The Curriculum and Assessment Review promised evolution, not revolution. Its primary recommendations feel careful and pragmatic, but as Tiffnie Harris asks, do they truly rise to the scale of reform many schools believe is overdue?

Under the microscope

A system that works – mostly

Published in November last year, the final report of the Curriculum and Assessment Review (tinyurl.com/saaththn) landed with a reassuring tone. Echoing the interim report (tinyurl.com/mr4a9ef9), the review panel concluded that the primary assessment system is broadly working well, particularly in its focus on foundational skills. Reading, writing, and maths, the report argues, remain the essential building blocks for children’s future success in education and life.

That confidence shaped recommendations that some have described as sensible and measured, and others as decidedly safe. At Key Stage 1, the Phonics Screening Check is set to remain. The panel reaffirmed its value as an early indicator of decoding skills, while acknowledging that the check does not work equally well for all pupils. For non-verbal and pre-verbal children, access can be inconsistent, leading to uneven support. The recommendation that the DfE and the Standards and Testing Agency (STA) explore alternative approaches to assess progress for this small group is welcome, if limited in ambition.

The second Key Stage 1 recommendation concerns the optional end of KS1 assessments. Although no longer statutory, the panel advised that they should continue to be available and that schools should be encouraged to make greater use of them. This reflects a belief that teacher judgement, supported by national materials, still has a valuable role to play, even as accountability pressures have eased.

Tweaks at Key Stage 2, not transformation

At Key Stage 2, the review again concluded that existing arrangements are largely effective, while identifying areas for improvement. One recommendation focuses on refining access arrangements for the Multiplication Tables Check, particularly for pupils with specific SEND needs who currently find the format inaccessible. As with phonics, the direction of travel is towards adjustment rather than replacement.

Writing assessment attracted more substantial attention. The panel proposed an improved teacher assessment framework with a clearer focus on writing fluency, alongside a replacement for the current grammar, punctuation, and spelling test. The amended assessment would retain some familiar elements but introduce new tasks designed to better capture composition and the applied use of grammar and punctuation. Alongside this, the report calls for a review of external moderation and stronger peer moderation between schools, aiming to improve consistency without adding unnecessary burden.

The government published its response to the final report on the same day (tinyurl.com/3bhkv7d3), broadly accepting the direction of travel and setting out a longer-term timetable for change. For primary schools, the response included commitments that go beyond assessment mechanics. A new oracy framework is promised, intended to ensure pupils leave Key Stage 2 as confident speakers and listeners. Writing assessment is set to shift further towards fluency, and every child will be entitled to enrichment opportunities within and beyond the school day.

There are also sharper accountability signals. The government restated its ambition for 90% of pupils to meet the expected standard in the Phonics Screening Check by the end of Year 1, alongside a reinforced expectation that all primary schools use a systematic synthetic phonics programme. A new statutory requirement to teach citizenship in Key Stages 1 and 2 adds to an already crowded curriculum.

For many school leaders, the central question is not whether assessment functions, but whether it inspires improvement. By choosing incremental change, the review arguably prioritises stability over boldness. Supporters welcome reduced disruption after years of reform, while critics argue that workload, inclusion, and curriculum breadth demanded braver thinking. The tension between assurance and ambition runs through every recommendation, leaving primary leaders weighing reassurance against the lingering sense of unfinished business. That unresolved debate will shape how the proposals are received in classrooms, staffrooms, and communities nationwide over time.

The revised National Curriculum is due to be published by spring 2027, with first teaching from September 2028. Whether this evolutionary approach proves sufficient remains contested. Over the coming months, ASCL will respond to government consultations, and members are encouraged to share their views and experiences through our Tell Us inbox (tellus@ascl.org.uk)

Tiffnie Harris
ASCL Primary and Data Specialist
@tiffharris.bsky.social

Designed with IMPACT

© 2026 Association of School and College Leaders | Valid XHTML | Contact us