger, more substantial programmes that form a coherent study offer, support sustained engagement, and enable clear progression to level 3 and beyond.

Why are we saying this?
Programmes of this size are unlikely to provide sufficient substance or structure for students who require significant support to re-engage and progress. There is a clear risk that a small programme will lead to disengagement, leaving learners with too little structured activity and increasing the likelihood of them becoming NEET.


 

What is the context?
As part of reforms to the post-16 technical education landscape, the government has proposed that V levels (a reformed suite of vocational qualifications) should be offered at a standard size of 360 guided learning hours (GLH). This would effectively create a single-size qualification model within this pathway, with V levels positioned alongside T levels and A levels as part of a streamlined system. The intention is to simplify the landscape and provide clearer progression routes, but this approach removes flexibility in programme size.

ASCL position: ASCL does not support V levels being available only at 360 GLH. ASCL calls for a broader range of sizes, including larger options such as 720 GLH, to allow flexibility and ensure programmes are appropriately matched to learner needs and progression pathways.

Why are we saying this?
A single qualification size does not reflect the diversity of learner needs or progression routes at post-16. Restricting V levels to 360 GLH risks limiting depth of learning, constraining programme design, and reducing their effectiveness as a vocational pathway. It also risks weakening their credibility with employers and progression partners.

 

What is the context?
The government has proposed the introduction of new level 1 ‘stepping stone’ qualifications for students who have not yet achieved grade 4 in GCSE English and/or maths by the end of Key Stage 4. These qualifications are intended to sit alongside the requirement to continue studying English and maths post-16, with a focus on preparing students to progress to and achieve GCSE resits. The proposal is positioned as a way to improve engagement and progression for lower-attaining students, but is closely tied to GCSE outcomes rather than being a standalone measure of achievement.

ASCL position: ASCL does not support the proposed level 1 ‘stepping stone’ qualifications in their current form. ASCL calls for a different approach - preferably pre-16 - that prioritises engagement, recognises achievement in its own right, and provides clear progression routes beyond GCSE.

Why are we saying this?
The proposal does not represent the step change needed and risks repeating an approach that has already failed ‘the forgotten third’. Students with grades 2 or 1 at GCSE have already achieved a level 1 pass. Defining the qualification by prior GCSE ‘failure’ reinforces a deficit model and risks damaging students’ confidence, mental health and sense of achievement. Positioning it primarily as preparation for GCSE is likely to perpetuate disengagement rather than support genuine progression, particularly for students who require support with learning independently. There is evidence that this will reduce motivation, worsen attendance, and increase the likelihood of students becoming NEET.
 

What is the context?
The Schools White Paper Every Child Achieving and Thriving introduces a new enrichment framework, due to be published in the summer term 2026.

The white paper states that the framework will underpin a new entitlement for all young people to access greater enrichment opportunities. No additional money directly for schools is indicated in the white paper.

The white paper states that Ofsted will consider schools’ enrichment offer against the framework under Personal Development, as it currently evaluates schools’ CIAG offer against the Gatsby Benchmarks.

ASCL position: The proposed Enrichment Framework will be unwelcome and ineffective unless it is accompanied by significant additional investment in schools and colleges.

Why are we saying this?
ASCL members do not need persuading of the importance of enrichment opportunities for all young people, and so a focus on enrichment is not inherently unwelcome.

A new framework may be helpful as a non-statutory, diagnostic framework to help school leaders think through their offer, using their own professional judgement.

However, any suggestion that this should be used by Ofsted to grade Personal Development is flawed, and risks undermining the good intentions behind the enrichment focus. Unlike Gatsby, the enrichment framework is non-statutory, and so school leaders should not be compelled to use it through the Ofsted toolkits.

More importantly, without significant investment directly into schools to support enrichment then a framework risks frustrating leaders more than helping them, as there are insufficient resources to invest in enrichment at a school level. Any additional money should be given directly to schools to commission enrichment activity with partners, rather than to partners themselves, as schools are the commissioners of the entitlement and are held accountable for it.
 

What is the context?
Computing is currently a foundation subject in the KS4 National Curriculum, meaning that all students must be taught the curriculum content. It is up to schools how they deliver this content: as a timetabled lesson; through other subjects; or as discrete drop-down days.

A majority of secondary schools do not currently have to follow the National Curriculum as they are academies and are not required to teach all students computing at Key Stage 4 as part of their funding agreement.

The Government’s response to the CAR makes clear its intention to retain the existing structure of the National Curriculum, including which subjects are included in each key stage (with the addition of citizenship at Key Stages 1 and 2). We can therefore expect computing to remain a mandatory foundation subject at KS4.

From September 2028, all state-funded schools including academies will be required to teach the new National Curriculum.

ASCL position: ASCL does not support the continued inclusion of computing as a foundation subject in the KS4 National Curriculum.

Why are we saying this?
A majority of secondary schools do not currently have to teach computing as a formal part of the KS4 curriculum. Requiring them to do so from September 2028 will be difficult to implement, as ASCL members report significant challenges in recruiting computing teachers already.

Moreover, the new National Curriculum will include ‘digital literacy’ as a cross-cutting theme that sits across subjects at all key stages. ASCL argues that if there is knowledge and skills the Government wants all learners to study at Key Stage 4 about computing, coding or AI, this is best embedded in the interdisciplinary digital literacy curriculum, rather than computing or computer science as a standalone subject.

At the time this was position was taken we are awaiting the outcome of the government’s consultation on KS4 accountability. As part of this, the government are considering introducing sciences as a fourth category in the proposed ‘breadth’ buckets of Progress 8. If computing was a mandatory subject at KS4, this would introduce a perverse incentive to enter all students for computing GCSE as schools have already got to dedicate curriculum time to it. This would not be in the best interests of all students and would lead to a narrowing of the curriculum.
 

What is the context?
The Curriculum and Assessment Review (CAR) recommended that the amount of time students should be in formal exams at the end of Key Stage 4 should reduce by approximately 10% on average. The CAR suggested that this was a proportionate reduction, which would not undermine the integrity and validity of qualifications. Its conclusions were rooted in evidence from Ofqual, the exams regulator.

Following the review, the DfE is drafting new programmes of study for Key Stage 4, and in turn the awarding organisations have begun work on updating their qualifications.

