Curriculum and assessment review to consider reducing number of GCSE exams

A review will consider reducing the “volume of assessment” at GCSE following concerns about the pressure that exams can place on pupils.

The interim report of the independent curriculum and assessment review has said it will consider whether the English Baccalaureate (EBacc) – a Government performance measure for schools in England – remains “effective”.

The review said it will ensure the curriculum is “inclusive” so children can see themselves represented in their learning and to help challenge discrimination.

The Labour Government launched a review of curriculum and assessment in schools and colleges – chaired by education expert Professor Becky Francis – just weeks after winning the general election in July.

The interim report, published on Tuesday, sets out the areas of focus for its final report which will make recommendations in the autumn.

“A frequently raised concern is the impact of an intensive, high-stakes assessment system on wellbeing, due to the pressure that exams can place on students,” the report said.

The review’s polling of young people found that half of those who completed their GCSE exams or assessments in summer 2024 found it difficult (41%) or very difficult (10%) to cope with stress during the exam period.

The report added that there have also been concerns that exams – coupled with the volume of content needing to be covered and their use in accountability measures – can lead to “teaching to the test” in some cases.

It said pupils in England “typically sit between 24 and 31 hours of exams” in Year 11, which is comparable with Singapore, but significantly more than other high-performing jurisdictions like Ireland (16 hours).

But it has ruled out fundamentally changing the number of subjects that students study or are assessed on at GCSE.

The review also suggested that the EBacc may “constrain the choice of students, impacting their engagement and achievement, and limiting their access to, and the time available for, vocational and arts subjects.”

The EBacc – a performance measure of schools which aims to ensure pupils take English, maths, science, a humanities subject and a language at GCSE – was introduced in 2010 under former education secretary Michael Gove.

The review heard that the EBacc was one of two “main barriers to achieving breadth and balance” at GCSE.

The interim report said: “The intention behind the EBacc to improve access to a comprehensive, academic curriculum for all should be acknowledged, but as the review progresses, we will also consider whether this remains the most effective means of achieving this objective.”

It comes after education unions have called for the EBacc to be scrapped.

In a speech to the annual conference of the Association of School and College Leaders (ASCL) in Liverpool on Saturday, Prof Francis suggested that teaching time for some subjects – including the arts, design and technology and computing and ICT – in schools had reduced during the GCSE years.

But Prof Francis, chief executive of the Education Endowment Foundation (EEF) charity, told headteachers at the weekend that existing national assessments and qualifications – including standard assessment tests (Sats) in primary schools, GCSEs, A-levels and T-levels – were “broadly working well”.

But it said it will examine how the assessment of writing in Year 6 “can be improved to support high and rising standards”, and it will review concerns about the grammar, punctuation and spelling assessment.

In September, Prof Francis launched a call for evidence on the curriculum and assessment system and the panel received more than 7,000 responses.

The panel heard concerns about exam resits for pupils who did not secure a pass in their maths and English GCSEs “being expected repeatedly and rapidly”.

Students in England are currently funded to retake maths and/or English until they achieve at least a grade 4 – which is considered a “standard pass”.

The panel concluded that the funding policy is “not yet fully delivering its intended purpose”.

The review said 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.

The interim report from the panel said the rise of artificial intelligence (AI) and trends in digital information “demand heightened media literacy and critical thinking”, as well as digital skills.

It added that global social and environmental challenges “require attention to scientific and cultural knowledge and skills” in the curriculum that can equip students to meet the challenges of the future.

Prof Francis said: “I have learnt much from our data analysis and research, and from the fantastic response to our call for evidence.

“The review panel and I have a clear picture of the present state of the curriculum and assessment system.

“We have a deep understanding of where the key challenges lie and where our efforts to improve the system will see the best result in ensuring all young people are able to achieve and thrive.

“This evidence gives us confidence in embarking on the next stage of the review which will see us do further analysis on these issues, including subject content.”

Shadow education secretary Laura Trott said: “Soft bigotry of low expectations is back.

“In moving away from examinations and towards coursework, qualifications will be less rigorous and less credible.”

Pepe Di’Iasio, general secretary of the ASCL, said: “A number of important areas of focus have been identified for the next stage of the review.

“It is useful for there to be further consideration of the impact of performance measures, including the English Baccalaureate, on young people’s choices and outcomes.”

He added: “Our hope is that the EBacc will be scrapped and more done to facilitate the studying of creative subjects that have suffered since its introduction.”

Paul Whiteman, general secretary of school leaders’ union NAHT, said: “NAHT are pleased that the negative impact of the EBacc, the excessive volume of assessment from GCSEs,, the ineffective resit policy and the need for a range of vocational and technical qualifications post 16 are all acknowledged and will be subject to further exploration.”

But he added that school leaders will be “disappointed” by the lack of plans to reduce Sats tests for pupils.

Mr Whiteman said: “This is a missed opportunity to reduce the negative impacts, costs and resources required for phonics, the multiplication check and the grammar, punctuation and spelling tests, as well as the costs and time associated with these.

“Scrapping these unnecessary tests will not reduce standards.”