½¿É«µ¼º½

The election of a Labour government in the UK in July 2024 heralded optimism that some serious problems with England’s national curriculum and assessment system, evident since 2014, would finally be addressed (Wyse et al., 2024). Although the parameters for the review include the idea of changes through ‘evolution not revolution’^[1] this surely cannot mean not modifying the primary curriculum where there is a demonstrable need to do so. Having read the from the Curriculum and Assessment Review panel, published in March 2025, I wonder if the optimism still exists?

There are some promising signs in the report. For example, there is recognition that there is too much curriculum content to be delivered during primary education. There is also recognition that the statutory test of Grammar, Punctuation and Spelling (SPAG) may not be the best way to assess children’s writing. The report also sets out a series of principles that reflect aspects that will get further attention in the final report. But overall, the report is marked by the limits it places on what is likely to change, and a lack of specific details about the responses to the call for evidence, and their analyses. Hopefully all the consultation responses will be published in full including records of meetings with key stakeholders, and the methods used for analyses of responses, otherwise it is unlikely that there will be trust in the outcomes (Haviland, 1988; Wyse, 2013).

‘The interim report is marked by the limits it places on what is likely to change, and a lack of specific details about the responses to the call for evidence, and their analyses.’

Of particular concern is the lack of specific attention to primary education, compared with other phases of education. What is more, the decision by the government to exclude early years from the remit of the curriculum review remains unexplained and is a lost opportunity. The overall proposal in the interim report to move next to an emphasis on curriculum subjects risks neglect of cross-curricula aspects, such as oral language and creativity, that urgently need attention.

Conceptual framing for the review

Of likely interest to many ½¿É«µ¼º½ members is the published alongside the interim report. This concept paper was written to set out the ‘practical’ framing for decisions made so far by the review, described as a ‘philosophical approach … informed by [the work of] Joseph Schwab’. Although the addition of a theoretical framing is welcome per se, what is not made clear is why Schwab’s curriculum concept paper from 1969 was selected in preference to a myriad of other publications that address curriculum in theory and in practice. There is a breadth of more recent scholarship in curriculum studies, including from a range of academics in the UK, which could have been drawn on for a more balanced and consultative conceptual position. ½¿É«µ¼º½â€™s recent book on curriculum is an example of one such range (Czerniawski et al., 2024).

In the concept paper, the work of John Dewey is also cited, minimally, but in support of maintaining the idea of ‘powerful knowledge’. Dewey’s emphasis – that education of young children is about centring on the child and the experiences of life that they bring to the classroom – is absent from the report. Dewey was clear that an undue emphasis on either knowledge or the child was not appropriate because it was in the carefully balanced interaction of these two elements that the most effective education takes place. At the moment, the attention of the interim report is very much on predetermined knowledge that will be required to be taught in schools, with no emphasis on the knowledge and development that is part of children’s lives outside of school, or what their preferences for learning might be, and how these might productively be built on, through a more agentic approach to curriculum and pedagogy.

Having too much curriculum content to cover is seen by the authors of the report as a problem, particularly for pupils aged 5 to 11 (Key Stages 1 and 2). This has been a persistent problem for primary education each time the national curriculum has been reviewed since 1988. In my view, one of the main reasons for content overload in the 2014 curriculum is the approach that is taken to knowledge. The review (p. 5) says that ‘the present national curriculum is a knowledge-rich offer, and international comparisons suggest that the present arrangements have had a positive impact on attainment’. But international comparisons clearly show that other conceptions of national curricula can have even more positive impact on attainment. What’s more, these alternatives can also place much greater emphasis on aspects such as creativity, something which, surprisingly, does not get attention in the proposed next steps for the review, nor does the much hoped for emphasis on children’s oral language. A further interpretation of Dewey’s contribution was the importance he placed on language, not only in education, but also more generally, in relation to his view of philosophy (Wyse, 2017).

The lack of explicit attention, in both the concept paper and the interim review, to curriculum theories rooted in empirical evidence specifically related to primary education (apart from some attention to a recently published view of learning science) is of concern.