The first phase of new GCSEs is due for first teach from September 2029, to be awarded in summer 2031.

ASCL position:
The commitment to reduce exam time at GCSE by 10% on average is insufficient.

The number of papers per qualification should be reduced where practically possible. 

The programmes of study should therefore also reflect a significant reduction in content, as well as reducing the overall time spent in exams.

Why are we saying this?
Simply reducing the overall time spent in exams by 10% will not address the disproportionate pressure and anxiety students face at the end of Key Stage 4. Without an explicit commitment to reduce content, then students will have the same amount to revise as they currently do.

Furthermore, maintaining the same number of papers in most qualifications will not reduce the burden of exams. For example, simply making an hour’s paper to 54 minutes won’t have any meaningful effect.

The amount of content that students must study and memorise for terminal exams at the end of Key Stage 4, as well as the number of papers they have to sit, is disproportionate. This is particularly true given the age of participation is 18, meaning that GCSEs are a stepping stone to further study or training, not the final outcome of formal education.

Research suggests that candidates’ overall achievement in maths GCSE, for example, can be predicted with a high level of accuracy by their mark on a single paper.

The only meaningful way of making the burden of assessment at the end of Key Stage 4 more proportionate is by reducing both the amount of content that could be assessed, and the number of papers.
 

What is the context?
In October 2025, the Government announced new statutory reading tests for Year 8 to assess students’ comprehension and fluency. This announcement came before the publication of the independent Curriculum and Assessment Review (CAR).

The CAR recommended diagnostic tests in English and maths for Year 8s to tackle a ‘dip’ in primary-secondary transition and ensure that intervention could be targeted in a timely manner so students are ready to start key stage four. This was one of the few recommendations in the CAR rejected by the Government, who favoured their earlier announcement of reading tests instead.

Statutory reading tests for all Year 8 students are now expected in spring 2029 (the first year of the new National Curriculum). The DfE has indicated that while results from these tests will not be published on school profiles, they will be made available to Ofsted, rather than being diagnostic only as recommended by the CAR.

ASCL position: ASCL does not support the introduction of mandatory Year 8 reading tests from 2029. We are particularly concerned with the outcomes of the tests being used as part of the Ofsted framework
 ASCL calls on government to instead accept the recommendation of the independent Curriculum and Assessment Review and introduce low-stakes diagnostic tests in English and maths.

Why are we saying this?
ASCL supports the general principle of a diagnostic test to ensure progress is sustained during Key Stage 3. However, the design and implementation of the reading tests pose significant challenges, which the DfE has not yet publicly answered:

• What the ‘expected standard’ halfway through Key Stage 3 will look like or how it will be decided.
• How the test will be administered and marked, and the cost of this.
• How schools will be supported to administer the test.
• What content will be used to assess reading, given the National Curriculum only sets out content by key stage, not by year.

Until these questions are clearer, ASCL cannot support the test’s introduction.

We are particularly concerned by the DfE’s decision to share the results with Ofsted. If this policy is pursued, it will inevitably feel to schools like an additional accountability tool, which in turn will drive perverse incentives and behaviours. A truly low-stakes, diagnostic test is therefore welcome.

In its response to the CAR, the Government did not sufficiently explain why it was rejecting this recommendation from the independent panel.
 

What is the context?
The Government has committed to updating the current National Curriculum, following the independent Curriculum and Assessment Review (CAR) in 2025. The new curriculum will be mandatory for all state-funded schools, including academies, from September 2028.

We are expecting draft content to be consulted on in September 2026, before the final curriculum is published in spring 2027. 

This position sets out the focus for the Association’s response to the draft content.

ASCL’s position: ASCL looks forward to responding to the draft National Curriculum content when published in autumn 2026.

The Association will pay particular attention to:

• the accessibility and inclusivity of curriculum content
• the amount of content at each key stage, noting the CAR’s commitment to reduce content
• how skills and cross-cutting themes are identified in the draft content - The resourcing implications of implementing the revised curriculum

Why are we saying this?
We remain concerned the accessibility and inclusivity of the curriculum has not been a central tenet of the drafting process. At a time when ambitious reform is taking place to the SEND system, it would be a profoundly devasting missed opportunity if we retain a curriculum that is inaccessible to a large minority of learners. ASCL will therefore consider the draft content through an accessibility and inclusion lens when responding, making practical recommendations of how this could be further improved.

The CAR recommended that the overall amount of content at each key stage is reduced, particularly at primary level. This recommendation was accepted by the Government. It is not clear from the Government’s response, however, where this reduction in content will come from, especially considering the introduction of citizenship as a new subject in key stage one and two. ASCL will therefore consider the total content required to teach at each key stage alongside the working assumptions about how much curriculum time content may take to teach. We will compare the new draft content to the current content to ensure that this commitment has been delivered.

The CAR also identified five cross-cutting themes that sit across the curriculum without being disciplinary subjects in their own right: oracy, digital literacy, media literacy, financial literacy, and climate science and sustainability. At the time, ASCL welcomed this as a sensible approach to interdisciplinary literacies. ASCL will therefore consider how these themes appear in a meaningful and manageable way across the curriculum. 
 

What is the context? 
In March 2025, the independent Curriculum and Assessment Review, chaired by Professor Becky Francis, published an interim report, based on the review panel’s initial findings. It suggested changes were needed in four key areas:

• the system is not working well for all
• challenges with specific subjects
• the need to respond to social and technological change
• 16-19 technical and vocational pathways

It also talked about the ongoing importance of English and maths at all ages, including in the early years and for students who don’t achieve a Grade 4+ by the end of secondary (a group ASCL has previously called the ‘forgotten third’).

The final report is due to be published in autumn 2025.

ASCL position: ASCL welcomes the interim report of the independent Curriculum and Assessment Review, particularly the focus on English and maths, both at early years and for young people who don’t achieve at least grade 4 GCSE by the end of secondary school. We have long advocated for a new assessment in literacy and numeracy which a vast majority of students would achieve by the end of Key Stage 4, and urge the review team to make this recommendation in its final report. 

