The Sutton Trust recently responded to a call for evidence from the government’s Curriculum and Assessment Review. Chaired by Becky Francis, the Chief Executive of the Education Endowment Foundation (EEF), the Review invited respondents to share ideas for potential improvements to the national curriculum and statutory assessment system in England, to ensure they meet the needs of children and young people.

In our response, we stressed how vital it is that the review has a focus on pupils facing socio-economic disadvantage. There are huge socio-economic attainment gaps at all stages of schooling, and it is important that the role of both the curriculum and assessment system are examined in terms of their contributions to these gaps. And as well as gaps in academic attainment, there are also gaps in development of skills vital to the workplace – but which currently sit outside of the curriculum.

The Sutton Trust is urging reform in several areas. A modern and broad curriculum that better develops non-academic skills such as communication, confidence, and motivation, widens access to the creative arts, and embeds careers education throughout, prepares students from all backgrounds for life and work. A diversity of post-16 pathways ensures success for all students, including those currently facing a GCSE “re-sit trap”, not just those taking A Levels. We should also aim to build an assessment system that is both fit for the future in terms of developments in generative AI and minimising socio-economic bias, as well as foster a system of school accountability that has fewer perverse incentives for schools.

Modernising and broadening the curriculum

England is a strong performer in international tests, demonstrating that there are some aspects of the current curriculum and assessment system that are working well, especially with regards to literacy skills.

However, research has consistently shown that more disadvantaged children have lower educational outcomes compared to their peers from wealthier backgrounds. Attainment is the biggest driver of gaps in university progression and has knock-on implications for young people’s careers, and ultimately the chances for social mobility. Although the most important contributors to the gap are income deprivation and inequality, with many wider social factors at play, inequalities within the education system also contribute to the gap. What schools do really matters, including within the curriculum.

One aspect of the current curriculum that should be targeted to better support educational progress for young people is embedding broader ‘life skills’ – such as confidence, motivation, resilience and communication – within the curriculum, as well as recognising these skills in the assessment system. While academic and subject-specific skills and knowledge are vital for young people, it is increasingly clear that these life skills are also needed for educational progress and success, with young people from poorer homes having the least access to opportunities to develop these skills.

Embedding high-quality careers guidance into the curriculum supports students to have the skills and knowledge they need for future study, life and work. This is particularly important for those from disadvantaged backgrounds who have less access to support in negotiating some career pathways.

Studying creative subjects at school is not only a vital step for those looking to access the creative industries later in life, doing so also has numerous wider benefits, including improved engagement and wellbeing. Despite this, while creative subjects like music are on the national curriculum until age 14, other subjects are covered only as sub-sections of other subjects (like drama within English) and uptake of such subjects at both GCSE and A Level is declining.

State schools should be incentivised to offer creative subjects and extracurricular activities. In recent years, the exclusion of creative subjects in the English Baccalaureate (EBacc) is likely to have disincentivised schools from offering these subjects, impacting pupils in the most disadvantaged schools most. Ensuring all students can access creative subjects and wider activities in schools should be a significant part of the ongoing review.

Diversity of post-16 pathways

Maintaining a diverse range of post-16 pathways while also increasing the quality of non-academic routes is a key challenge for this government.

T Levels, while well-intentioned, have suffered from had significant teething problems, and are too unwieldy in their current form to be the vehicle for all vocational and technical education post-16.

Other qualifications should not have their funding withdrawn, but the picture for Vocational and Technical Education 16-19 should be looked at in the round, including level 2 resits, as well as ensuring vital skills like maths competency are developed by learners across the spectrum until the end of their education and training.

Giving all young people a real chance at English and maths

Developing an alternative to repeated English and maths resits is also vital to enable a more constructive approach and to give routes to career progression for those pupils. Finding the balance between enabling progression and awarding a qualification that has currency with employers is the key challenge.

The current policy of compulsory resits in English and maths post-16 is not working, and disproportionately impacts those from lower socio-economic backgrounds. GCSEs have a largely built-in failure rate (despite the impact of the National Reference Test), so a certain number of pupils will fail each year.

Potential solutions to this issue include introducing a criterion referenced assessment, like a maths and English driving licence – where pupils who show the relevant competency are awarded a pass. Alternatively, new adult GCSE qualifications specifically for post-16 candidates could be introduced along the lines of the Mathematics Education Innovation (MEI) proposals, with something similar elaborated for English.

An assessment and accountability system fit for the future

Whether different forms of assessment are equally fair for pupils with different characteristics has generated considerable academic debate.

Although disputed by some, there is much evidence to suggest that written, anonymous externally-marked exams are potentially fairer for pupils from socio-economically disadvantaged backgrounds. Exams are far from perfect, but they are less susceptible to biases found in teacher assessments, coursework-based assessment (which is usually internally marked even if externally set), or oral exams, where contextual factors can all unconsciously influence assessment.

The value of this form of assessment was highlighted during the pandemic. In 2021, when England used teacher-assessed grades, the Sutton Trust found significant variety in the intensity of A Level assessment undertaken by students.

Independent schools were more likely than state schools to use a wider variety of assessments, including giving prior access to questions and ‘open book’ assessments. In addition, nearly a quarter (23%) of teachers at private schools reported that parents had approached or pressured them about their child’s grade, compared to 17% at more affluent state schools and 11% at the least affluent. Grades at independent schools inflated much more than state schools during that time.

Teacher assessments can also underestimate the abilities of disadvantaged students. Biases are widespread, and although this is not being done consciously by teachers, but it is important to keep in mind these issues if high stakes assessments were to incorporate more teacher assessment.

Our preference would be for the assessment regime to continue to prioritise written, anonymous, externally marked exams. Where coursework is desirable, such as for assessing skills not easily tested by a written exam, this would ideally have safeguards in place to minimise unconscious bias and contextual influence.

Also, with generative AI already being used by many people across stages of education, an assessment system must be robust to these developments, while also acknowledging the increasing digital nature of education.

Following the call for evidence, the Review will publish recommendations in 2025. We look forward to engaging with the Review and fellow stakeholders in the next stage of the Review.