The place of knowledge in the curriculum

Whether we call the approach ‘knowledge-rich’, as the review does, or ‘knowledge-based’, as I and my colleague do (Manyukhina & Wyse, 2025), the problem is how curriculum content is conceived. The review needs to take seriously the idea that the particular conceptual focus on knowledge in England’s current national curriculum is part of the problem regarding curriculum content overload for primary education.

‘The review needs to take seriously the idea that the particular conceptual focus on knowledge in England’s current national curriculum is part of the problem regarding curriculum content overload for primary education.’

One country worthy of international attention for its national curriculum developments is Ireland,^[2] which has consistently performed better than England in the same kinds of international comparative studies mentioned in the review. Ireland’s approach to curriculum review has, historically, been significantly different to England’s approach. In particular, change has happened less frequently, but of particular importance are the processes of change. Ireland’s is remarkable for many reasons but, in particular, because the new primary curriculum framework is driven by a set of principles, informed by the comprehensive approach to research evidence and consultation that drive the developments. Teachers’ and children’s agency are a vital and explicit component of these principles, whereas in England’s interim report, pupil or teacher agency is not mentioned.

The admirable aim of addressing the problem of curriculum overload has not so far identified much greater teacher agency over the curriculum as one way to address this issue. With much less prescription, and with more capacity for schools to create curricula that represent their communities, the emphases in curriculum content could be managed more effectively by teachers. What’s more, children’s experiences out of school, their motivations for learning, and the need for them to acquire skills, values and knowledge for their future lives could all be better addressed through changes to the curriculum that enable teacher and pupil agency.

Conclusion

In conclusion, perhaps the review team could look back at a previous review undertaken by Sir Jim Rose, who clearly saw a key risk that has not so far been averted:

‘Throughout, the review has tried to capture the distinctiveness of the primary phase and to ensure it is recognised as more than a postscript to the Early Years Foundation Stage (EYFS) and a prelude to secondary education.’ (Rose, 2009 p.9)

Want to know more?

For those readers who would like to know more about possibilities for curriculum policy, practice and research an international hybrid seminar will take place on 24 June 2025 (you can register here: ). Speakers are Tracy Curren (National Council for Curriculum and Assessment, Ireland), Rebcca Jackson (Cragside Primary School, Newcastle), Susan O’Neil (UCL Institute of Education) and Mark Priestly (University of Stirling).

The seminar also includes the launch of a new open-access book based on a three-year study of England’s national curriculum funded by the Leverhulme Trust: Children’s Agency and the National Curriculum: The Promise of Structured Freedom (Yana Manyukhina and Dominic Wyse. Routledge).

[1] The final chapter of the book The Balancing Act, is where this phrase first appears in relation to curriculum policies: ‘As we wrote this in 2023, evolution of the curriculum in England, rather than revolution, looked like a potentially bold policy for an ambitious new government’ (Wyse & Hacking, 2024, p. 248).

[2] Since 2020 I have been an advisor for Ireland’s primary curriculum developments, working for the Irish National Council for Curriculum and Assessment with Louise Hayward, James Spillane and Thomas Walsh.

References

Czerniawski, G., Jones, S., Holmes-Henderson, A., Pountney, R., Pugh, V.-M., & Yang, W. (Eds.). (2024). Curriculum in a changing world: 50 think pieces on education, policy, practice, innovation & inclusion. British Educational Research Association. /publication/curriculum-in-a-changing-world

Haviland, J. (1988). Take care, Mr Baker! Fourth Estate.

Manyukhina, Y., & Wyse, D. (2025). Children’s agency and the curriculum: The promise of structured freedom. Routledge.

Rose, J. (2009). Independent review of the primary curriculum: Final report. Department for Children Schools and Families.

Schwab, J. (1969). The practical: A language for curriculum. The School Review, 78, 1–23.

Wyse, D. (2013). What are consultations for? Institute of Education Blog.

Wyse, D. (2017). How writing works: From the invention of the alphabet to the rise of social media. Cambridge University Press.

Wyse, D., Bradbury, A., Manyukhina, Y., & Ranken, E. (2024). Briefing paper: The future of primary education in England: In the hands of a new government. Institute of Education, University College London.

Wyse, D., & Hacking, C. (2024). The balancing act: An evidence-based approach to teaching phonics, reading and writing. Routledge.