Changes to curriculum and assessment in England “will ripple across the world”, says Colin Bell, chief executive of the Council of British International Schools (Cobis).

This is why he argues that the international schools sector must be given “due consideration” by the current government review that aims to breathe new life into England’s “outdated curriculum and assessment system”.

British-orientated curricula - Cambridge International and the English national curriculum - are the most popular among the growing number of international schools worldwide, Bell explains, offered by roughly 44 per cent of the sector’s schools.

Worldwide there are now more than 14,500 international schools, according to the most up-to-date figures from ISC Research, the body that claims to have the most comprehensive and current data on the sector.

However, there is no room for complacency about the wider use of British curricula.

England’s curriculum in international schools

ISC Research data also shows that, while there have been substantial increases in uptake of both the International Baccalaureate (IB) and Cambridge International curricula over the past five years, there has been more of a levelling out in terms of English curriculum uptake.

“The main trend that we are seeing from schools is the growing preference for international-facing curricula over national curricula,” says a spokesperson for ISC Research.

“Cambridge and IB qualifications are recognised globally, and parents show an increased desire for their children to have the option to study at universities abroad.”

Demand for the English curriculum is still growing, says ISC Research, particularly in East Asia, though at a slower global rate compared with Cambridge and the IB. Most strikingly, between 2018 and 2023 ISC recorded 300 per cent growth in the number of schools offering the Cambridge curriculum in Latin America.

More on the curriculum and assessment review:

• Interim report: all you need to know
• Becky Francis: We’ll resist ‘non-educationalists’ who want revolution
• Policy: What the curriculum and assessment review will and won’t do

Cobis’ calls for change to England’s curriculum and assessment predate the Labour government’s review, which was announced in July 2024.

In 2023 the organisation wrote to Gillian Keegan, who was then education secretary, saying “significant elements” of the system were “not fit for purpose” and highlighting the need for “redesign and reform”. Cobis criticised an “overloaded” curriculum and an assessment system that was “heavily reliant on high-stakes examinations”.

It made the case for the introduction of portfolios of assessment to allow students to “showcase their work from a range of assessments and experiences throughout their education”.

Cobis also argued for “a smaller number of modernised relevant subjects”, enriched by “an integrated extracurricular programme of performing, creative and visual arts, sport, outdoor education, leadership development and life skills”.

The organisation’s submission to the review of curriculum and assessment - which ran a call for evidence from September to November last year - reiterated these proposals and included a copy of the letter sent to Keegan.

Bell tells Tes that aspects of the English national curriculum have “not changed for years”. And the way that assessments are taken in England - which often involves sitting writing at a desk for hours - does not really reflect “neurodiversity and the real world”, he says.

Bell talks of change aimed at “keeping that competitive edge…for the express benefit of students”.

However, the extent to which international schools’ wishes are on the radar of the curriculum and assessment review team - chaired by Becky Francis, chief executive of the Education Endowment Foundation - remains to be seen.

The interim report

The review team today published its interim report outlining its initial findings and insights.

The report came after the interviews for this article were conducted, but chimes with the issues raised by school leaders.

It refers to “the imbalance between breadth and depth of content” in some subjects; the finding that some subjects have “thrived” while others have “declined”; and the need to improve the quality of provision for young people who do not study A levels or T levels.

However, the report also makes it clear that the review will be sticking to its “widely welcomed” promise of “evolution not revolution”. It favours taking “a balanced and cautious approach”; for example, it says the assessment system is “broadly working well” and that “the mainstay of existing arrangements” will be retained.

The review’s full report is due in the autumn of this year.

Cobis has been seeking a meeting with the review team but to date has been unsuccessful - although review group member Vanessa Ogden, CEO of the Mulberry Schools Trust, will attend the Cobis annual conference in London in May.

The ‘soft power’ of the international sector

Bell, meanwhile, continues to make the case for deeper engagement with international schools by emphasising the “soft power” of the sector. Roughly 80 per cent of the students educated in international schools are non-British nationals, which he says is “a massive pool” of students and families who are likely in the future to be “very influential”.

“Whether that’s in terms of politics, investments, innovation, tech, you name it, these children are going to be leaders in so many different fields,” Bell adds. “And so by providing high-quality British education, which has a real focus on safeguarding and child protection, then these youngsters will most likely have a positive disposition to the UK long term when they leave school, go to university, get jobs and become parents.”

