Curriculum and Assessment Review final report – CLA analysis

Curriculum and Assessment Review final report, Building a world-class curriculum for all: CLA Analysis

We published our headline take-ways from the government’s press release in response to the report on 5 November, reflecting our immense relief that the EBacc is to go and with it the damaging subject hierarchy it created by excluding Arts subjects.

The long-awaited Review is a vital step in addressing many of the issues CLA addresses in its annual Report Cards, in which we report on the systemic reduction in take-up of and access to Arts subjects in England’s schools since 2010.

The full government response to the report goes further in its ambition and we will share our response to that shortly, but we wanted to take time to consider the Review’s final report given that it has dominated the education policy space since it was first announced in July 2024, and given our ambition for change for Arts subjects within the curriculum.

We are working with five new CLA Advisers on our ongoing analysis of the Review and its implications, and on the government response and future implementation. We would like to welcome them to CLA and to thank them for their wisdom and guidance at this critical inflection point for education policy in England.

CLA Advisers (Curriculum, Accountability & Assessment)

• Pete Budd, Assistant Principal, Havant & South Downs College (HSDC) – FE, Hampshire
• Johanne Clifton, Director of Curriculum and Development, Elliot Foundation – Primary, West Midlands/East Anglia/London
• Andrew Garrad, Senior Programme Manager (Education Improvement), North East Combined Authority
• Naveed Idees OBE, Headteacher, Faversham Primary School – Primary, Bradford, West Yorkshire
• Margaret O’Shea, Head of Creative and Extended Curriculum, Ark Schools – Primary/Secondary, London/Birmingham/Hastings/Portsmouth

Here is our first full analysis of the Curriculum and Assessment Review …

• Introduction
• Headline findings
• Current curriculum failures
• Arts subjects: headline findings and subject summaries
• How post-16 reform impacts Arts subjects
• Additional points worth noting

Introduction

Curriculum Reviews don’t come along very often so this long-awaited Review is a vital step in addressing many of the issues CLA addresses in its annual Report Cards, in which we report on the systemic reduction in take-up of and access to Arts subjects in England’s schools since 2010.

We published our headline take-ways from the government’s press release in response to the report on 5 November, reflecting our immense relief that the EBacc is to go and with it the damaging subject hierarchy it created by excluding Arts subjects.

The full government response to the report goes further in its ambition and we will share our response to that shortly, but we wanted to take time to consider the Review’s final report given that it has dominated the education policy space since it was first announced in July 2024, and given our ambition for change for Arts subjects within the curriculum.

School leaders and teachers have a huge amount to grapple with, and we know that for some, the emphasis on Arts subjects within the Review’s final report may not be uppermost in their minds. Over the past year, CLA has been working in partnership with the RSC to gather more than 1,000 pieces of evidence across Art & Design, Dance, Drama and Music to show why school leaders might want to take note. The evidence makes clear the value of the knowledge, skills and experiences that children and young people acquire through Arts subjects and their vital importance for life and for work. You can learn more here.

We knew from the outset of this Review process that it was taking an “evolution not revolution approach”. Given that commitment, Building a world-class curriculum for all is an excellent report rooted in inclusion. We must commend Professor Francis and her Review panel on an impressive piece of work, which is thorough, clear, and comprehensive: the time and care taken to draft the report is evident. Most importantly for us it has applied a social justice lens throughout, focusing on inclusion and equity for all children and young people, reinforcing our call for an ambitious, modern, broad and balanced curriculum.

The ambition of the Review is for the revised curriculum to support life chances, irrespective of background and be aspirational, engaging and demanding. (p.46/7) We welcome the Review’s emphasis on the need for a future-facing curriculum which is mindful of children’s and young people’s needs for life and for work and of building a love of learning.

The report is grounded in responsiveness to detailed evidence submissions, analysis of large-scale datasets and commissioned research and polling. We were very pleased to see our CLA 2025 Report Card and one of our Latest Thinking articles referenced in the report’s footnotes and within the main text.

