Reforming the educational assessment system

Curriculum and assessment review

England’s national curriculum was last reviewed under the Coalition Government. Alongside this, the way GCSEs and A levels were structured and examined was also reformed. For most subjects, assessment was by exam at the end of the course (‘linear assessments’) and reliance on coursework, or non-exam assessment, was reduced. New curriculum content was introduced in stages from September 2013 onwards. ‘SATs’, or national curriculum assessments in school year six, were also reformed.

On taking office, the Labour Government announced a review of the national curriculum and assessment in England. The aim, it said, was to create “a broader, richer, cutting-edge curriculum that drives high and rising schools’ standards” which “delivers excellent foundations in reading, writing and maths, and ensures every young person gets the opportunity to develop creative, digital, and speaking and listening skills particularly prized by employers.” It would also consider barriers to attainment for disadvantaged groups, including those from socio-economically disadvantaged backgrounds, and learners with special educational needs and disabilities (SEND).

The review is being chaired by Professor Becky Francis and is supported by a review panel. Information on the review’s terms of reference, and panel membership, can be found in a DfE website article.

A short interim report was published in March 2025. Key conclusions included:

• There should be a focus on young people “for whom our current curriculum and assessment system creates barriers to … progress” and on the “stubbornly large” attainment gap between some groups of pupils and others.
• The review would build on and retain the ‘knowledge-rich’ approach of the current curriculum.
• The current system of four key stages is broadly working well and should remain.
• The interim report also judged that both the four key stage structure and current assessments (including end-of-key-stage-2 assessments, known as SATs) were “broadly working well”. However, there were some concerns about the volume of assessments during the GCSE phase, and the assessment of writing at the end of primary school (pdf):

Our polling of young people found 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. Similarly, for those who completed their 16 to 19 exams or assessments in summer 2024, over half of students found it difficult (39%) or very difficult (16%) to cope with the stress during that period.

• In some subjects there was currently an imbalance between breadth and depth of content.
• Some evidence submitted to the review panel claimed that the Ebacc performance measure “may unnecessarily constrain the choice of students, impacting their engagement and achievement, and limiting their access to, and the time available for, vocational and arts subjects.”
• There should also be a focus on digital and media literacy, and critical thinking skills.

The review’s final report is expected to be published in autumn 2025. However, the government has said that it will take several years for the review’s recommendations to be implemented.

Reading check in year eight

A schools white paper outlining reforms to special educational needs and disabilities (SEND) provision, and other education policy changes, is expected in autumn 2025. In September 2025, education journal Schools Week reported that the government would include plans for a new reading check for children at the end of year eight – the second year of secondary school.

A survey by Teacher Tapp found that 23% of classroom teachers slightly or strongly opposed testing reading in year 8, lower than the proportion of head teachers (39% opposing) and slightly lower than the proportion of other senior leaders (27% opposing).

Young Minds: call for reform

In July 2025, young people’s mental health charity, Young Minds, launched a report, Missing the Mark, calling for reforms to SATs, GCSEs and A Levels. According to Young Minds’ survey data:

• 56% of year six children who had undertaken SATs in the summer worried about their abilities for the first time
• 35% said their SATs had made them feel ill
• 28% said their SATs made them feel bad about themselves
• Of GCSE and A Level students, 63% said they’d struggled to cope during their exams, with over half having trouble sleeping and 1 in 8 having suicidal thoughts.

The charity advocates:

• An end to SATs, which it says would be “one way of [easing] unnecessary pressures on young children” and a way to avoid “increasing their likelihood of developing a mental health problem”.
• A more modular, multi-modal approach to GCSE and A Level assessment, with less reliance on assessment by exam at the end of the course. The charity argues this would have mental health benefits, and would also “better replicate real-life scenarios and support young people to develop the skills required for further work and study”

Support for pupils’ mental health

The Department for Education (DfE) publishes guidance for schools and colleges in England on pupils’ mental health and wellbeing.

Since 2018, successive governments have been rolling out mental health support teams (MHSTs) for schools and colleges in England. MHSTs support the mental health needs of children and young people in primary, secondary and further education (ages 5 to 18), providing provide early support on mental health and emotional wellbeing issues. In 2024-25, the Government estimates that 52% of school pupils and FE learners are covered by MHSTs. The ambition is for 100% coverage by 2029-30.

Additionally, the DfE recommends schools appoint a designated senior mental health lead.

Maths and English GCSE resits at 16-19

In 2014, in response to poor literacy and numeracy qualification levels among adults, the Coalition government required students aged 16- to 19-years-old and taking level 3 qualifications to continue to study maths and/or English if they did not achieve at least a grade 4 (a “pass”, or level 2) in their GCSEs.

