Initial Response to Curriculum and Assessment Review

Published 6th November 2025

Written Wednesday 5^th November 2025

Initial Response to Curriculum and Assessment Review

Findings and Recommendations.

Today, the Government's Curriculum and Assessment Review Report, which began in July 2024 and led by Professor Becky Francis, has finally reached its conclusions. The report and its recommendations were finally delivered to my inbox just after 6:00 am this morning. An early morning breakfast meeting in the House of Lords prevented me from delving into it in depth until early this afternoon, but on first reflection, here's what was said and recommended, along with some thoughts on potential next steps.

Across all subjects

The review has stuck rigidly to principles set out at the very start of the process in summer 2024. Professor Francis made it clear from the beginning that this review would be guided by the statement "Evolution not revolution". Those hopeful for radical change across the National Curriculum and its assessment will, no doubt, be disappointed. This review builds on existing work and is not intended to scrap the plan and start again.

We called for the EBacc to be scrapped, and it looks like we were not alone. The review team has acknowledged that the introduction of the EBacc has constrained student choice, affected engagement and achievement, and limited time and access to the arts and vocational subjects. The review team has recommended that the EBacc be removed as an aspiration and a measure in English schools. Whilst we have never cited the EBacc specifically as a direct cause of D&T's demise at GCSE and elsewhere, it is good to see this divisive measure's days may be numbered.

We recommended that the Progress 8 measure be dropped as, in our opinion, this measure creates a hierarchy of subjects that, in reality, determines where curriculum priorities are set by headteachers and governing bodies within schools. To be blunt, headteachers will act where they are measured. The review body has recommended that the EBacc 'bucket' remains, which, in essence, probably means that the Progress 8 measure will remain.

The report makes it clear that the National Curriculum is a basic entitlement for every student. A clear statement was made at the outset of the process that all schools would be required to teach the National Curriculum from the review's anticipated implementation in 2028; there is no clear statement that I can see in the report around how long schools that are currently not delivering National Curriculum subjects will have to correct this. I look forward to receiving clarification from the DfE on this matter.

It was recognised by the review team that substantive change would almost definitely place a significant additional workload on teaching staff, something the review body was keen to avoid.

Finally, in the 'general' section, the body has recommended that a full review, such as this, occur no more frequently than every decade, allowing teachers and school leaders time to embed change in their schools. However, it is accepted that some minor change of content may be required in some subjects to keep subject knowledge 'up to date and relevant'.

16-19 Education

The review body concluded that "The mix of A and T Levels works for the majority of students" but recognises that some young people are not ready to make significant career decisions at sixteen and has suggested the introduction of V Levels, which will provide focused progression without limiting further options. My initial reaction was 'not yet another qualification', but on reflection, this may fill a gap recently vacated by BTECs and other vocational qualifications.

D&T Observations and related data

So, to the part of the report that many of you will fast-track to, the specific subject recommendations around design and technology.

Firstly, it is recognised that "Evidence gathered suggests that D&T has long been in poor health". This, as we know, is a fact. The report does not delve into detail on why this might be the case, stating that the reasons are numerous and complex. We are aware of the reasons why, and whilst we can learn from these, I much prefer to look forward.

The report goes on to suggest that "Evidence suggests that D&T may not be offered consistently between schools". Again, depending on the skill sets of the school staff, the emphasis placed on the subject by school leadership and the governing body, the resources available, and the time allocated to the curriculum at KS3 and KS4 specifically, it's no wonder there is a lack of consistency. That said, as a community, we owe it to ourselves to ensure that in every school, the curriculum is up to date, challenging, and as well-resourced as possible. Nothing creates the positive impact of a good teacher, but a well-thought-out curriculum comes a close second.