The Review is not calling for an Arts entitlement: it’s calling for an ambitious curriculum entitlement for all that includes all subjects. This is the essence of the proposed broad and balanced offer. In our Blueprint for an Arts-rich education CLA has been calling for an Arts entitlement for some time because of the ‘Arts entitlement gap’ that we highlight in our 2025 Report Card. This was not because we were seeking exceptionalism for the Arts but because we knew a) the extent of the Arts subject decline and b) the value of these subjects in improving outcomes for children and young people. The Review’s position is understandable, but the issue for the Arts is the extent of the decline since 2010 and whether schools will genuinely be able to deliver a broad and balanced curriculum that includes the Arts. Now that we have the Review, we will be revisiting our Blueprint and working with colleagues to determine what we now need to happen to ensure that the concept of entitlement to all subjects fully embraces the Arts. If Arts education is to be revitalised (as is proposed in the government response to the Review) it will take time and workforce investment. The broad entitlement ambition set out in the Review – and the loss of a subject hierarchy excluding the arts – is a fantastic start, but we have a long way to go to eliminate the Arts entitlement gap that we know exists. [The government response goes further – and this is very welcome indeed – in describing “arts subjects as an entitlement”.]

Here are our headline takeaways from the final report. We have nine general headlines, plus three specific headlines relating to what’s wrong with the existing curriculum, and eight relating specifically to Arts subjects (generally and by individual subject). We also have a response from one of our Advisers to the Post-16 changes already set out by the government following the Review’s recommendations. And we have a summary of other points to note in the Review. We will also soon publish a brief analysis in relation to our own Blueprint for an Arts-rich education. The full list of the Review recommendations can be found here.

Delivering on the ambition set out in the Review will take time and is now in the hands of DfE. We look forward to revisiting our Blueprint to set out our Arts workforce ambitions and all that we will want to see in this altered and significantly improved curriculum, assessment and accountability landscape.

Headline findings

1. A commitment to addressing equity, diversity, inclusion and representation

The interim report in March stated that the current system was “not working well for all” and the report expands on this and prioritises a social inclusion and social justice lens. There is a desire to improve curriculum quality for all young people but particularly those for whom the system is currently not working well. The Review is seeking a world-leading education system delivering excellence for all young people, “irrespective of background” and highlights a “stubborn attainment gap” between “those that are socio-economically disadvantaged and their peers, while children and young people with special educational needs and disabilities (SEND) make less progress in comparison to those without SEND”. (p.25)

The report recognises evidence that “disadvantaged young people tend to have less access to a broad curriculum, in both primary and secondary.” (p.28) This mirrors the evidence presented in our 2025 Report Card and our Capabilities Framework sets out why this is a problem. There is a systematic endeavour to “identify and remove barriers to progress within the curriculum and assessment system.” (p.28) Bravo. “When the curriculum is designed thoughtfully, it can reduce unnecessary inequities and barriers to learning, provide clarity and coherence for teachers, and better support young people with diverse needs.” (p.28)

The Review also makes clear that current performance measures are not inclusive: “The Review has heard concerns that there remains no clear way to recognise the progress or achievements of those with the highest levels of need.” (p.126)

The Review has “taken steps to ensure that the curriculum (and related material) is inclusive so that young people can see themselves represented. This should also help them to broaden their horizons and better understand the perspectives of others.” The Review is seeking a national curriculum that reflects “our diverse society and the contributions of people of all backgrounds to our knowledge and culture.” Bravo once again – this is great to see.

Sample recommendations: “We recommend the government reviews and updates all Programmes of Study – and, where, appropriate, the corresponding GCSE Subject Content – to include stronger representation of the diversity that makes up our modern society, allowing more children to see themselves in the curriculum.” (p.181)

“The national curriculum is for all our children and young people. As such it should reflect our diverse society and the contributions of people of all backgrounds to our knowledge and culture.” (p.180)

“We recommend the government develops a programme of work to provide evidence-led guidance on curriculum and pedagogical adaptation … for children and young people with SEND … who experience various barriers to accessing the curriculum.” (p.181)

2. There is a balance across knowledge and skills

We had been concerned about an over-emphasis on knowledge (see p.47) but there is a commitment to “knowledge and skills” throughout the report. “A knowledge-rich curriculum need not omit or be in opposition to the development of skills. The skills and capabilities that are an inherent and desirable aspect of a rich, broad and balanced curriculum arise from and are situated within, a knowledge-rich curriculum.” The Review has come to an accommodation with the balance, seeing knowledge as a foundational base from which skills are developed. We can live with this! See our three-part series of Latest Thinking articles on what knowledge-rich means for Arts subjects here: article 1; article 2; article 3. The Review also heard from young people and their parents or carers that there is a desire to see “more applied knowledge in certain areas”.