We also support the review’s focus on the breadth and balance of the curriculum, and its recognition of the negative impact of the current Key Stage 2 assessments and the EBacc on this. The final report must advocate scrapping the EBacc measure and address the decline in the take-up of arts and vocational GCSEs over the last decade. 

We do not think the interim report goes far enough on the need to address the burden of assessment on young people, particularly aged 16. ASCL does not support the reintroduction of NEA, coursework or modular exams, but we would like to see the introduction other forms of assessment that reflect the disciplinary nature of subjects. 

More attention must also be given to how the national curriculum remains relevant between major reforms, and reflects the needs and cultural capital of all pupils.

Why are we saying this?
As identified in the opening of the interim report, it is important to acknowledge that while the current national curriculum and assessment structures work well for many young people, for a sizeable minority they don’t. ASCL’s focus in our call for evidence to the review was the needs of the forgotten third, and we want to ensure that this emphasis isn’t lost in the final report or in how government responds to it.

To achieve this, we think some innovation is needed in assessment and qualifications. While the mantra of the review, ‘evolution not revolution’, is generally welcome, there are some areas, including these, that require significant change quickly.

We do not believe that the current English language and maths GCSEs are good proxies for being literate and numerate. The comparable outcomes approach to grading means that roughly a third of sixteen-year-olds don’t achieve a grade 4+ in these qualifications each year (even though there isn’t a strict quotient). We therefore need a new gold standard assessment that young people can take when they’re ready, that demonstrates to future employers and educators that they’re literate and numerate, and which a vast majority would achieve by the end of secondary school.

Given the fact that the universal participation age is 18, we think the burden of assessment at 16 is disproportionate and leads to curriculum narrowing from aged 14. This is exacerbated by performance measures such as the EBacc which, though well-intentioned, have undoubtably led to the relative decline in many arts, design, technical and vocational courses.

 

What is the context? 
In December 2024 the DfE published its ‘short review’ into the defunding of applied general qualifications (AGQs) and the introduction of new alternative academic qualifications (AAGs) for teaching from September 2025.

ASCL already had a position statement from October saying that an urgent decision was needed on this, as schools and colleges were not able to confirm which qualifications, and the combination of qualifications, they could offer when recruiting students for the following year.

As of June 2025, no decision has been made on the future of these qualifications beyond next academic year.

The independent review into curriculum and assessment, led by Professor Becky Francis, is due to publish its final report in the autumn term.

ASCL position: ASCL welcomed the autumn 2024 decision to pause the defunding of AGQs for the 2025-26 academic year, alongside the continuation of new AAQs. However, we are concerned that a decision has not yet been made on which qualifications will be funded for 2026-27. 

This risks schools and colleges going into the autumn term unable to properly plan for the following year, to tell potential students which courses are available, or to provide appropriate advice and guidance. 

ASCL urges the government to confirm which qualifications will and won’t be funded in the following year before September 2025.

Why are we saying this?
It is unacceptable that for a second year running sixth forms and colleges may be going into the autumn term not knowing what qualifications they can offer the following September. Many sixth forms and colleges hold open evening during the autumn term, and this leaves them either having to reschedule evenings for later in the school year, or offering courses that they can’t guarantee will be available.

Given that the curriculum and assessment review will publish its report during the autumn term, a more urgent decision by DfE must be made on which qualifications will be funded for September 2026. 

Any suggestions on the future of vocational, technical and applied qualifications that come out of the review must be carefully considered and implemented sensibly. A decision on the defunding of AGQs in September 2026 does not undermine or compromise the outcomes of the review.
 

What is the context? 
All the major exam boards have publicly committed to exploring digital assessment for future exam series, with some components in some qualifications expected to become digital in the next couple of years.

Digital assessment already exists in some contexts, such as in a pilot of OCR’s computer science GCSE, but is not currently widespread.

During the pandemic it became clear that a digital divide continues to exist, with a sizeable minority of young people without their own device. Many students need to share devices. Using pen and paper remains the usual way of working for a vast majority of primary and secondary pupils.

There is already provision for students to complete exam papers on-screen through JCQ’s access arrangements, if that is their usual way of working. 

ASCL position: ASCL welcomes the exploration of digital assessment, as long as there is a clear, research-informed educational rationale for its introduction, and it enhances the quality of an exam. Any implementation needs to consider timescales, resourcing and infrastructure so that no student group is disadvantaged.

Why are we saying this?
While ASCL supports a move to digital assessment in some contexts, it must be done sensibly and with the interest of students at the heart. This is why our position focuses on the research-informed design and experience of specific assessment items.

Currently, a majority of GCSE and A level students complete classwork or make notes using pen and paper, as they have done throughout their time at school. There is therefore a risk that moving to digital too quickly would disadvantage candidates. Ironically, this might actually increase the number of access arrangement requests for students requesting a paper version of the exam, as it reflects their normal way of working. This would have significant workload implications for schools and colleges.

We do not think that the school and college estate has the infrastructure or capacity to deliver large qualifications en masse at this time. Any move towards digital assessment as a result of the 2025 Curriculum and Assessment Review must go alongside funding and support to ensure that no school or college is at a disadvantage because of its current resources.

Because of the above points, while we welcome the exploration of the future of digital assessment by the government, exam boards and research organisations, we think there is a long way to go before this becomes the dominant form of assessing young people, at any key stage.
 

What is the context? 
Since 2014, any students who did not achieve a grade C+/4+ in GCSE English and/or maths have been required to resit the qualification as a ‘condition of funding’ of their post-16 programme of study. A November resit opportunity is available for these students, as is the main summer series.

Up until now, the DfE has not specified the amount of time that sixth forms or colleges need to teach these resit subjects.

From September 2024, sixth forms and colleges are ‘expected’ to give resit students a minimum of three hours a week for English and four hours a week for maths. From September 2025 a new ‘requirement’ to teach 100 hours per annum in each subject has been introduced. These hours must be ‘stand-alone, whole-class, in-person teaching, with any additional support, such as small group tuition or online support, supplementary to these minimum classroom hours’.

Furthermore, current funding thresholds (the percentage of students who should be resitting GCSE English or maths, but aren’t) are being reduced from 5% (reducing the funding level of students above this tolerance by half per student) to 2.5% in September 2025. Previous plans to reduce this further to 0% in 2026 have been paused, and will be kept under review.

