Reading the interim report of the Francis Review (published 18 March 2025), it is encouraging to recognise elements of Edge’s own response to the consultation, which urged the review panel to major on four themes.
The need for greater development of essential skills that support students’ progression and transitions into life, further study/training and employment through the curriculum.
We welcome the statement that “ongoing work... will consider whether there is sufficient coverage [of]... sophisticated analytical skills, and higher order domain-specific problem-solving ability” within the curriculum, “and how content can remain relevant and support young people to thrive in a fast-changing world” (page 26-7). Notably, in the section on ‘16-19 pathways and qualifications’, the review panel expresses concern that “too many young people are not gaining the right knowledge and skills as they progress through the system and by the time they leave formal education are not prepared to thrive in life and work” (page 30). At Edge, we know that preparing young people for life and work cannot be viewed as the task of the 16-19 system alone, but must be carefully scaffolded right the way through a young person's education. As such, we would encourage the review panel to take a more holistic view of skills development in the next phase of their work.
The importance of a high-quality, equal vocational and creative offer in the pre-16 curriculum.
As highlighted in our own response, the report identifies the “squeezing” effect of the volume of content and the EBacc performance measure as the "two main barriers to achieving breadth and balance at key stage 4”. We know that genuine breadth and balance is key to supporting progression onto 16-19 pathways, and are pleased to see the commitment to continuing to “assess the place of the EBacc... within the wider accountability framework”. The detailed analysis of the EBacc (page 22-5) notes, “evidence suggests that a portfolio of academic subjects does aid access to A level and to university”. However, if the review is to meet its aim of ensuring “high standards for all”, in this next phase, we would encourage the panel to broaden its analysis and consider how the EBacc also supports those students who wish to pursue technical and vocational pathways (which, as the report recognises, “serve over 40% of young people”).
Addressing early specialisation and lack of a breadth in the 16-19 offer.
It is very positive to see the impact of Edge’s research into learner’s experiences with T Levels and advocacy for the availability of more modular, vocational/technical options alongside A Levels and T Levels, with the interim report firmly stating that “T Levels cannot be the only technical/vocational pathway”. We think it is right that “particular attention [will be] paid to how best to support learners who do not study A levels or T Levels” in the panel’s exploration of level 3 pathways, and look forward to supporting the review in their next steps. We also welcome the panel’s commitment to developing ‘strong occupational pathways’ for those studying at Level 2 to prepare them for entry into work.
Interim Report of the Curriculum and Assessment Review“However, given T Levels embody this standard they will not be appropriate for all learners. Even with changes, it is clear that they are not suitable as the only technical/vocational pathway.”
Transforming the post-16 English and Maths offer for those students who haven't achieved a Grade 4 or above at GCSE.
As we acknowledged in our own response, the interim report recognises the strength of the current system in supporting students who secure a grade 4 or above across their GCSEs, including English and Maths, and pursue the well-trodden route through A Levels to university. Crucially, however, the review panel shares our concern that, under current policy arrangements, “a large proportion of learners studying level 2 maths and English at 16-19 have made no grade progress in these subjects during their 16-19 studies” (page 36). It is welcome to read that the panel will recommend “greater nuance in measures” and seek to learn from young people, subject experts and good practice within post-16 institutions, as we similarly recommended a Working Group of experts tasked with looking exclusive at English and maths in this next phase.
The review was launched by the government in July 2024 to look closely at the key challenges to attainment for young people, and the barriers which hold children back from the opportunities and life chances they deserve – in particular those who are socioeconomically disadvantaged, or with special educational needs or disabilities (SEND). The final report is expected to be published in autumn 2025.