Bell also points out that following a British curriculum could influence students’ choice of university, bringing in much-needed revenue to UK higher education, where even world-renowned Russell Group institutions such as the University of Edinburgh have been frank about the “severe” financial difficulties they are facing.

In a statement at the end of February, the university’s principal and vice-chancellor, Sir Peter Mathieson, said “tough decisions and bold actions” would be required to plug a £140 million hole in its finances.

‘It is always good to review, but a review should not automatically mean change’

This, he said, had been caused by inflation, “steeply rising utilities prices” and “recent unexpected announcements on National Insurance contributions” - but also “a reduction in the attractiveness of the UK as a destination for international students”.

Research released by Cambridge University Press and Assessment last year showed that the UK, the US, Canada and Australia remained the most common international destinations for university study for students with Cambridge International AS- and A-level qualifications.

However, other countries were growing in popularity, including the Netherlands (for European students) and France (for North American students). As local education options improved, the research said, a growing number of students in Asia were choosing to stay at domestic universities.

In short, the long-term credibility of the English curriculum in the international sector seems more important than ever if a steady flow of students from international schools to UK universities is to be maintained.

What international schools want

So, what are the key messages for the review team from international schools?

Firstly, it is important to point out that the sector is highly diverse, so inevitably there is a range of views. Bell emphasises this but says he believes there is a majority in favour of reform - hence the Cobis letter in 2023.

International school leaders who spoke to Tes gave the review a cautious welcome.

Chris Woolf is senior international director at Wellington College International, which supports and quality-assures eight international schools.

He says the review promises a “broader, richer, cutting-edge curriculum”. “Who wouldn’t want that?” he asks.

A curriculum with “a truly international perspective would benefit everyone”, Woolf says. As a former head of English, he says he was disappointed in the previous curriculum review because of “the retreat from the richness of texts from around the world”.

Woolf adds: “A curriculum that reflects the world in which our students live will certainly give them a much better chance of flourishing in it.”

However, he cautions against “change for the sake of change”.

‘Education remains one of Britain’s greatest cultural exports’

This is echoed by Mark Leppard, headmaster of The British School Al Khubairat, chair of British Schools in the Middle East and a board member of The Heads’ Conference (HMC): “It is always good to review, but a review should not automatically mean change. It should also identify successes in the current system. It should be long term and not aimed to win votes but to ensure a knowledge-based economy.”

Leppard would like to see a broader range of assessment methods beyond exams, while “maintaining integrity”; recognition of students’ wider achievements; more room for creative subjects such as music, art, drama and modern foreign languages; and more of an emphasis on the “skills and qualities required by future employers”, including presentation skills, proficiency with technology and entrepreneurial skills.

He stresses that schools will need time to implement any recommendations, and warns that changes “must not negatively impact the children”.

The importance of collaboration

Tomas Duckling and Dee Saran, headmaster and deputy head (respectively) at Dubai College, both make a similar point.

Saran, who is responsible for learning and teaching, says teachers in the sector are looking for the government to work quickly but also allow “enough time for quality implementation”.

Duckling stresses the importance of the government liaising with the sector, saying school education “remains one of Britain’s greatest and most impactful cultural exports, and we are the custodians for that”.

From the review they want “high standards” to be retained but “balance” in terms of content “to allow for depth as well as breadth”.

Saran adds: “As evidence-based educators, we are hoping for the integration of key skills like oracy and the science of learning. The biggest hope is for reform to create an assessment system that accurately captures each student’s strengths and the curriculum’s breadth - all of which needs to be achieved without diluting its ambition and ensuring that practices consider inclusivity.”

‘Evolution, not revolution’

International schools will, of course, be under no obligation to implement the changes that come out of the review. However, Leppard points out that there are limits to this flexibility.

“As an international school, we do have greater freedom but it must align with preparing students for the public exams. So we need to be mindful that our afforded flexibility does not prevent preparation for assessment, university or career access.”

Some of what international school leaders want chimes with what Francis has promised the review will deliver. She wants “evolution not revolution”, to “build on the existing relative strengths” of the current system and not to “seek to fix things that are not broken”. She said she would be mindful of “the practicalities of implementation” and “additional workload for education staff”.

All these commitments are reiterated in the review’s interim report, published today.

However, Francis has also promised that the review “will be undertaken in close consultation”.

This much is sure: international schools are ready and highly willing to make their voices heard during a review of curriculum and assessment that will make waves far beyond British shores.