ASCL position: ASCL disagrees with the new mandated rules on GCSE maths and English resits in the 16-19 phase. 

We particularly disagree with the new minimum requirement for 100 hours per subject per year. Schools and colleges should be allowed to decide for themselves how many hours to allocate for these two subjects and in what ways they teach them, as they do for all other qualifications. 

We also disagree with the change to the condition of funding rules, which will mean that the present 5% tolerance levels for non-compliance (the ‘safety net’) will be reduced to 2.5% in September 2025.

Why are we saying this? 
ASCL is always clear that school and college leaders are best placed to determine the length of the school week, how much time should be given to certain subjects and topics, and what the school or college curriculum looks like. This policy represents another dangerous step towards centralisation by stealth, without formal consultation or primary legislation.

Many school sixth forms, sixth form colleges and FE colleges meet the current funding condition by providing high-quality tutoring, online learning and additional support outside of the classroom. None of these interventions would count towards the new minimum expectation or requirement.

The specified number of hours is not possible for all institutions to provide, under current budget and staffing restraints. In 2024, the DfE only recruited 74% of new maths teachers against its own target, so the recruitment and retention crisis is only like to get worse between now and September 2025, unless there is rapid intervention.

As post-16 providers are able to set their own admissions criteria, those who can’t meet the new minimum number of hours may be incentivised not to admit students who don’t have a grade 4+ in English or maths, as their entire programme of study would be unfunded. This may in turn leave this group of students ‘homeless’ in some areas of the country.

As this group – which ASCL refers to as the 'forgotten third’ – is already disadvantaged, this would further disenfranchise them and raise the risk of them not being in education, employment or training.

ASCL has continually raised concerns about the impact of the condition of funding, especially given the number of students who don’t achieve more highly in their resit exams. The minimum specified number of hours, coupled with the lowering of the threshold, is unacceptable and will have long term implications for the cohorts affected by this disastrous and ill-thought-through policy.


 

What is the context? 
The rapid advancement of artificial intelligence (AI) is having a significant impact on both education and society. As AI technologies become more sophisticated and accessible, they are being integrated into schools, trusts, and colleges at an accelerating pace. This presents both opportunities and challenges for leaders, staff, students and policymakers. On the one hand, AI has the potential to revolutionise education by offering personalised learning experiences, expanding access to resources, improving efficiency and streamlining staff work in ways that may positively affect workload. On the other hand, it raises concerns about workforce disruption, privacy and ethical considerations.

While AI can support more efficient administrative processes and reduce time-consuming tasks, humans will always be essential in schools. The role of AI is to enhance and assist, not replace, the invaluable contribution of staff in fostering relationships, providing guidance, and delivering holistic education. Ensuring that AI’s integration enhances educational outcomes while safeguarding equity, ethics and staff roles will be essential for the sector’s future.

ASCL position: ASCL supports the thoughtful and responsible integration of artificial intelligence in schools and colleges. We believe AI has the potential to support and enhance teaching and learning, reduce workload, and streamline operations whilst emphasising that human interaction remains at the heart of education. 

We will support the government to produce comprehensive guidance and secure the funding needed for the technology and training in schools and colleges. Our aim is to ensure AI is implemented ethically and to enhance AI proficiency throughout the education sector.

Why are we saying this?

• Timely engagement: By addressing AI integration now, we recognise the growing impact of this technology on education. This allows us to contribute to discussions on implementing AI in ways that benefit teaching and learning.
• Supporting our members: School and college leaders are already grappling with the implications of AI in their institutions. By providing a clear position and guidance, we aim to support our members in making informed decisions about AI adoption and use.
• Ensuring ethical implementation: As AI becomes more prevalent in education, it is crucial to establish ethical guidelines early. Our position statement emphasises the importance of responsible AI integration, helping to safeguard student and staff privacy, promote equity and maintain the essential human elements of education.
• Advocating for resources: By taking a stance on AI, we can more effectively advocate for the necessary funding and resources to support schools and colleges in implementing AI technologies and providing adequate training for staff.
• Preparing for the future: AI is likely to play an increasingly significant role in both education and the wider job market. By promoting AI proficiency in the education sector, we're helping to prepare students, staff, and institutions for a future where AI skills will be increasingly valuable.
• Balancing opportunities and challenges: Our position acknowledges both the potential benefits and the possible risks of AI in education. This balanced approach allows us to maximise the opportunities while actively addressing the challenges.

ASCL intends to provide leadership, support and advocacy in navigating the complex landscape of AI in education, ultimately working towards an education system that leverages the benefits of AI while maintaining the crucial human elements that are at the heart of effective teaching and learning.
 

What is the context?
The government is conducting an interim Level 3 curriculum review into the policy of defunding AGQs, focusing on the AGQs which are due to be defunded from August 2025. This is due to report by December 2024.

ASCL has already adopted a position that calls for an immediate pause to the defunding of all AGQs, but is pragmatic about this being the outcome of the review.

ASCL position: In the disappointing event that the interim Level 3 curriculum review proceeds with a decision to defund AGQs and other Level 3 qualifications with effect from September 2025, then the rules on subject combinations involving AAQs must be published as part of the review. Failure to do so compounds the uncertainty and confusion facing schools and colleges and their prospective 16-19 students.

Why are we saying this?
Schools and colleges are presently experiencing unprecedented confusion and uncertainty about which options they can offer to incoming Year 12 students from September 2025. If the interim review publishes rules on the defunding of AGQs but does not publish the rules on subject combinations at the same time, this does not clarify the landscape at all. We need both decisions at the same time, i.e. the rules on the defunding of AGQs and the rules on subject combinations involving AAQs.
 

What is the context?
In 2019 the Conservative government started its review of Level 3 and below qualifications, with the intention of reducing the number of qualifications and making T levels the technical qualification of choice.

The government believed that the defunding of BTECs and other Applied General Qualifications (AGQs) was necessary in order to ensure the take-up of T levels by students. This policy will result in the defunding all AGQs by 2026. Many AGQs are therefore being taught for the last time this academic year (2024/25) with the remaining AGQs due to see a final intake of students in September 2025.  