Report recommendation: “The refreshed National Curriculum should retain a knowledge-rich approach, ensuring skills are developed in conjunction with knowledge in ways that are appropriate for each subject discipline.” (p.180)

3. Do we now have clear purposes for schooling?

The answer is ‘sort of’! There is no ‘Purposes of the curriculum’ section, but ‘curriculum principles’ are covered on page 46 and some of the early sections distil some broad ambitions for the curriculum.  CLA has long advocated for clear purposes for schooling. In our coverage of the Review’s interim report we noted the odd reference to purposes in the associated Conceptual Position Paper, in which the national curriculum was described as a “teleological endeavour” to nationally advance education in three ways. There is still a lack of clarity on the presentation of the purposes of the curriculum. They are loosely there, but in indistinct narrative form, and lack the presentational value of the purposes of schooling for Wales, which has four core aims each with a set of clear ambitions. We hope that the government might now address this as it takes the Review’s recommendations forward.

4. A much-improved emphasis on teacher agency

We love this. There is strong recognition of professional expertise and autonomy which we very much welcome. This includes providing “locally tailored content”. (p.9) “The refreshed national curriculum will ensure that greater specificity does not substantially restrict teachers’ flexibility to choose lesson content and how to teach it.” (See p.180 for example) This is one of ten recommendations in the Arts in Schools: Foundations for the Future report published by A New Direction and the Calouste Gulbenkian Foundation in 2023: “Teacher agency is … important in terms of what is taught, and how, and in developing communities of practice to build confidence and skills, and to share what works well.” (This depends of course on the workforce having the skills, knowledge and confidence to make best use of this autonomy: we know that this is a need for the Arts in the primary sector in particular.)

5. A welcome emphasis on sequencing and progression to support progress

There is an emphasis on building solid foundations and supporting transition across key stages, starting in the primary years and through to transitions to secondary education. “Evidence shows that there is a substantial drop in pupil engagement and views on the value of education as they transition from primary education, particularly for those from socio-economically disadvantaged backgrounds.” (p. 29)

“The report finds that moving through key stages can happen without a secure grasp of a subject and this has a “detrimental effect on outcomes”. A strong and welcome emphasis is placed on sequencing and progression: “… we have sought to ensure that the curriculum and assessment are helpful to teachers in supporting progress, momentum and successful outcomes as learners move from one key stage to another.” (p. 9) They want education to be more “seamless” than now. (p.52)

6. Wellbeing is not foregrounded as much as we expected

There is very little reference to wellbeing, flourishing and mental health issues. Wellbeing is largely addressed in relation to the pressures created by the volume of assessment (p. 134). The Report balances this with the fact that “evidence suggesting a causal link between exams and poor wellbeing is contested” but also report states that “half of those who completed their Key Stage 4 exams or assessments in summer 2024 found it difficult (41%) or very difficult (10%) to cope with stress during the exam period.” In general, the report is more focused on achieving than thriving, although a lot of the language has a focus on supporting children and young people to progress. We are interested to see how DfE takes the pupil wellbeing agenda forward – their response locates it largely withing RSHE. We are pleased to see the need for a curriculum that inspires a “love of learning” referenced several times.

We know that some schools are mindful of the value of Arts subjects and in supporting the good mental health of their pupils, and there is a great deal of robust evidence to demonstrate impact in this area. Wellbeing is one of the seven capabilities set out in our Arts Education Capabilities Framework under the pillar of ‘Being, belonging and becoming’. Arts subjects are important for flourishing, pleasure, and resilience, leading to adaptability, good mental health and emotional wellbeing benefits.

7. Assessment – exam volume to be reduced at KS4 (and issues with the volume of content)

There is a belief that the primary assessment system is working well, as we knew from the Interim Report, so recommendations are minimal and relate to SEND, clarity, peer moderation and a new Grammar, Punctuation and Spelling test to better assess application rather than knowledge of grammar in isolation (see p.75 for details of the issues).

