NATE welcomes the publication of Curriculum and Assessment Review and the opportunity it provides to develop the discipline of English in our schools. We support the Review’s ambition for high standards for all. Secondary English teachers are deeply committed to securing strong outcomes for every young person, including those from disadvantaged backgrounds and those with SEND

Professional autonomy, teacher involvement & curriculum design

We particularly welcome the Review’s emphasis on ensuring that students at all levels of attainment experience a curriculum that is broad, rich and meaningful. English departments have long sought to create such curricula, despite the constraints often imposed by accountability systems, and we hope the Review marks the beginning of a more enabling policy environment. We appreciate the view that ‘professional autonomy allows teachers, schools and multi-academy trusts to be creative, innovative and ensure that they can meet children and young people’s needs through a locally relevant curriculum.’

We also welcome the recommendation that ‘the Government involves teachers in the testing and design of Programmes of Study as part of the drafting process’ and we urge the Government to consider the input of subject associations as part of this process.

We urge caution about over-reliance on materials provided by any one body, and although we acknowledge the comment that ‘Oak National Academy may be able to support teachers in this area by providing teachers with resources, progression scaffolds and exemplification of good practice…’ we would hope that this does not impede the Report’s acknowledgement of the importance of professional autonomy and the role of subject associations.

Progression and transitions

The Curriculum and Assessment Review rightly emphasises the importance of strengthening the learning journey from primary to secondary education. As it notes, it is ‘essential that more children and young people build strong foundations and a love of learning in the primary years [and] we must also facilitate more successful transitions into secondary education.’ This is especially urgent given that ‘there is a substantial drop in pupil engagement and views on the value of education as they transition from primary education, especially for those from socio-economically disadvantaged backgrounds.’

NATE strongly supports the Review’s call to ensure ‘secure foundations and mastery of key subject concepts to raise standards and enable the development of expertise.’ In English, however, the Review correctly identifies that ‘in some subjects, the current construction and balance of content appear to be inhibiting this… hindering their progress and undermining standards.’ This aligns with long-standing concerns from teachers about over-prescriptive curricula that narrow rather than enrich students’ experience.

We welcome the recognition that ‘a ‘dry’ curriculum diet in GCSE English has contributed to a reduced enthusiasm for English at A Level’ and the acknowledgement that ‘greater representation within, and diversity of, GCSE texts would engage students more effectively.’Ensuring that students encounter literature that both reflects their identities and broadens their horizons is essential if they are to sustain engagement, empathy and curiosity as they move through key stages.

For this reason, the commitment that ‘the curriculum must also allow space for teachers to exercise autonomy in selecting from a broader range of texts and authors’ is critical. Teacher expertise is central to responsive curriculum design that supports continuity, progression and the development of confident, enthusiastic readers and writers. 

Equity, inclusion & representation

We welcome the prospect of renewed flexibility in programmes of study, with space for professional judgement, contextual adaptation, and the inclusion of texts and approaches that reflect the identities, interests and needs of students. We also believe in the importance of equity in assessment arrangements as lower attaining students are disadvantaged by what is currently in place — they are not enabled to show fully what they know, understand and can do.

The Curriculum and Assessment Review offers a welcome commitment to greater equity and inclusion across the curriculum. As it states, the ‘recommendations aim to improve curriculum quality for all young people but will particularly benefit those for whom the system is currently not working well.’ This recognition is crucial: persistent disparities in outcomes require deliberate action to ensure that every learner can access, participate in and thrive within the national curriculum.

NATE strongly endorses the Review’s emphasis on representation and inclusion. The assertion that ‘the curriculum (and related material) is inclusive so that all young people can see themselves represented’ speaks directly to the core purpose of English as a subject that nurtures identity, voice and connection. Crucially, ‘this should also help them to broaden their horizons and better understand the perspectives of others,’ reinforcing that inclusion supports both personal relevance and intellectual expansion.