New Alternative Academic Qualifications (AAQs) and Alternative Technical Qualifications (ATQs) are due to start from September 2025 as partial replacements for some of the defunded AGQs.

The new Labour government is conducting an interim Level 3 curriculum review into this policy, focusing on the AGQs which are due to be defunded from August 2025. This is due to report by December 2024.

ASCL position: ASCL calls for the interim Level 3 curriculum review to pause the defunding of all AGQs and other Level 3 qualifications, which are due to be defunded from September 2025. This would mean that AAQs would not start in September 2025, but could be considered as part of the full Curriculum and Assessment Review.

Why are we saying this?
The introduction of T levels is a welcome addition to the 16-19 landscape, but it should represent a third route for 16-19 year-olds. It should sit alongside the academic route (A levels / International Baccalaureate) and the vocational/technical route (BTECs and other AGQs).

Continuing to defund further AGQs will reduce progression opportunities and impact the most on students from disadvantaged backgrounds, who are more likely to study AGQs.


 

What is the context? 
Each year, thousands of candidates submit a review of marking (through their centre) for units/papers of their GCSEs, A levels and technical qualifications.

These reviews come with a fee, which is set by each exam board independently, but is typically around £40 per paper at GCSE, and £50 per paper at A level. Candidates/centres are not charged if the review of marking results in a change of grade, but are if their grade is not changed (even if their marks go up).

Different centres have different approaches to whether or not they pass this fee on to candidates and their families. Some plan for the cost through existing budgets, whereas others expect the family to pay. This creates inequality and systemic unfairness in the system. We know, for example, that independent school candidates are more likely to request reviews of grading, as a proportion of the system.

In 2023, 21.8% of GCSE grades challenged (245,920 in total) were changed, while 22% of A level grades challenges (57,350 in total) were changed. 

ASCL position
ASCL believes that the DfE should fund any reviews of marking for disadvantaged learners. The current system disincentivises disadvantaged students from asking their centre to request a review.

It should still be the centre’s decision, as it is now, whether or not to request a review.

Why are we saying this?
As above, roughly a fifth of reviews of marking at both GCSE and A level result in a change of grades. Although this figure may seem quite high, there is still a circa 78% chance that a review of marking will not result in a change of grade; and therefore the centre or candidate will be charged the exam boards’ fees for each paper they requested a review of.

This can strongly disincentive and discourage disadvantaged candidates from requesting a review of marking, as £40 - £50 per paper is a significant cost.

We therefore think that the DfE should pay for any unsuccessful fees of marking for disadvantaged candidates (successful reviews would continue not to be charged by the exam board).

‘Disadvantaged’ should be defined as pupil premium students at GCSE, and students on free school meals post-16.

As is currently the case, it should remain the right of the centre to decide whether to endorse a review of marking or not, in discussion with the candidate and their family. Candidates are already made aware that a review of marking can result in a grade going down as well as up, so only where the centre agrees that the marking is poor, or a student has missed their target grade but is on the boundary, should they be encouraged to request a review.
 

What is the context? 
The government is required by statute to publish a national curriculum, and can make changes the curriculum or national assessments. This has been the case since 1988.

In practice, when governments want to change a curriculum or national assessment such as SATs, GCSEs, A levels or technical qualifications, they typically bring together a group of experts including academics, practitioners and representatives from industry, universities, etc. Often this expert group is, to some extent, appointed in order to align with the current government or minister’s beliefs and aims, rather than to provide genuinely impartial advice. This is not always the case, but either way, the government selects the expert group and then can choose to accept its recommendations or not.

The last review of the national curriculum was carried out and published over a decade ago. However, a vast majority of pupils in England do not now have to follow the national curriculum because they attend academies. In reality, most do (because so much teaching is driven by exam and test specifications), and it is ASCL policy that all state-funded schools should follow a slimmed-down national curriculum.

Labour have promised a curriculum and assessment review. This position is intended to support that process, and any future curriculum and/or assessment reviews in the future by current or successive governments.

ASCL position
ASCL supports the development of an independent curriculum and assessment review body to advise government on possible changes to the national curriculum or national assessments.

The body should ensure independence and impartiality by having a series of checks and balances as to its membership and operating structure. 

Decisions on whether or not to implement the independent review body’s recommendations remain the government’s. The body would have no statutory powers to mandate curriculum changes.

Why are we saying this?
We believe that any curriculum and assessment review should be as independent and impartial as possible. We are suggesting a three-tiered approach to ensure this:

• A statutory appointing committee, which appoints…
• A standing committee, whose make-up is defined by the appointing committee, which in turn appoints...
• Expert groups, who work on a task-and-finish basis, based on the brief given to them, and who make recommendations to government.

In practice, if government wants to review an area of curriculum or assessment (e.g. the computing curriculum, GCSE English language, or the whole national curriculum), it would ask the standing group to convene a group of experts to make recommendations. The expert group would publicly report back to the government, and the government could choose to accept and implement the recommendations or not. 

We think it’s right that government retains overall control of the curriculum, but that the process of review is more impartial and more transparent.

We also believe that there should be a two-way dialogue between the standing committee and the government. Our proposal is that government writes to the standing committee when it has a particular area of curriculum or assessment it wants to review, leading to the process outlined above. However, we propose that the standing committee meets annually to make recommendations to government about any areas of the curriculum or national assessments which may need review (it may recommend that no review is necessary). The government could then decide whether or not to ask the standing committee to convene an expert group.
Unlike previous curriculum and assessment bodies such as the Qualifications and Curriculum Development Agency, the standing committee’s only role would be to convene expert groups when asked, and to make annual recommendations about areas for review. Any recommendations made by expert groups would not be statutory, but made transparently to government.

We think this three-tiered approach would introduce sufficient checks and balances to prevent hegemony or ideology over curriculum content, while retaining the sovereignty of government to define the curriculum under the 1988 Education Act.
 

What is the context? 
Between 2022 and 2024, students were given enhanced equation and formulae sheets in GCSE maths, physics and combined science exams, as a mitigation for lost learning during the pandemic. The DfE has confirmed that it does not intend to provide these beyond 2024.

It was previous ASCL policy that the equation and formulae sheets should be extended to the 2024 summer cohort ‘and beyond’. We were pleased that the DfE and ministers changed their policy in autumn 2023 to confirm that the 2024 summer cohort would have the sheets made available.