At KS3 there will be a new diagnostic assessment for Maths and English in Year 8 to address student need: this will not be published in school-level data but is for student benefit.

There is still a commitment to externally set and marked exams as the “fairest and most reliable method of assessment” (p.136). Generative AI risks are considered, and online assessment is considered but equity risks are noted if some students are more familiar with technology than others. Accessibility of assessments for students with SEND is a big theme.

At KS4, problems with assessment volume are identified and there is a recommendation that exam volume is reduced by at least 10%. “Considerations should be made on a subject-by-subject basis”. Ofqual is asked to introduce a new principle which places consideration of the volume of exam assessment at the heart of assessment design. And there is a recommendation for at least two assessment components for each subject so that students have more than one opportunity to demonstrate what they can do – and to mitigate the risk of poor performance on the day determining a student’s entire grade.

GCSEs must “include content authentic to subject disciplines, such as performance or creation of outputs” and subjects should “reflect the authentic nature of each discipline … For example, we should ensure that performance-based components, such as devised pieces or choreography, should remain central to Drama and Dance.” (p.136)

A common theme from the Call for Evidence responses was concern about the accessibility of assessments for students with SEND. Many stem from the subject content, including “the volume of memorising required.” (p137) The Review is also “mindful of the potential equity risks of moving to a digital system if some students are more familiar with technology than others.” There is consistent recognition of the barriers for some children and young people.

Exam volume links to issues with the volume of content. The volume of content at KS4 is seen as limiting subject depth and impeding progress. (p.46)

Recommendations: See page 138/139/140 for full list of recommendations.

8. Elevating applied knowledge in five areas

Part of preparing learners for a changing world will mean elevating some areas of applied knowledge and skills within the curriculum: financial literacy; digital literacy; media literacy; education on climate change and sustainability; and oracy. We welcome all these new priority areas. Oracy is an overarching recommendation at the top of the list of recommendations, linked to creating a “world leading curriculum.” (p.10)

As the Oracy Education Commission Report addressed in 2024, “Oracy education and arts education are mutually supportive: teaching pupils to talk and listen makes an arts education accessible; and an arts education provides a distinctive vehicle for the provision of opportunities for pupils to engage in experiences that foster the development of their oracy skills …” We welcome this recommendation for oracy but note that there is little reference to the power of Arts subjects for oracy when our Capabilities Framework makes clear the distinct contribution.

There is reference to how some subjects can deliver in supporting media literacy but the role that Arts subjects play is not mentioned (see our Capabilities Framework). Citizenship in particular seems to be doing a lot of heavy lifting for a range of different areas of applied knowledge, including financial literacy, democracy and digital literacy, with English doing the heavy lifting for oracy with a new oracy framework and also with media literacy. We would suggest that the Arts has a role to play across some of these.

Recommendation: “We recommend that the government introduces an oracy framework to support practice and to complement the existing frameworks for Reading and Writing”. (p.180) See page 181 for Citizenship recommendations.

9. Enrichment

“We have also been mindful of the importance of the school curriculum beyond the national curriculum, and the important things that schools and colleges provide for their students every day …” (p.5) There is recognition that the national curriculum should be an “ambitious entitlement for all” (p.9) but that schools must have space to go beyond it to provide enrichment activities.

Our position has been that we know that Arts activities and experiences beyond the curriculum are extremely valuable in supporting attainment and achievement but have always argued that the arts belong in the curriculum – enrichment provision cannot be a substitute for curriculum delivery. We therefore warmly welcome the emphasis the Review places on enrichment expectations alongside a broad and balanced curriculum which values Arts subjects.

We are just mindful of the risk that wider cultural learning experiences reside within the domain of enrichment. Do cultural trips and visits to theatres and galleries, for example, function as enrichment or link specifically to the curriculum? We are keen to see clarity on this. And our FE Adviser has observed that it would be good to see the focus on enrichment “reflected in funding.”

Recommendation: “We recommend that the government strengthens guidance for 16-19 study programmes to promote effective practice in delivering non-qualification activity and to clarify expectations about the types of activities that should be core to the enrichment offer … and “Considers whether certain elements of non-qualification activity should be made mandatory so that learners’ access to opportunities is more consistent.” (p.196)

The Review makes clear that the curriculum has failed in vital areas …

The Review cites evidence that makes clear the current curriculum is deficient in many areas and we highlight three here.