We welcome the Review’s argument that ‘to foster engagement and support positive outcomes, it’s important that the curriculum covers a wide range of experiences and representation… representation must go hand in hand with broadening horizons.’ This aligns with long-standing evidence from English teachers: when students encounter rich, varied and inclusive texts, they develop empathy, curiosity and confidence.

The reminder that ‘the national curriculum is for all our children and young people, and they should feel both included in it and represented by it’ provides a strong foundation for future reforms. NATE therefore supports the call for change in English, where ‘while the curriculum allows for a range of texts, we heard that in practice selections often lack breadth.’ The recommendation to ‘reflect a broader range of perspectives and experiences, while retaining foundational disciplinary knowledge’ is essential to realising a curriculum that is both rigorous and genuinely inclusive.

The call for greater diversity and representation within the curriculum is timely and essential. Secondary English teachers see daily how engagement grows when students encounter texts that speak to them and open windows onto other experiences. We are pleased that the Review situates diversity not as an optional addition but as integral to high standards and inclusive practice. We hope this leads to specifications and guidance that genuinely enable broader and more representative text choices.

We also welcome the Government’s Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill that contains a provision to require academies to teach the national curriculum. 

Curriculum intent and structure

We endorse the recognition of disciplinary specificity. English is a complex, plural discipline encompassing literature, language, creative writing, drama, oracy, media and digital communication. It does not lend itself to overly hierarchical models of curriculum. NATE is encouraged by the Review’s acknowledgement that knowledge in English is cumulative and interpretive, and that curriculum design must respect this. Curriculum design and the progress of students must not be hindered by overly narrow ‘knowledge-rich’ curriculum design and we welcome the acknowledgement that ‘skills are developed in conjunction with knowledge in ways that are appropriate for each subject discipline.’

The teaching of grammar

NATE welcomes the clear acknowledgement that ‘the English curriculum contains a high volume of grammatical content and terminology… advanced and overly theoretical… [that] disengages pupils, and, crucially, does not help them to write well.’ Teachers have raised these concerns for many years: excessive focus on isolated grammatical identification has diverted time away from meaningful and critical reading and writing.

We support the notion of grammatical knowledge at the point of need — to enable students to read a range of text types and to enable inferential reading. 

Oracy, media literacy and digital literacy

NATE supports the Review’s attention to oracy, media literacy and digital literacy. These areas are central to young people’s lives and to the future of English as a discipline. We welcome the intention to give oracy greater specificity, provided any new framework values the full range of talk in the English classroom and avoids constraining it through reductive checklists. We share the enthusiasm of our partner organisations for strengthening media and digital literacies, recognising that secondary English departments are well placed to develop students’ critical and creative engagement with a rapidly evolving communication landscape. 

Phonics

We note concerns raised across the sector about the over-reliance on phonics and the limited evidence linking the phonics screening check to later reading success. We share the view that a balanced approach to reading development is essential and that secondary outcomes depend on a rich and varied primary curriculum.

Drama

We welcome the recognition that ‘drama… is a valuable part of a broad and balanced curriculum that builds students’ confidence and prepares them for later life.’ The Review rightly acknowledges that the 2013 curriculum updates were ‘criticised at the time for not recognising Drama as a discipline in its own right.’ It is encouraging to see the recommendation that ‘Drama has its own discrete section within the English Programme of Study at Key Stage 3.’ We would like to see an increase in the take-up of Drama at GCSE. 

We are concerned about the narrow suggestion that ‘This should include more detail to provide greater clarity about expectations for performing, creating and responding to dramatic works.’ We hope that in the finalised English Programme of Study at Key Stage 3, there will be explicit reference to using drama to support the reading of prose, poetry, non-fiction and multi-media texts, in addition to plays, and an emphasis on the cultural and imaginative knowledge and understanding and skills developed in Drama. Furthermore, there needs to be explicit mention of the potential for drama in English to support students’ writing. 