This position statement updates the earlier position.

ASCL position
ASCL believes that the formulae and equation sheets that have been provided in the last three years in GCSE maths, physics and combined science should continue in perpetuity. 

Why are we saying this?
GCSE students continue to be affected by the long-term learning implications of school closures between 2020 – 2022, and will continue to be so for some time.

More important, though, is the fact that unless students understand the underlying knowledge and concepts behind an equation or formula, providing them with the sum itself is unlikely to help them in the exam.

As such, requiring students to identify the right formula to use, apply it to the information given and work out an answer is a valid assessment of their knowledge and understanding; there is no need for an additional test of memory.

It is imperative that a timely decision is made on this, as new cohorts of year 11s and 10s will need to know what materials will or won’t be provided in the exams.
 

What is the context? 
In 2019, ASCL commissioned a report on the 'forgotten third', focused on the third of young people who don’t achieve a grade 4 in English and maths GCSE by the end of secondary school. The report made a series of recommendations for future policy and practice, including the development of a new assessment in literacy and numeracy to enable future progression.

The latest available data shows that this third continues to be a concern. In 2023, 41% of pupils did not achieve the expected standard in reading, writing and maths combined by the end of primary school. At GCSE, 26% of 16-year-olds did not achieve a grade 4+ in English, while 28% did not achieve a grade 4+ in maths.

Since 2017, Ofqual has applied a comparable outcomes approach to GCSE and A levels, initially introduced to ensure that students were not disadvantaged by the change in exam specifications at that time. Ofqual maintains that the proportion of students who achieve a grade 4+ can go up, depending on the performance of candidates in the exams, but many in the sector feels that this ‘bakes in’ the proportion of students who can achieve at certain grades.

The government describes a grade 4 at GCSE as a ‘standard pass’ and a grade 5 as a ‘strong pass’. This has understandably resulted in a perception that grades 1-3 are a ‘fail’. Students who don’t achieve a grade 4+ in English or maths have to resit post-16 as a condition of funding, with the expected number of hours required for their resit subjects going up from September 2024.

ASCL notes that, while the proportion of students meeting expected standards at primary and getting a grade 4+ in English and maths at GCSE is broadly similar between 2019 and 2023, the disadvantage gap at each stage has grown since the pandemic.

ASCL position
ASCL continues to support the principles of the Forgotten Third Commission and believes that any curriculum and assessment review should have this group of learners at its core.

National assessments should ensure that all young people are able to demonstrate their achievements.
The ongoing impact of Covid-19 has exacerbated the problems and inequalities identified in the 2019 Commission, making these an even more urgent priority for government.

Why are we saying this?
The Forgotten Third report remains relevant and timely in a post-pandemic landscape. However, some of the challenges identified have worsened since 2019, and in the context of a new government, new solutions and recommendations may need to be found to tackle these.

In particular, we continue to believe that GCSE English language is not fit for purpose. Nor we do we think that GCSE English and maths should be used as proxies for being literate and numerate.

Instead, ASCL has advocated for new assessments in literacy and numeracy, which can be taken when learners are ready, showing future employers or educators that they meet these requirements.  

This third of students continue to be ‘forgotten’ in the policy-making process. It is ASCL’s view that all students deserve the dignity of achievement after eleven years of compulsory schooling, and that national assessments should reflect this ambition.
 

What is the context? 
Oak was originally set up in the early days of the pandemic by schools and trusts which volunteered their resources to support the enforced move to online learning for the majority of pupils.

In September 2022, Oak National Academy formally relaunched as an arm’s-length body, owned by the DfE, with £43 million funding over three years. 

The business case, published by the DfE in October 2022, acknowledges the need for the body to be independent from government in order to get buy-in from the sector, but made it clear that it is strategically aligned to government curriculum aims.

Oak’s own research found that using Oak resources saved teachers’ time. This is significant during a recruitment and retention crisis.

However, ASCL has previously raised concerns about the extent to which Oak is independent from government, about increasing non-statutory curriculum guidance that goes beyond the national curriculum, and about the procurement of Oak materials.

ASCL position: ASCL is concerned that the establishment of Oak National Academy as an arm’s-length body supported by government funding constitutes a drift towards a government-approved curriculum. This runs the risk of undermining curriculum diversity and innovation, and represents an inappropriate use of public money, when other approaches to reducing teacher upload may have more impact.  ASCL believes that Oak National Academy should not be constituted and funded in this manner, and that it should be given no preference over any other provider of curriculum resources.

Why are we are saying this?
 ASCL recognises the case for Oak, and supports efforts to reduce teachers’ and leaders’ workload.

However, on balance, we think that Oak represents a drift towards a government-approved curriculum, and do not believe it can be truly independent. While the current leadership of Oak and DfE understand these risks, we worry that the creation of an arms-length body has the potential to centralise curriculum in the future.

We are also concerned that government-funded curriculum resources will undermine other providers, which is a detriment to the sector.

(amended February 2024)
 

What’s the context?
At the Conservative Party Conference in October 2023, Education Secretary Gillian Keegan announced that the government was ‘banning’ mobile phones from schools.

She later clarified that the government was not actually intending to try to pass new primary legislation to require schools to ban phones, but was instead planning to publish updated non-statutory guidance.

Maintained schools, academies, voluntary-aided and voluntary-controlled school must have due regard to non-statutory guidance, but ultimately it is up to the school or college whether, and how, to implement this guidance.

The ‘Behaviour in Schools Guidance’, published in 2022, states that: ‘headteachers should decide if mobile phones can be used during the school day’ (paragraph 122).
 
ASCL position
We are concerned that the Education Secretary’s statement on the banning of mobile phones will have created public confusion about the status of proposed new guidance. This is expected to be non-statutory and merely update existing guidance. Current guidance makes it clear that school leaders are best placed to make operational decisions over policies on mobile phones. We reassert the importance of this as a guiding principle and call on the government to clarify this position as soon as possible.
 
Why are we saying this?
This is yet another example of many ‘non-statutory expectations’ placed on school and college leaders by government. This is confusing to the public and creates additional workload for school leaders and governors.