This requirement is a condition of funding for colleges and other providers, but the policy is more commonly referred to as “maths and English resits” or similar. To meet the condition of funding, a student must study an approved qualification for a minimum number of teaching hours (100 hours in 2025/26):

• Full-time students who have a GCSE grade 3 must study towards a maths and/or English GCSE, because these students are closest to achieving a pass at GCSE.
• Part-time students with a GCSE grade 3 can study towards any qualification approved to meet the condition of funding, on their way towards achieving a GCSE grade 9 to 4.
• Students who have a GCSE grade 2 or below can study towards a pass in Functional Skills level 2 or they can still study towards a GCSE grade 9 to 4.

Once a student has achieved an eligible qualification, they are not required to continue studying maths and/or English. There are two exemptions to the funding condition for students with either relevant overseas qualifications or an Education Health and Care Plan.

While retaking exams is not a requirement as part of the condition of funding, there is a general expectation that students will do resits, and the large majority of them do (pdf).

Rationale for the policy

The Department for Education has said “Progress towards and attainment of level 2 maths and English is essential for helping students realise their potential, by allowing them to seize opportunities in life, learning, and work.”

The interim report of the independent review of the curriculum and assessment system in England, which was published in March 2025, said there is clear evidence that achieving a grade 4 in GCSE maths and English has a significant positive impact on adult lives. It went on to note increased levels of numeracy and literacy correlate positively with earnings, employment, health, life satisfaction, and civic engagement.

Employers will often set grade 4 maths and English as an entry requirement for work roles or apprenticeships/training, as will education providers for many level 3 qualifications.

Calls for reform

In 2022, the awarding body AQA published a report on the assessment of maths, English, and digital skills. It argued the condition of funding policy, which it described as a “demoralising and ineffective GCSE resit carousel”, did not work for young people, education providers, and employers, and a new approach was necessary (pdf).

Research published in 2025 by Pearson, an education services company, found that:

• 62% of college students and 58% of college teachers believe resitting the same content makes students feel like they are going backwards, not forwards.
• 65% of students have missed maths or English lessons and/or exams due to anxiety or confidence issues, while only 54% of those facing resits feel motivated to take them.
• 51% of college teachers think the maths specification meets post-16 learners’ needs, while 65% think the same for English.

Pearson has called for English and maths GCSEs designed specifically for post-16 students, with content that feels more relevant for everyday life and that will allow young people to build the relevant skills needed future careers.

The interim report of the curriculum and assessment review said the review panel had heard “strong evidence that a minimum of a grade 4 in English and maths should continue to be the ambition for as many learners as possible”, but also that the condition of funding policy is not fully delivering its intended purpose. The review panel also heard concerns about colleges expecting exam resits being expected repeatedly and rapidly, and that “the experience of multiple resits with no success can have a negative impact on learners’ self-esteem and level of engagement with their studies”.

The interim report said the requirement to study maths and English should remain, but “greater nuance” should be introduced. It said:

Above all, given the relationship between achieving grade 4 and above at GCSE maths and English and access to future opportunities and life chances, we think the expectation for study of maths and English should remain, but with greater nuance in measures to ensure that as many learners as possible can achieve positive outcomes.

Education Committee report

The condition of funding policy is also discussed in the House of Commons Education Committee’s September 2025 report on further education and skills. This noted that while the committee heard support for the policy and that it was having a positive effect on attainment rates, the majority of evidence received was critical, highlighting in particular the strain that resits put on colleges, resources, staff, and students.

The committee recommended the Department for Education should act “to address the resit problem at source by ensuring that more children leave school with sufficient levels of numeracy and literacy”. It also recommended a three-route model for those who have not attained grade 4 GCSE in maths and/or English should be introduced. This would be based on a student’s level of attainment at age 16 and their chosen post-16 qualification or employment pathway:

• Route A: Students who, based on their GCSE results at age 16 and prior attainment, have a realistic prospect of achieving grade 4 in maths and/or English, should be supported to work towards those qualifications.
• Route B: Vocational courses of study, for which the maths and English content required can be easily identified, should have that content built into the curriculum. Students taking courses with embedded maths and English content, which have been rigorously quality assured, may then be considered for exemption from the requirement to resit maths and English GCSE.
• Route C: Students who, based on prior attainment, are very unlikely to attain grade 4 in maths and/or English despite multiple resits and who would benefit from pursuing a functional skills qualification in maths and/or English (for example, focused on financial literacy, debt and interest, and household budgeting) should be supported to achieve a pass in that form of qualification.