1. It’s hard not to see the Report as damning about the EBacc and its impact on student choice

Although we are told that causality is difficult to prove for different arts subjects, the Review makes clear that it has heard that the EBacc has not worked and has been a problem for several reasons. “Responses to the Call for Evidence argued that the EBacc measures have served to unnecessarily constrain subject choice for some students (and, consequently, have affected students’ engagement, their achievement, or both).” Students have been left with “little space for them to choose Computing, arts and vocational subjects. Schools and organisations representing the arts and other non-EBacc subjects have strongly expressed their concerns about the EBacc’s constraining effects … it is notable that all arts subjects bar Art & Design have seen decline in uptake since the introduction of the EBacc.”

We are also told that the EBacc has led to students being “entered for GCSEs in which they are unlikely to perform well, and this is disproportionally true for those from socio-economically disadvantaged backgrounds.” (p.123) The report is clear that the EBacc performance measures, “whilst well-intentioned” have not worked. (p.30)

The Review is not calling for reform to Progress 8, despite seeing some problems with this value-added measure, including that it leaves no clear way to recognise the progress or achievements of those with the highest levels of need. [The government, however, will reform Progress 8.]

2. A failure to keep pace with societal and technological change

The Report has taken an “evidence-led approach in diagnosing problems” and whilst it takes a factual approach in reporting what it has heard has not been working well in the curriculum created by former governments, we would observe that some of the observations are little short of shocking, particularly with regard to media literacy – “essential in a world where misinformation is prevalent” – and D&T. For example, “D&T has no focus on sustainability, despite the importance of material choice and renewable supply chains in this subject. Teachers have said that the lack of visibility and emphasis on climate education within the national curriculum is a barrier to creating an effective curriculum on climate education.”

3. The curriculum has lacked clarity and specificity and content balance in some areas

The new curriculum will require much more clarity. In Drama, for example: “Responses to our Call for Evidence argued that the … lack of clarity and specificity in the requirements for Drama means that it is not clear how the subject should be taught, what essential knowledge and skills pupils should acquire or what outcomes are expected at the end of each key stage.” This is frankly astonishing. While the report finds that “many aspects of the current system are working well” (see p.23 for details) it highlights significant gaps and deficiencies. It is no surprise then that “in some subjects, the current construction and balance of content” appear to be “inhibiting secure foundations” and “mastery of key subject concepts”.

Arts subjects: headline findings and subject summaries

We will be discussing the Review’s coverage of Arts subjects with all the relevant subject associations and are likely to report further on this. In the meantime, here are our headlines for Arts subjects.

1. We will lose the damaging EBacc hierarchy of subjects that excludes Arts subjects

The Review recommends that the EBacc performance measure and the associated EBacc entry and attainment headline accountability measures are removed and makes clear that the EBacc has been constraining student choice. “All the subjects in the national curriculum are valuable and play an important role in preparing young children for life and work.” (p.5) This narrative change is significant and vital after years of the former government consistently referencing “strategically important subjects” as being STEM subjects, and therefore discounting and de-valuing Arts subjects. Students will now have “access to subjects that best meet their individual interests and pathways”. (p.30) And we are told that “Whether academic, creative, vocational or physical, every subject contributes to a broad and balanced education.” (p.24)

The ‘Arts enrichment gap’ we identify in our Report Cards creates problems for in-school progression

The Report identifies this as a problem in Dance and in Music, where students whose parents have paid for classes outside of school are better supported to progress to further study of these subjects. “Through the Call for Evidence, we heard that access to GCSE Dance is often limited to students who have undertaken extra-curricular or external tuition, even in schools with specialist Dance teachers. This is because of such limited curriculum provision at Key Stages 1-3.” (p.105) The same is said of Music: “… without robust foundations having been built by the end of Key Stage 3 GCSE Music becomes inaccessible to most students unless they have external or extra-curricular tuition.” (p.99). The Arts entitlement gap is stark here.

What is missing?