ASCL supports a strong focus on good behaviour for learning in schools and colleges, and welcomes any support the DfE can give to this. However, the vast majority of schools and colleges already have policies on use of mobile phones in and out of lessons.

The government’s announcement and subsequent media campaign around this was disingenuous. It implied that the government has banned mobile phones from schools, when they haven’t. This will lead to public confusion, and could leave schools in conflict with parents.

ASCL is concerned that the Education Secretary chose to highlight this update to non-statutory guidance in her conference speech, while failing to mention much more significant issues such as the recruitment and retention of teaching and support staff, the school estate, funding, or SEND provision.

What’s the context?
In the Schools White Paper Opportunity for All, the government set out its plans to expect all schools to offer the (current) average school week of 32.5 hours. This time includes the formal timetable, as well as pastoral, break and lunch times, and any compulsory extracurricular activities.

In July 2023, the DfE published new guidance which gave a revised deadline for the non-statutory expectation as September 2024.

Currently, 52% of primary schools, and 62% of secondary schools already run a week of 32.5 hours or more. A further 41% of primary schools, and 35% of secondary schools run a week between 31.25 – 32.5 hours. This means that 8% of primary schools and 5% of secondary schools run a week that is less than 31.25 hours.

There is no evidence that schools in England with less than a 32.5 hour week produce lower outcomes or have a poorer Ofsted ratings.

The DfE has said that Ofsted will report on schools which do not meet this non-statutory expectation. This is reflected in paragraph 223 of the Ofsted handbook, which states that:

‘Where it is clear that increasing the overall time pupils spend in school (to at least 32.5 hours per week) would improve the quality of education, inspectors will reflect this in their evaluation of the school, and in the inspection report. If a school is not meeting the minimum expectation, and this impacts on the quality of education, inspectors will expect schools to set out a clear rationale for this and understand what impact it has on the quality of education. They will also want to understand what plans are in place to meet the minimum expectation.’
 
ASCL position
ASCL believes that it is not the role of the government to tell schools, regardless of their context and their own professional judgement, that the length of the school week should be at least 32.5 hours. There is no evidence this will raise the quality of education in schools which currently don’t meet this criterion. Moreover, it is inappropriate for Ofsted to report on whether or not schools meet this expectation, which is non-statutory.
 
Why are we saying this?
We do not believe that is the government’s job to dictate the length of the school day or school week. School leaders, governors and trustees use their professional judgement to set an appropriate timetable based on the context of the school and the needs of their pupils.

Because this policy is focused on the length of the school week – not time spent in classrooms – there is no evidence that this will improve the quality of education. In fact, many ASCL members have reported that they reduced the length of the school week to reduce the length of breaks, in order to improve behaviour and attitude to learning.

The ‘easy’ and cost-effective way of complying with this new minimum expectation would, for most schools not already meeting it, be to add time to break or lunch. This could inadvertently reduce the quality of education in schools.

Schools are encouraged to adopt an integrated approach to curriculum and financial planning. For many schools, under current funding pressures, they would be unable to increase the amount of curriculum time in their school or trust.

It is highly inappropriate for Ofsted to inspect against non-statutory guidance, and against something that is not explicit in the EIF. We do not understand how, on a two-day inspection, there would be ‘clear’ evidence that by increasing the length of the school week (not time learning in classrooms) there would be a positive impact on the quality of education. We urge Ofsted to publicly share the research methodology that inspectors will be using to assess this during inspection, in the interest of being a transparent and evidence-driven organisation.

What’s the context?
In 2019 the government started its review of level 3 and below qualifications, with the intention of reducing the number of qualifications and making the T level qualification the technical qualification of choice.

The government believes that the defunding of BTECs and other Applied General Qualifications (AGQs) is necessary in order to ensure the take-up of T levels by students. In May 2022 the government produced its first list of 160 qualifications to be defunded, which includes many AGQs.

It is the government’s intention to defund all AGQs by 2026, with the final teaching of some AGQs in September 2024.

The DfE is introducing new Alternative Academic Qualifications (AAQs) and Alternative Technical Qualifications (ATQs) from September 2025.

ASCL position
We believe that Applied General Qualifications (AGQs) play an important role in post-16 education, and can work effectively alongside A levels and T levels.

The decision which has already been made to defund significant numbers of AGQs and introduce new AAQs and ATQs will not improve outcomes nor progression for young people. Any further decisions about defunding AGQs should be delayed until there is sufficient evidence about replacement qualifications.
 
Why are we saying this?
The introduction of T levels is a welcome addition to the 16-19 landscape, but it should represent a third route for 16-19 year-olds. It should sit alongside the academic route (A levels / International Baccalaureate) and the vocational/technical route (BTECs and other AGQs).

Continuing to defund further AGQs will reduce progression opportunities and impact the most on students from disadvantaged backgrounds, who are more likely to study AGQs.

ASCL is also unclear as to how the government’s new AAQs and ATQs will work with their plans for a new Advanced British Standard qualification.

What is the context?
The National Tutoring Programme (NTP) was introduced after the pandemic to help pupils in Key Stages 1 to 4 to catch up on lost learning.

The NTP was continued in 2022/23, with a focus on disadvantaged and low-attaining pupils. This was subsidised at a rate of 60%, meaning that schools had to top up the funding by 40% from their own budgets in order to ‘unlock’ their NTP allocation.

Three routes are currently funded through NTP: tuition partners; academic mentors and school-led tutoring.

The DfE has confirmed that, in 2023/24, the subsidy will be reduced to 50%, meaning that schools will need to find 50% from their existing budgets to access their full allocation.

There is currently no guarantee from the government that NTP funding, or the NTP itself, will continue beyond 2023/24.

ASCL position: ASCL believes that schools should be able to use their full allocation of National Tutoring Programme (NTP) funding in 2023-24, without the need to top it up from existing budgets. 

We would welcome the continuation of ring-fenced NTP funding in the future, providing schools can use their full allocation without having to top it up.

Why are we saying this? 
High quality tuition is an evidenced-based intervention, which the Education Endowment Fund (EEF) toolkit shows to be highly effective and cost effective. We should therefore ensure that as many pupils as possible are able to access high-quality tutoring, using the money available.