The review body brings forward some valuable and interesting data:

• 37% of state-funded schools had no entries in D&T in 2024/25
• The schools least likely to offer D&T are Free Schools (57% not offering), Sponsor Led Academies (52%), Foundation Mainstream schools (that have to teach NC) (35%), Voluntary Aided (31%) and Community Schools (22%). All data from 2024/25
• Interestingly, but perhaps not surprisingly, 17% of students surveyed in an Omnibus Survey 2022/23 stated they wanted to study D&T at GCSE in their school but it wasn't offered, this is the highest percentage return of all subjects in the survey and at least someway rejects the theory that students don't see the relevance in our subject so don't select it at GCSE and beyond.

The report also highlights some alarming socio-economic and SEND data related to our subject. In 2024/25, 60% of state-funded schools in the lowest socio-economic zones and with the highest proportion of disadvantaged students had no entries at GCSE. This is stark when compared with only 17% of schools with the most advantaged students, where there were no GCSE entries.

The above is of genuine concern. Our vision statement at the Association is to ensure that every student who wants to study design and technology has the opportunity to do so. Based upon the data presented, we still have a lot of work to do!

D&T Recommendations

• The D&T subject aims need to be rewritten to be more aspirational (one of our key requests from the Review Team). Focus on the subject's distinct body of knowledge and capabilities with a particular focus on KS3.
• Refine the D&T curriculum and GCSE content to:
  • Explicitly include how to achieve sustainable resolutions to design challenges
  • Embed the teaching of social responsibility and inclusive design explicitly within the curriculum, as appropriate to the key stage, throughout the design process.
  • Support the development of critical decision-making skills around material selection.
  • Ensure that realising designs remains integral to pupils' experiences of D&T. (We will always have an element of 'hands-on' making within our curriculum).

Summary

We presented the thoughts and concerns of our members in our initial response, and across many meetings held over the last sixteen months, it is encouraging to see that the review team has heard you and responded positively. Some of our main issues fall outside the Review Teams' remit (for example, a severe lack of suitably qualified staff) and instead lie with the DfE; rest assured that we are working on this. In many ways, the hard work starts now. We endorse the vast majority of the Review Teams recommendations, and now, as they say, the devil is in the details.

Cooking and Nutrition

The food teaching sector cited issues with carousel delivery and strongly lobbied the Curriculum Assessment and Review Team to uncouple food teaching from D&T. A 2023 survey of teachers (with a high response rate, we believe) carried out by the Food Teachers Centre reported a massive 73.5% of teachers who replied wanted to be in a standalone subject.

The Review Team has not recommended this, citing the pressures on curriculum time and the additional burden this might place on schools.

Whilst we respect the views of the large number of food teachers who expressed a wish to decouple from D&T, I was personally concerned that decoupling might weaken a subject that, in our opinion, is essential for all young people. We at the Design & Technology Association will continue to work with all related parties to create a new and stronger identity for food teaching within the National Curriculum.

The Recommendations are

• At KS1 to KS3, cooking and nutrition (under a new suggested name) will remain part of the Design and Technology (D&T) Programme of Study.
• At KS4, GCSE Food Preparation and Nutrition is a separate qualification and not part of the Design and Technology (D&T) entitlement.
• The removal of Level 3 qualifications in 2016 has reduced progression pathways, and the Review Team has recommended that this be investigated by the DfE and possibly rectified by the introduction of V Levels.
• It is recommended that, in the interest of clarity, the name of the subject field be changed to Food and Nutrition.
• A recommendation has been made that suggestions that the Programmes of Study are under-specified (especially at KS3) is looked into and detail added where deemed necessary.

Related data

• In 2024/25, 46% of state-funded schools entered students for GCSE Food Preparation and Nutrition.
• Since 2010/11, teaching time within this subject field has remained consistent across schools, averaging at 0.7 to 0.8% of all hours taught.

Concluding statement

We commend Becky Francis and her team on a challenging job, approached diligently and with an approach that was very much 'listen first, act later'. We are generally pleased with the recommendations made concerning our subject and look forward to working with the DfE and others to further develop this report and help schools implement it across England. The hard work starts now!

Tony Ryan

Chief Executive Officer