GCSE

It is clear from the Review, and from the responses of the wider English community, that reform of GCSE English Language and English Literature is both necessary and overdue. NATE supports the proposal to reduce duplication between the two qualifications in English Language, and to strengthen the study of language in all its forms. We welcome the recognition that ‘a fundamental change to GCSE English Language is needed,’ and the proposal that the revised qualification should ‘focus on the study of the nature and expression of language (including spoken language).’

The Review’s call for an expanded textual landscape also aligns with contemporary literacy needs. It proposes that ‘the range of text types studied in English Language should be expanded to include multi-modal and “ephemeral” texts… essential for navigating the contemporary world,’ and that ‘extended writing tasks should draw from a broader range of writing genres.’ These reforms would support relevance, engagement and the development of adaptable writing skills.

In English Literature, NATE recognises the value of ensuring that ‘all students, regardless of background, continue to study our rich literary heritage… Shakespeare and classic novels.’Equally important, however, is the insistence that ‘the curriculum must also allow space for teachers to exercise autonomy… so that students are able to see themselves in the curriculum, as well as be exposed to a wide range of perspectives.’ This principle is strongly reinforced by the conclusion that ‘the curriculum can better promote a wider range of literary voices while retaining core texts.’ The recommendation to ‘review the specified amounts and types of poetry studied to reduce prescription and encourage more flexibility’ is similarly welcome. 

Assessment, progress monitoring and accountability 

We would welcome assessment arrangements that encourage engaged reading, thoughtful interpretation and genuine language study, rather than formulaic responses. We recognise the constraints around assessment reform but agree that the current dominance of high-stakes terminal examinations is distorting teaching and limiting what English can be. NATE would welcome serious exploration of more varied forms of assessment, including those that recognise process, drafting and spoken language, provided issues of workload and fairness are carefully considered.

The Curriculum and Assessment Review highlights long-standing concerns about the coherence and fairness of assessment across key stages. NATE welcomes the recognition that ‘opportunities for improvement exist, such as improving the assessment of pupils’ writing at the end of Key Stage 2.’ Writing assessment has too often been distorted by narrow criteria and excessive focus on technical accuracy, limiting opportunities to recognise genuine progress in composition, voice and craft. An assessment is only legitimate if it supports diagnostic understanding of a student’s progress, has minimal disruption on everyday teaching and learning and does not lead to extended periods of test preparation and practice.

We strongly support the Review’s focus on equity. It rightly emphasises that ‘securing level 2 in Maths and English by the age of 16 has a strong impact on young people’s life chances,’yet ‘too many struggle to achieve this… especially those from socio-economically disadvantaged backgrounds or those with SEND.’ The statement that ‘far more are capable of reaching level 2… than… do currently’ reflects the urgent need for earlier, more responsive support rather than high-stakes intervention at the point of failure.

The Review recommends ‘introducing a diagnostic test, in Year 8, to assess key capabilities [and to] support teachers in identifying and tackling areas of weakness in good time before students progress to Key Stage 4.’ We urge caution here, as its success would depend on ensuring that diagnostic assessments enhance classroom practice rather than becoming new accountability measures. NATE would firmly oppose a test that further narrowed the Key Stage 3 curriculum.

Finally, we note the commitment to ‘support greater efficacy in the provision of Maths and English at 16–19 to help those young people who do not secure a level 2 qualification by 16.’Extending support beyond compulsory schooling is vital, but it must build on a system that identifies needs earlier and responds through rich teaching, not narrowing or reteaching for test compliance.

Conclusion

Taken together, the Review and the responses of the subject associations signal a moment of opportunity. NATE believes that English can and should be re-energised through programmes of study that value creativity, critical thinking, diversity, disciplinary authenticity and professional trust. As an organisation rooted in classroom practice and committed to the wellbeing and development of English teachers, we look forward to collaborating with the Review team and with our partner associations to shape reforms that support teachers, engage students and strengthen English education for the future.