However, school budgets are already stretched and, in line with DfE policy, schools have allocated already their spend. This means that having to provide 50% of the NTP spend is a significant barrier for many schools and trusts.

ASCL has written to the Minister for School Standards twice, expressing this view and explaining that this policy will undermine joint efforts to make tutoring available to more pupils, and embed it as a long-term intervention strategy.

ASCL does not understand why schools cannot receive and use their full allocation – still ringfenced for tutoring through one of the NTP routes – without the need to top it up. We believe that adopting this position would allow more students to access tutoring, and remove the barriers that schools report to us.
 
 
 

What is the context? 
ASCL has already expressed concern about, and has a policy position, on the use of model curricula, subject research reviews and other non-statutory guidance. In this position statement, ASCL Council expressed its concern that these documents were being used to shape school curricula, though a tacit expectation from DfE and Ofsted that schools would use them, and the fact that they are referenced in some Ofsted inspection activity. 

The Schools White Paper Opportunity for All touches on many areas of the curriculum (including tuition, length of the school week, interventions and parent reporting) which may result in a raft of new non-statutory guidance and expectations.

The Oak National Academy, which was set up by volunteer school leaders during the pandemic, and subsequently received public funds, is in the process of being transformed by the DfE into a new arms-length curriculum body. This body will have the explicit role of creating optional resources to support a knowledge-rich curriculum, and providing curriculum design support.

The Schools Bill currently making its way through Parliament would give the current and future Secretary of State the legal power to set standards over twenty areas of education in academies, including the quality of education and length of the school week. In its first reading in the House of Lords, three former Education Secretaries, from both the Conservative and Labour benches, expressed concern that this represents an unprecedented degree of power for the government to direct what happens in schools. All three of these Lords, along with many other peers, have tabled amendments to the Bill to limit these powers.

ASCL position: ASCL strongly objects to what we see as the increasing centralisation of the curriculum beyond the National Curriculum, through the growing frequency of non-statutory guidance and expectations being introduced by the government and Ofsted.

ASCL believes that school leaders are best placed to make decisions that relate to curriculum, including pedagogy, and how to effectively support all learners.

Why are we saying this?
We believe that it is the government’s role, in consultation with experts, to define a common curriculum entitlement for all young people. We think this is an important vehicle for social justice and levelling up. In ASCL’s Blueprint for a Fairer Education System we advocate for a core, slimmed-down National Curriculum which all state-funded schools should be required to follow. We suggest that the content of this should be defined by a non-political independent body which would meet infrequently, outside of political cycles, to review content.

What concerns us is a perception that new curriculum demands and expectations are being introduced ‘by the back door’, through non-statutory guidance, subject reviews and model curricula. Even when non-statutory, and however well-intentioned, guidance and shared practice from the DfE and Ofsted carries a certain weight and is likely to be perceived in a certain way.

In meetings with the DfE, we have repeatedly suggested that the sharing of good practice or case studies is best done through the Education Endowment Foundation, which has existing processes to measure the effectiveness of school practices, policies and approaches.

Much of the practice advocated in the research reviews, model curricula and other guidance is very helpful for schools to consider. However, some of it is open to debate, and offers a limited perspective on current discourse. 

Ultimately, while we think government should always have a role in working with experts to define a core curriculum for all young people, the way in which curriculum is being centralised through non-statutory guidance is wrong, and the powers of the Education Secretary to set curriculum standards in the Schools Bill over-reach themselves.

 

What is the context?
Over the past year, the Department for Education and Ofsted have both published various new pieces of curriculum guidance, including model curricula and subject research reviews.

While curriculum guidance is welcome, the status of these documents is sometimes unclear: whether they are non-statutory; whether schools should have due regard for them; whether they are best practice; or whether they represent updated statutory curriculum expectations.

These documents include the Ofsted subject reviews; the Model music curriculum, The reading framework and Teaching a broad and balanced curriculum for education recovery.

ASCL has received reports from members that some of the expectations and suggestions set out in these documents have been used in Ofsted inspections to evaluate schools’ curriculum provision.

ASCL position

ASCL believes that the Department for Education and Ofsted should be clearer about the non-statutory nature of these documents and be mindful of not introducing new curriculum expectations by the back door.

Ofsted must continue to ensure that all inspectors are evaluating schools solely against the Education Inspection Framework, and not using additional curriculum guidance or subject reviews.

Schools’ autonomy to design and implement their curricula based on the needs of their pupils must be maintained.

Why are we saying this?
While much of this guidance is helpful, there are many instances when the guidance presents one approach to curriculum or pedagogy as optimal. We believe that school leaders are best placed to make these decisions, within their own context.

The reported use of some of these materials in inspection is inappropriate and creates confusion in the system about the status of these documents.

ASCL would welcome a review of the current National Curriculum and has advocated for an independent review body to carry this out. Any changes to the National Curriculum, or wider curriculum expectations for schools, must be widely consulted on and based on the latest evidence, while also allowing enough space in the curriculum for school and trust autonomy. 
 

What is the context? In October 2018, ASCL launched an independent Commission of Inquiry to look into how to improve the prospects of the ‘forgotten third’ of young people who do not achieve at least a grade 4 pass in GCSE English and maths at the end of twelve years of schooling. 

In September 2019, the Commission published its final report. The report included fourteen recommendations to help address this issue, covering early years, curriculum and pedagogy, teacher education, and the qualifications system. 

These recommendations included calls for a long-term review both of the English curriculum from Key Stage 1 to Key Stage and of the GCSE exam system as a whole. The Commission also recommended a new approach to end-of-primary assessment and accountability, and the replacement of GCSE English Language with a Passport in English, to be taken by all pupils at the point of readiness between the ages of 15 and 19.

ASCL position: ASCL thanks the Forgotten Third Commission of Inquiry for the expertise and commitment they brought to the question of how we can improve the prospects of the ‘Forgotten Third’.

ASCL fully supports the recommendations in the Commission’s final report, and adopts these as policy.

Why are we saying it? We must do more to improve the life chances of those children and young people, disproportionately from disadvantaged backgrounds, for whom the current education system simply isn’t working. We must also find better ways to recognise the achievements of all young people. We believe that acting on the recommendations in this report would make a significant and positive impact on these young people’s lives and futures.