Sutton Trust response to Curriculum and Assessment Review

Commenting on the Curriculum and Assessment Review report, Billy Huband-Thompson, Head of Research and Policy at the Sutton Trust, said:

‘Overall, we welcome the Curriculum and Assessment Review, which looks to build on the successes of recent reforms while making actionable, incremental changes, where necessary. For instance, it’s good to see the recognition of the importance of externally set and marked Key Stage 4 examinations, while also recognising the need to reduce GCSE exam volume.

This review promised ‘evolution, not revolution’ and this is welcome for a sector that has become accustomed to significant changes in the context of severe capacity constraints.

‘We welcome the great emphasis placed on disadvantage gaps and the importance of considering the outcomes of pupils with SEND throughout the document. Following the publication of our ‘Double Disadvantage?’ report, we look forward to working with the government to ensure that their response to the Curriculum and Assessment Review and the forthcoming White Paper ensures that all pupils, regardless of background, can access an excellent education.’

On the diagnostic test in English and Maths at Year 8:

‘For young people to access a broad and balanced curriculum, Maths and English are absolutely essential. With that in mind, we support the introduction of diagnostic assessments in English and Maths in year 8 and the strengthening of writing assessment in year 6 to ensure all pupils can get additional support where they need it.’

‘We know that the transition between primary and secondary school can be difficult and that Key Stage 3 is a key point at which disadvantage gaps can widen. If well designed and implemented, these assessments could be a positive development. This should form one part of a wider review of the transition between primary and secondary.’

On the removal of the EBacc:

‘While the EBacc rightly sought to ensure all children and young people can access a broad academic curriculum, there have long been concerns about whether this has constrained pupil options and their access to arts and vocational subjects.’

‘The Review also notes a significant EBacc attainment gap between disadvantaged and non-disadvantaged pupils, noting a difficult balance between promoting access to academic subjects while ensuring that this does not come at the expense of other routes that may be well-suited to some young people. We therefore welcome the recommendation to remove the EBacc measure but to maintain an Academic Breadth ‘bucket’ in Progress 8.’

On the retention of Progress 8:

‘Progress 8 is an important measure that views pupil achievements in the context of their prior attainment. Progress 8 doesn’t currently account for wider contextual factors such as socio-economic disadvantage and how this may affect progress among different pupils and between schools.

‘While such context is important in understanding school performance, we appreciate the value of maintaining a Progress 8 measure that’s easy to understand and has strong currency across the system. We also recognise that there would be significant challenges in which contextual factors to add to such a measure.

‘With this in mind, we welcome the maintenance of Progress 8 in its current form but we’d also want the government to consider contextual measures that may be calculated in addition to, and not instead of, the current measure. The development of a digital benchmarking tool is welcome and we look forward to sharing insights from our Fair School Admissions work to inform this.’

On the introduction of an entitlement to Triple Science at GCSE:

‘We know that currently those from socio-economically disadvantaged backgrounds are less likely to take triple science as a GCSE option, even after holding for prior attainment. As the government looks to deliver on its Industrial Strategy, improving access to triple science could be an important step forward.

‘However, given the particular challenges in science teacher recruitment, this will need to be accompanied by more ambitious, targeted teacher training bursaries as well as a renewed emphasis on teacher retention. The subject review here will also need to ensure that the separate science course is of good quality and that it justifies the extra time and resource dedicated to its study and examination.’