The Review has missed acknowledging the role that Arts subjects play in developing civic skills and preparation for civic life. If “Citizenship education helps young people to develop the necessary knowledge and skills to play a full and active role in society” (p.57) then we would argue that Arts subjects have a role to play here in developing important capabilities such as agency, empathy and critical thinking (see the societal value of Arts subjects set out in our Capabilities Framework). We welcome that Citizenship becomes statutory from KS1 but hope to see a greater understanding of the role that the Arts can play in citizenship-building.

Art & Design

Based on the single metric of GSCE take-up that the Review has asserted means A&D is thriving at KS4, the Review is not advocating for any significant change here (although we have consistently worked with A&D subject associations to reflect why the lack of take-up decline may be masking deeper problems related to the shift over to A&D from D&T students following the D&T specification changes in 2017/18). The lack of detail in the primary programme of study is seen as a problem for non-specialists and there have been calls to introduce more detail on using alternative media (rather than just drawing and painting), and there is one recommendation for secondary. The A&D recommendations do not have the same reference to careers within related industries that appear in the recommendations for Drama and Music.

Recommendations: That the KS 1 to 3 Programmes of Study be revised to clarify the knowledge and skills that pupils are expected to develop; and that the volume and range of coursework should be clarified for GCSE A&D.

Dance

It is good to see Dance given proper attention as strong sub-heading within PE. It is described as a “low entry” subject, with entries having fallen from an already low base. It is noted that the PE KS1-4 Programmes of Study, Dance is primarily a physical discipline, focused on movement and performance with other elements, such as choreography and appreciation, being absent. At KS4, “Dance qualifications are treated as a performing art” and this is reflected in it being taught by PE departments up to KS3, and by performing arts departments at KS4.

The Review heard calls for the curriculum to support teachers to better teach Dance through a clearer PE Programme of Study that sets out the knowledge base for basic understanding. And as with Music we see that access to the GCSE is often limited to students who have had external tuition (because of there being “such limited provision” at KS1-3. The Review also heard that Dance is a popular activity with children and young people. Evidence makes clear many schools do not teach Dance to all pupils and non-specialist teachers are often not confident in teaching Dance (26% of teachers at KS1 and 36% at KS2). The lack of detail in the Programme of Study has been a problem.

The Level 2 Technical Award seems to be working well but the GCSE has too much emphasis on theoretical content and written evidence and focuses insufficiently on practical performance. Respondents to the Review also argued that significant elements of the GCSE do not reflect Dance as a creative discipline. The Dance recommendations do not have the same reference to careers within the industry that appear in the recommendations for Drama and Music.

Recommendations: PE Programmes of Study KS1-4 to be reviewed so they can support high-quality teaching and student progression; subject content and balance of assessment and assessment methods at GCSE to be reviewed to ensure the qualification is inclusive and representative and better suited to the discipline. See page 188 for recommendations.

Drama

Within the English curriculum, Shakespeare is the only named writer at KS4. Although Drama will remain within English, greater prominence will be given to Drama as a strong sub-heading and section within the English curriculum (p.43). “Drama has strong links to oracy and presenting skills and provides an important introduction to the performing arts. It is a valuable part of a broad and balanced curriculum that builds students’ confidence and prepares them for later life.” The Review has heard that the lack of clarity and specificity in the requirements for Drama since 2013 (when content was significantly reduced for KS 1-4) means that – as we note in the section above about how much is wrong with the current curriculum – “it is not clear how the subject should be taught, what essential knowledge and skills pupils should acquire, or what outcome are expected at the end of each key stage.” CLA welcomes this commitment to Drama and recognition of its value – and the problematic decline in take-up. There is also specific mention of progression to “careers in drama and theatre”.

