The government’s 2025 response to Professor Becky Francis’ Curriculum and Assessment Review marks a moment of both promise and perhaps slight frustration. It acknowledges, finally and explicitly, the importance of skills and applied knowledge within a knowledge rich curriculum. The commitment to strengthening financial literacy, embedding AI and computing skills, and refreshing citizenship to include media literacy and climate education all suggest a shift toward greater relevance and real-world readiness.

Equally welcome is the renewed emphasis on oracy, a long-neglected foundation of learning and equity. The proposal for a national oracy framework at primary level, alongside a combined oracy, reading and writing framework for secondary, could help schools place communication at the heart of teaching once again. And the suggested change to key stage 2 writing assessment – focusing on fluency and application in practice rather than the isolated recall of grammatical terms – offers, potentially, an example of assessment reform that seems genuinely rooted in learning.

There’s a lot to like here.

Yes, and….

Yet, despite these encouraging signals, there is a striking sense of continuity. The government has stated that GCSEs and exams will remain the dominant mode of assessment across the system, from the new statutory Year 8 reading test to the reformed GCSEs. Despite the proposed reduction to reduce the volume of exams by 10% (a great first step!), non-examined assessment will continue to be used only where it is deemed “not possible to examine the subject content.” For those who believe in assessing what young people can do – their ability to think, apply, make, perform, lead, and collaborate – this feels like a missed opportunity.

So if GCSEs remain largely exam-based, where might there still be space for innovation and more authentic approaches to learning and recognition?

The new shape of Progress 8 and Attainment 8

The government’s proposed changes to Progress 8 and Attainment 8 are intended to encourage a broader and more balanced Key Stage 4 curriculum. Attainment 8 measures a pupil’s average achievement across eight GCSE subjects (or equivalent). Progress 8 measures how much progress pupils make from the end of primary school (Key Stage 2) to the end of secondary (Key Stage 4), compared to pupils nationally with similar prior attainment.

So: Attainment 8 = raw grades achieved; Progress 8 = how much better or worse those grades are than expected. Progress 8 is the key school accountability measure, it feeds into performance tables and Ofsted discussions.

In the government's response to the Francis Review, the model retains double weighting for English and maths (‘slots 1 and 2’), introduces two dedicated science slots (slot 3), and replaces the previous “EBacc and open” structure with four ‘Breadth’ slots.

This represents a subtle but potentially significant shift. In principle, it could allow creative and language subjects to sit more comfortably alongside the traditional academic core. The proposals also open the door to consultation about a fourth science category that might encompass computing and digital specialisms. But, crucially, the new model is still built around eight “slots” and the double weighting of English and maths, so the architecture of accountability remains firmly in place.

What this means in practice

For school leaders, the practical implications will be important. Timetabling will need to accommodate the new slot structure and ensure access to a range of humanities, creative, and language options. Science will become more prominent, with two dedicated slots for every pupil (as well as the ‘entitlement’ to study triple science for every pupil). Schools will also need to map subjects carefully to categories and track data accordingly, since Progress 8 remains the headline accountability measure.

The data process itself will not, it seems, change: each pupil’s Progress 8 will still be calculated by comparing their Attainment 8 score (the sum of their best eight results, with English and maths double-weighted) to that of other pupils nationally with similar Key Stage 2 starting points. The school’s score remains the average of all pupils’ individual progress scores.

In short, the measure will look new but feel familiar.

The lived impact for young people

The review’s intent – to value balance and breadth – is clear. But the lived experience for young people may not shift as much as hoped, depending on the implementation. Currently, because Progress 8 counts only the best eight results, most pupils take 9-11 GCSEs to give the strongest combination for performance tables. This contributes to an overloaded, high-stakes environment that too often leaves little space for exploration or depth.

Under the new model, this pressure may simply reconfigure itself. Schools will still want to maximise the “counted” results, and pupils may continue to sit more qualifications than they need. The double weighting of English and maths, plus two compulsory science slots, already accounts for half of the total measure, thereby limiting genuine choice. Attention to access, inclusion and a diverse offering of qualification types, learning and assessment methods is required to meet the needs of all learners – and to reflect the government's ambitions for a genuinely ‘rich and broad, and inclusive and innovative education.’

While the broader categories create a pathway for creative and language subjects to gain parity of esteem, there remains a risk that schools, especially those under intense accountability pressure, default to “safe” subjects that perform well statistically. Unless accountability measures themselves evolve, the lived experience for many pupils may remain one of compliance rather than curiosity.

Where might opportunity lie?

However, even within these constraints, there may be spaces to innovate. The government’s reference to “any qualification eligible for inclusion in Key Stage 4 performance measures” means that other qualifications, such as approved Technical Awards are included in the breadth slots.

