The announcement of a government review into assessment and curriculum led by Professor Becky Francis has been met with a flurry of excited conversations across the sector.

While I cannot deny there is something energising about rethinking what we teach and how we measure that - I am reminded too of Aesop’s fable: be careful what you wish for.

Because, how many of our current woes are a result of part over-zealous ideology and part unintended consequences that came from past curriculum review?

Past problems

Chiefly, the 2015 reforms enacted by Michael Gove led to changes in maths and English that quickly led to harder content and assessment in all subjects, along with linear over modular examination, number grading over letters, reduced coursework components and reduced opportunity for tiered entry.

Furthermore, we then had the English Baccalaureate ambition in 2017 for 90 per cent compliance by 2025 - which led many schools to funnel pupils towards certain subjects and away from others.

The wholesale changes undoubtedly had impact - not least in England’s PISA scores that the government was happy to take credit for.

But these changes, coupled with what many have said were pernicious performance measures, have driven behaviours in the system and outcomes for students - not always for the better.

For example, as early as 2017, an Education Policy Institute report showed KS4 entries to arts subjects had declined over previous years - with the 2016 entry rate the lowest of the decade.

Inequality and inconsistency exposed

Then in 2019, a Sutton Trust report Making the Grade showed pupils entering fewer GCSEs since the 2015 reforms, grades for disadvantaged pupils falling by a quarter of a grade compared to wealthier peers, and just one per cent of poorer pupils achieving a top grade of 9, compared to 5 per cent of non-disadvantaged pupils.

In the same year, the Association of School and College Leaders commissioned the Forgotten Third Inquiry drawing attention to the students who do not achieve at least a grade 4 standard pass in GCSE English and maths after 12 years of schooling.

This recurring third of 16-year-olds, they stated, was not an accident but the product of a system of comparable outcomes. Thus, even before Covid-19, skies were clouding over Gove’s aspirational curriculum.

But post-Covid they have only darkened, as inequality widened and inconsistency has been exposed. Concerns were clearly articulated in the House of Lords committee findings in 2023 on 11-16 education which, it declared, “Requires Improvement”.

Given all this, it is easy to see why plans to review both have been put forward by Labour as an early policy move - and been broadly welcomed.

What needs to change

This is something Headteachers’ Roundtable members have been thinking about already, with our pre-election listening exercise that fed into our Making it Possible manifesto, reflecting clear messages for any potential curriculum changes. Chiefly:

• No rebound from knowledge to a false dichotomy focus on skills.
• No third of students failing maths and English without a positive post-16 pathway.
• No to >28 high-stakes exams in Year 11 that fail to consider the mental health crisis affecting young people.
• No pernicious performance measures and accountability approaches that drive leaders’ behaviours and negatively impact on young people.

Alongside a clear call for consultation and collaboration, were clear curriculum priorities:

• GCSE content can be reduced without creating workload or compromising academic quality.
• Replacing the current criteria game, which often demoralises teachers and students in subjects like English and history GCSE, with an integrity of academic approach.
• Broader approaches to subjects included in the EBacc.
• Sensible approaches to vocational qualifications that do not restrict future choices.
• An assessment/examination system that works inclusively for students without additional workload in design, delivery or cost.

While such changes will hopefully be considered in the review, we must ensure we also avoid another set of unintended consequences by ushering in new ideas without proper consideration - and remain mindful of the workload implications that come with changes to curriculum and exam systems.

Key questions

Ultimately, there are two questions within this debate: one about the nature and purpose of GCSEs as an examination, and one about the content of the curriculum - they are not the same thing.

Equally, in a high-stakes accountability system, we focus on what is measured so this conversation can also not be divorced from that agenda. We must decide what is valued, by whom and how. That’s what drives behaviours that impact students’ and teachers’ workload and wellbeing.

That’s not easy, but if we want real change then we need to think hard and engage in our responsibility to take part in conversations about curriculum while being mindful of past missteps.

A promise of evolution not revolution, a collaborative approach and Professor Francis’s track record for a focus on inequality, makes for a promising start.

Caroline Barlow is vice-chair of the Headteachers’ Roundtable

For the latest education news and analysis delivered directly to your inbox every weekday morning, sign up to the Tes Daily newsletter