Recommendations: The Review wants the KS3 English Programme of Study to include a discrete section on Drama with more detail to provide clarity on expectations for performing, creating and responding to dramatic works. There should also be greater specificity at KS1 and 2. Subject content should be reviewed for GCSE Drama, assessment methods and the balance of assessment to ensure the qualification is up to date and enables progression to further study and careers in drama and theatre. (See p.81 and 184)

Music

Music gets by far the most coverage, at around four pages (the other Arts subjects get around two pages each). The recent decline in GCSE take-up is acknowledged, and the KS4 decline is still evident even allowing for an increase into the Technical Award in Music. The stats, addressed in our Report Cards, make for grim reading. The Review finds that “Evidence of inequitable access to and success in Music is substantial.” (p.97) “61% of schools with the highest proportion of disadvantaged students had no entries for GCSE Music in 2024/5, compared to 10% with the lowest proportion.” (p.97) This where the value of paid-for out-of-classroom instrumental tuition is acknowledged. It is further noted that unless firm foundations have been built by the end of KS3, GCSE music becomes inaccessible to most students without extra-curricular tuition. As well as enabling progression to further study, there is also as specific mention of industry, with mention of facilitating “progression to … careers in the music industry”.

On page 98 the Review notes the Music Hub funding and welcomes the National Centre for Arts and Music Education, but states that “more needs to be done, especially to ensure reach …” A recommendation is made that the government should “explore ways to optimise its investment in Music education to support the teaching and learning and instruments and the reading of music, to give equitable access to, and progression in, Music education.” (p.100)

Recommendations: These include revising the Programmes of Study for KS1-3 to give a rigorous foundation in musical understanding and enable access to KS4; and reviewing GCSE and Technical Award content to ensure distinct and clear purposes. (See page 187.)

Design & Technology

We examine this subject due to its adjacency to Art & Design – prior to 2018 it had Graphic Products and Textiles Technology strands. The Review recognises the dramatic decline in GCSE take-up; the outdated purpose of study and aims of the D&T curriculum; the potential for it to be a key subject for learning green knowledge and skills; and the need for more of an emphasis on a finished product for “young people’s satisfaction and enjoyment”. The Review also saw inequality of access being especially pronounced along lines of disadvantage. (p.68)

Recommendations: There are several recommendations for this subject on page 70 of the Review and summarised on page 182. The reflect the importance of sustainability, social responsibility and design.

How post-16 reform impacts Arts subjects

The “more extensive changes” to 16-19 qualifications set out in the report were published prior to the Review and we have already addressed these in our Latest News. Overall, it is our view that the Post-16 White Paper and Curriculum and Assessment Review are promising for the development of a more Arts-rich education in FE.

Here is a response to the Review from the perspective of our Adviser from FE, Pete Budd, Assistant Principal at Havant and South Downs College:

• The new vocational pathways will require much work to implement in FE colleges, but there are opportunities to develop T level provision arts and arts-related subjects
• The development of T levels, and the extensive work placements central to these qualifications, would provide excellent opportunities for students to develop their skills in the sector, aligned to the government’s Industrial Strategy growth-driving Creative Industries sector
• V Levels sound – in principle – like a good move to simplify options for school leavers.  They could provide excellent opportunities for students who may thrive on courses with modular assessment and offer more creative programmes of study.
• The example V Level pathways sound exciting, citing courses in Craft and Design and Music, Broadcast and Production. While these sound like great options, we will be interested in how this will work in practice alongside A Levels, with the need to maintain curriculum efficiency given funding constraints.
• I hope that the introduction of V Levels will be supported financially – a great deal of planning and preparation will be required, in addition to improving learning spaces and resources.
• Equally, I hope that the reformed vocational and technical pathways are supported by proactive teacher recruitment strategies and CPD.
• I’m delighted that the review emphasises inclusivity and the urgent need for a curriculum that reflects the diversity of our society. There’s a superb opportunity to make the subjects more appealing, representative and engaging, and therefore to encourage more students to progress to further Arts study.
• The focus on enrichment is also very welcome – though I hope that this is reflected in funding, which is so tight for us in FE.

And finally, some additional points worth noting …

Here’s a quick round-up of some other points and observations:

• Nomenclature: In the Interim Report we noted that reference to “the category, ‘the arts’”. The sciences, for example, did not seem to need the same cautious inverted commas treatment! We said at the time that nomenclature is important and that we loved the term Expressive Arts which would give a proper name and heft to the arts curriculum area which we thought would be helpful if the arts were to be revalued within schooling. We didn’t get that, but we do now have subject parity alongside humanities and languages which was by far the more important goal. And Expressive Arts remains a strong name for Arts departments in schools, if not in policy …
• Capitalisation: The inverted commas referenced above may have gone, but we notice some interesting capitalisation at work! Core subjects get capitalised: English (obviously) but also Maths and Science; humanities, languages and arts do not. (p10) Reading and Writing are similarly capitalised (p.180). Oracy is not (for now!).
• The National Centre for Arts and Music Education (as currently named) is referenced under Music (p.98), so it’s odd that it’s not also referenced under the other Arts subjects. However, it is good to see it recognised and valued as a key support organisation when it comes into being.
• Learner voice: Although there is a very welcome emphasis on teacher agency, there is no mention of learner voice, which seems like an omission. Within the section on Citizenship, stakeholders have highlighted wanting a better grounding in democracy and government in relation to the lowering of the voting age to 16. (p.58)
• Learning through the Arts: Although the Review recognises the value of arts and cultural learning, it gives limited attention to learning through the arts and to the cross-curricular opportunities this creates (although it does reference both vertical and horizontal curriculum coherence, see p.48/49). Arts-based pedagogies and partnerships have strong potential to enrich curriculum design and classroom practice. This is evidenced in the Paul Hamlyn Foundation’s Teacher Development Fund, which supports school and arts organisation partnerships to develop teachers’ skills and confidence in using arts-based approaches. We will think further about this…
• The volume of content at KS4 is seen as limiting subject depth (p.46)
• Academies: We already know that the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill (p.19 link) contains a provision to require academies to teach the national curriculum (this is not currently the case) and this requirement is echoed on p.19.
• Digital literacy skills: The Review’s Call for Evidence and wider engagement highlighted widespread concern that young people are not developing adequate digital literacy skills. (p. 37). In English there is a desire for more clarity of purpose to support critical analysis of a “wider variety of text types and genres, including multi-modal and ephemeral text types.” (p.184)
• Curriculum adaptation for specialist, alternative and other education sessions: The Review stresses the importance of these settings “retaining their freedom to adapt the national curriculum as appropriate,” wanting them to be “supported to be appropriately ambitious for pupils in how they use these freedoms.” (p.30). Guidance and exemplification will be provided for this.
• Guaranteed Arts access: In Key Stage 1 the Review seeks “… to guarantee access to a broad and rich primary curriculum, including subjects such as Citizenship, Languages and Music.” (p.44/45). Music is singled out here, rather than the Arts, but the broad principle is very welcome.
• The New curriculum principles are:
  • An entitlement for all children and young people
  • Knowledge-rich
  • Curriculum depth and mastery of core concepts
  • Curriculum coherence
  • Specificity
  • Professional autonomy
  • A curriculum for all
• A digital curriculum: The national curriculum will become an active, navigable online digital product that is easy to use for teachers and school leaders. (p.52) Its presentation will be improved to enhance professional practice.
• “Maintaining an evidence-led approach is crucial. This must include a variety of evidence, including robust longitudinal data and research. It should include a critical approach to claims and assumptions which are not rigorously substantiated by independent research.” (p.53). This is of value for CLA which is about to co-publish (with the RSC) more than 1,000 pieces of evidence asserting the role of the Arts in building children and young people’s agency, wellbeing, collaboration, communication, empathy, creativity and critical thinking. Evidence is the foundation of all CLA’s work.
• There is no mention of the Extended Project Qualification (EPQ), an existing Level 3 qualification which provides an opportunity for independent, in-depth research and the development of skills valued by universities and by employers, allowing students to explore topics outside their standard Level 3 subjects. It is the equivalent of half an A Level. We have always felt that the EPQ provides excellent potential for students wanting to pursue their Arts interests, and particularly for Art making. Is it to remain or go?
• Limiting the frequency of curriculum reviews: The Review recommends that holistic curriculum reviews such as this are limited to every 10 years, with a rolling programme of light-touch updates to ensure the curriculum remains up to date, to address issues, and to ensure content volume is appropriate (p.196).
• The need for education reform rooted in legislation: In 2010 a landscape rich in Arts education initiatives was immediately altered when many were scrapped (see our Arts in Schools Timeline). We have therefore long desired education reform rooted in legislation that safeguards the Arts, and which embeds the Arts in policy, rather than within projects and initiatives which are all too easily halted. Curriculum design that is in the interests of children and young people should be protected and a 10-year review cycle as a legal requirement would be helpful here.

---