Two of the breadth buckets, are to be filled with in any two other subjects, including English language or literature (if not counted in the English slot), other GCSE qualifications (including those eligible for Slots 3, 4, 5 and 6), OR any technical awards from the Department for Education (DfE) approved list.

Technical Awards were already eligible, and they remain eligible under the new model proposed. What’s genuinely new is not the inclusion of Technical Awards, but the rules about subject mix as schools must ensure at least two of the four breadth slots come from different categories (Humanities, Creative, Languages).

In the ‘vocational’ options in the new ‘Breadth’ slots, there are 46 technical awards currently approved to count towards Key Stage 4 performance measures across these subject areas.

Perhaps this list may encourage schools to broaden their offer to young people? Whilst the existing Technical Awards landscape is being maintained, with these qualifications continuing to be recognised in performance measures – just within the re-named framework – perhaps this a cue for bigger thinking?

Partnership across the sector, between schools, colleges and community/youth sector organisations, could promote local integration, working together to broaden the offer – breaking down ‘academic’ vs ‘vocational’ silos, and widening the experience of young people as they are assessed at the end of KS4.

A radical thought…!

Whilst it would require a re-work on what counts in the Breadth bucket, could project qualifications such as the Level 2 High Project Qualification (already offered by several of the large, credible exam bodies such as AQA, Pearson and ASDAN), eventually be eligible for the new slots? Several in the sector continue to push for this.

There is currently no explicit commitment to include Level 2 Project Qualifications such as the HPQ in Progress 8. The government’s response mentions no expansion of eligible qualification types and confirms that the existing moratorium on new Technical Awards remains in place.

However, the foundations for this may exist – The DfE consultation in 2022 on level 2 and below qualifications referenced that Higher Project Qualifications “must meet the Qualification Level Conditions … and may be used in both academic and technical study programmes.” For now, however, project qualifications will continue to sit outside the core accountability metrics. Consultation will now take place, with the government publishing its report in the summer 2026.

Nevertheless, the language of “breadth,” “depth,” and “application” threaded through the review and response offers important cultural permission, as does the list of options. Schools that already use vocational awards and qualifications, project-based approaches, extended inquiries, or portfolio-style assessments can align these with curriculum aims such as digital literacy, problem-solving, and oracy. They can do so not because the accountability framework demands it, but because these experiences embody the very capabilities the review itself values.

Variety in assessment methods and quals is up for grabs

It goes without saying that a reduction in over-burdensome quantity of examinations at KS4 is welcomed, but the target to reduced by 2.5-3 hours is somewhat underwhelming. What is stopping the DfE from being more ambitious here?

Quite possibly, the answer here is a lack of accepted credible evidence that alternative assessment methods can offer equally (if not more) validity, reliability and fairness. A call to action here is for the EdTech sector to collaborate with necessary research bodies to address this void and capture the very real lived experiences of leading innovators who are exploring the feasibility of alternative methods and modes of assessment.

A prime example for further evidence and research is adaptive comparative judgement (ACJ) and its potential to not just transform how we assess KS2 writing but also, our understanding of value and standards in creative, technical and performance based subjects and disciplines.

Merrick-Ed Limited is actively researching in this space, uncovering learning and insights about the value of ACJ in assessment, standardisation and moderation of the Arts, Music, Drama, Design & Technology as well as cross-subject attributes and skills such as collaboration, creativity and critical thinking. What’s more – teachers and subject leaders value this approach, which champions collaboration, develops teachers’ tacit knowledge of what quality looks like and identifies variance in subject domain expertise and assessment literacy.

The CAR recommendations clearly articulated educators’ desire for more varied assessment methods to reduce examination burden and more appropriately capture and reward a broader sense of what pupils know and can do. The DfE’s current position clearly states that exams are to be used where this is the ‘only valid’ way to assess subject content. ACJ offers potential to broaden what can be assessed with validity, and offers solutions as to how to do this with reliability, precision and efficiency, at scale.

Looking ahead

The government’s response delivers a curriculum that aspires to be broad, inclusive and forward-facing. It strengthens digital, critical and financial literacies, renews the focus on communication and creativity, and acknowledges the importance of skills for life and work. This is much to play for with a reformed P8 – and a rallying cry to not leave the accountability system fundamentally unchanged.

If we continue to judge success primarily through written exams, the tension between what we value and what we measure will persist. The challenge for schools and colleges, and for those advocating for a more balanced approach, is to use the flexibilities that do exist, through curriculum design, enrichment, and local recognition, to build a richer picture of learning.

The proposed Progress 8 and Attainment 8 model offers only partial reform, but it does open the conversation again about what counts and why. As ever, the task for educators is to make sure that what counts for young people’s futures goes beyond what counts in the tables.