Post-16 green shoots of hope? The Curriculum and Assessment Review Interim Report

This week saw the publication of the Department for Education’s Curriculum and Assessment Review Interim Report led by Professor Becky Francis.  With over 7000 responses to the government’s call for evidence, alongside the review’s national sampling of over 1000 Key Stage 4 and 5 students and parents, there is a weight of evidence behind the recommendations published thus far.  After a period of great turbulence within post-16 education, with the destabilising impact of Covid followed by the introduction of T-levels and the defunding of established Applied General Qualifications (mainly BTECs), some scrutiny of the curriculum to ensure it serves all students moving forwards is most welcome.  While the full report will not be published until Autumn of this year, the interim report does provide some green shoots of hope for those working and leading in the post-16 phase.

EBacc limiting breadth and potential post-16 subject uptake

The interim report makes a number of points in relation to transition from GCSE to post-16 study.  The first of these centres around the EBacc measure, introduced in 2010, which encouraged schools to enter students for a specific group of ‘academic’ subjects at GCSE. The report suggests there is a concern that this measure may be a limiting factor for students in terms of motivation (and therefore consequent attainment/progress) and choice of subjects both at Key Stages 4 and 5. The call for evidence noted the EBacc’s ‘constraining effect’ on the arts and non-EBacc subjects, a point which seems to be borne out in data around the uptake of some subjects at post-16. The table below taken from Cambridge Assessment’s Uptake of GCE A level subjects 2023 Statistics Report shows the majority of arts subjects languishing at the bottom in terms of student uptake.

Clearly this does not prove a direct correlation between the EBacc and A-level subject choice, but it might suggest that the EBacc measure is at least unhelpful in addressing this decline in light of the review’s commitment to ‘maintain – and continue to support – a broad and balanced curriculum for all up to age 16’ (p. 7). The EBacc section of the report ends with the encouraging suggestion that the review ‘will also consider whether this remains the most effective means of achieving [its objectives]’. With this strong hint that the final report may see the end of the EBacc measure, it will be interesting to see how this plays out in terms of future subject uptake.

Supporting ‘a curriculum fit for the future’

A further aspect of transition from Key Stage 4 to 5 centres around preparation for an ever-changing future world.  Student and parent survey responses support the thirst for more knowledge of personal finance, preparation for the world of work and digital skills.  The review sensibly points out, though, that ‘all potential reforms come with trade-offs’ (p. 8). While some of this content is already covered within the PSHE programmes, in order to make sufficient space for all of this important knowledge to be covered comprehensively, something else would have to be removed from the Key Stage 4 and 5 curricula.

English and maths retakes

A consistently thorny issue in 16-19 education - the condition-of-funding requirement for students not achieving a grade 4 in English and maths GCSEs to continue studying these until a pass is achieved – is examined within the interim report at some length. Many post-16 and post-18 routes require grade 4s in maths and English as the basis of their course entry requirements, and so providing a mechanism for schools and colleges to support students with achieving ‘standard passes’ is sensible. How this aspiration is delivered is the tricky bit!

The report states that ‘too many young people arrive at the end of key stage 4 without having succeeded in securing their level 2 qualifications, including in English and maths’ (p. 18). With between 30-40% of students not passing English and maths at 16, this puts significant pressure on post-16 providers to deliver the requisite curriculum hours; particularly since the recent increase in the condition-of-funding stipulated hours for this to 100 hours for each subject across the academic year.  With the shortage of maths teachers nationwide, adding further demands on the post-16 phase to deliver more maths seems counter-intuitive at best.  Add to this the demoralising effect of constantly taking (and ‘failing’) retakes and the situation is incredibly difficult for schools and colleges to manage – as the report rightly suggests, this can have a negative impact on lesson attendance for the retake classes and impact their chances of success in other qualifications.

It is really encouraging to see the report acknowledge the above challenges and commit to working with the sector to produce ‘greater nuance in measures to ensure that as many learners as possible can achieve positive outcomes’ (Department for Education, 2025, p. 37).  What this nuance will entail is crucial and will need to include consideration of requirements around entry criteria for post-18 pathways.  Indeed, it was encouraging to see the recent scrapping of maths and English passes for adult (age 19+) apprentices in February 2025 in this regard.

Level 2-3 transition year?

The report makes some comments around the potential advantages of a year between level 2 and level 3 study or employment/training for some learners.  This could allow students who need to retake maths and English more time and space, and therefore improve their chances of achieving the pass grades.  Currently, providers are free to design their own level 2 programmes at post-16 (and the T-level Foundation Year has its own guidance attached) and whilst this flexibility is helpful for schools and colleges, it can be confusing for students and parents to navigate.  The fact that many schools do not offer such programmes is also indicative of the cost implications of this approach.  If we are really seeking to make the whole curriculum accessible for all learners, more investment to support such foundational programmes is essential.  The implication in the report (p. 34) is that the T-level Foundation Year might be the preferred vehicle for such a progression route, but we will not know this until the full report in the Autumn.

Level 3 Curriculum pathways

The report discusses the range of pathways currently available at level 3, separating these into ‘academic’ and ‘technical and vocational’.  The academic pathway focuses on A-level study and the new Alternative Academic Qualifications (AAQs), and interestingly, does not make any reference to BTECs within this section.  The technical and vocational pathway focuses on T-levels, new Technical Occupational Entry Qualifications (TOQs) and suggests there may be room for ‘other smaller qualifications’ including Applied Generals – the BTEC may not be completely cast aside after all, which is a very welcome (bracketed!) few words for the sector, with the #ProtectStudentChoice campaign opposing the recent defunding of BTEC qualifications in recent years.

T-levels are considered ‘the gold standard’ and ‘government’s flagship technical qualification’ (p. 32) despite the report acknowledging that only 2% of 16-19 year olds study them and there has been much press interest in the higher drop-out rates for these qualifications compared with other level 3 programmes.  Given that six planned T-levels have now been axed altogether due to low enrolments, including three just this week, the T-level hardly seems to be living up to the claimed ‘gold-standard’. It will be interesting to see whether the final report provides any basis for this rationale, as the interim report appears to include more challenges with them in their current form (uptake and drop-out rates, awareness and understanding, work placement requirements and qualification design) than evidence of success. It is also noteworthy that the student and parent surveys conducted by the review group T-Levels and BTECs together, with the category: ‘Mainly Level 3 vocational qualifications (for example, T Levels, Level 3 BTEC, et cetera)’.  This makes it impossible to determine how many students are actually planning to study BTECs within the survey responses; the implication is that it is likely to be most of this group, if T-levels only account for 2% of learners nationally.

The final paragraph of the report’s section on level 3 pathways (p. 33) does, however, provide some hope that ‘pause and review’ is the order of the day: ‘Further work will be completed following the publication of the Interim Report to explore what qualifications should sit alongside A levels and T Levels at level 3 to provide learners with an effective, comprehensive offer that is simple to understand. In doing this, we will consider how different qualifications can be combined to build robust and high-quality study programmes for learners.’  We must hope that the ‘different qualifications’ include tried and tested courses which have served our young people well, both in terms of outcomes and access to post-18 destinations, for many years.

Overall, whilst there are ‘green shoots’ of hope within the post-16 aspects of the interim report, many questions remain unanswered. The specific detail in the final report will be pivotal if the government is to deliver on its much-promised commitment to ‘break down the barriers to opportunity for every child at every stage.’