A core national curriculum, mandatory for all state schools until the age of 16, focused on what we collectively agree are the most important things children and young people should know and do. This is relatively stable, with regular but infrequent opportunities for review. Young people can branch off into different pathways as they get older. These pathways are all of a high quality, and can be combined and moved between.

WHAT WOULD THIS LOOK LIKE IN PRACTICE?
The national curriculum for early years, primary and secondary is reviewed on a cyclical basis, approximately every ten years. The review body includes school leaders, governors, teachers, parents, researchers, industry representatives and politicians from all major parties. The review body is expected to consult widely and meaningfully with a broad range of stakeholders. Sufficient implementation time is built into the cycle to ensure schools and colleges are able to plan and prepare for changes well in advance.

The remit of this review body is to determine a national curriculum focused on a relatively small number of carefully sequenced key concepts, with each phase building on the last. The national curriculum focuses on fewer things in greater depth, prioritising aspects of learning which are particularly important for future success, such as reading and language development. It sets high expectations for all children and young people, including that every pupil should be given the opportunity and support to engage with broad and challenging content. It balances the need to ensure pupils can engage with “the best that has been thought and said” with the importance of recognising the diverse backgrounds, experiences and aspirations of today’s young people. It leaves time and space for individual, or groups of, schools to develop their own local curricula around the core national curriculum.

There are clear national expectations for children and young people who are unable to access the core curriculum, but are nevertheless equally entitled to a high-quality curriculum, suited to their needs.

The national curriculum is mandatory for all state schools, for students up to the age 16. A small amount of specialisation is permitted from Year 9 or 10, to enable students to start to pursue particular interests, but all students should still be expected to follow a broad and challenging curriculum up to 16, including a range of academic and vocational subjects. The curriculum review body determines which subjects must be studied until 16, and which could be optional from Year 9 or 10.

At 16, students are able to pursue different routes. These could be exclusively ‘academic’, exclusively ‘vocational’, or a combination of the two. All routes are of a high quality. Students receive high-quality careers advice and guidance throughout their education, and particularly when determining their post-16 pathway.

HOW CLOSE ARE WE TO ACHIEVING THIS?
The last couple of years have seen a period of relative curriculum stability (Covid-related disruption notwithstanding), after an extensive period of reform. This is enabling those reforms to bed in, and is starting to give schools and colleges time to think reflectively, rather than simply trying to keep up.

However, we lack a national consensus around the content of the current national curriculum, and any agreed mechanism for review. This leaves stakeholders who have concerns about the current curriculum with no clear avenue to express those concerns and advocate for change. It also compromises stability, with little to discourage policymakers from instigating major change when they come into power.

The current national curriculum is crowded, with equal weight given to aspects of learning which are crucial to future success, and those which are more peripheral. This (together with the impact of assessment and accountability – see building blocks 3 and 5) can lead to an overfocus on ‘curriculum coverage’ to the detriment of deep learning, and a lack of time to ensure that crucial knowledge and skills, such as those involved in reading and language development, are mastered. This is particularly damaging for children from more disadvantaged backgrounds, who are less likely to acquire such knowledge and skills outside of school, and can lock them into a downward spiral as they increasingly struggle to engage with the curriculum.

We also lack a clear sense of national expectations for children and young people who are unable to access the national curriculum.

The current curriculum lacks coherence between early years and primary, and between primary and secondary. This limits the progress pupils make, and can lead to a lack of engagement.

The fact that the national curriculum is not compulsory in academies creates a two-tier system. While, to a significant extent, the curriculum is driven by national assessments at primary and qualification specifications at secondary (a problem in itself – see building block 3) and therefore major deviation from the national curriculum is unlikely, it remains problematic that more than half of pupils in England attend schools which are not formally required to follow the national curriculum.

There is an entrenched undervaluing of vocational and technical education in England, and an unhelpful elevation of the ‘academic’ over the ‘vocational’. Welcome steps have been taken over the last few years to ensure that vocational and technical education is of a high quality, and enables students to progress to a range of destinations, including the introduction of T levels and a rationalisation of the proliferation of vocational and technical qualifications. But the capacity for young people to combine or move between pathways risks being undermined as a result of the planned removal of funding for large numbers of Level 3 qualifications, and careers advice and guidance on different pathways remains extremely patchy.

WHAT CHANGES WOULD WE LIKE TO SEE HAPPEN IN THE NEXT FIVE YEARS TO CREATE OR STRENGTHEN THIS BUILDING BLOCK?

A curriculum review body should be established which includes school leaders, governors, teachers, subject experts, parents, researchers, industry representatives, and politicians from all major parties. Its remit should be to determine a core national curriculum for early years, primary and secondary, focused on a relatively small number of carefully sequenced key concepts, with each phase building on the last. It should also set clear national expectations for children and young people who are unable to access the core curriculum, but are nevertheless equally entitled to a high-quality curriculum, suited to their needs.

This should include academies, in order to set a truly national expectation for the core education children and young people are entitled to receive. There should be time and space around the core national curriculum for all schools, or groups of schools, to develop their own local curricula, to suit their context.

This should include a rethink of current proposals to remove the funding for a large number of applied general qualifications (which, unlike T levels, can be studied alongside A levels), and an encouragement to higher education providers to include T levels and other high quality vocational and technical qualifications in their entry criteria.

This should take place at an appropriate level throughout primary, secondary and post-16 education, to open children’s eyes to different possibilities, guide their choices, and ensure a wide range of options remain open to them for as long as possible. It should build on what we know makes a difference to young people’s decision-making, such as having dedicated careers professionals working across a group of schools and colleges, the availability of high-quality online resources, opportunities for young people to be mentored by people in different roles beyond the school or college, and the involvement of parents and carers.

Read the Blueprint