Blogs

1. Curriculum & assessment review: what’s actually changing?

The big story this week is the government’s response to the Curriculum and Assessment Review final report led by Professor Becky Francis. The report itself takes an “evolution not revolution” stance, but it still sets out some substantial changes which matter a lot for STEM teaching and timetabling in England.

Sky News’ overview of the reforms frames it as the “biggest schools shake-up in a decade”. Key points relevant to STEM and broader curriculum include:

• GCSE exam time cut by around 10% – the review concludes that current Key Stage 4 assessment load is “excessive”, and the government has accepted proposals to reduce exam time per student by up to three hours.
• New Year 8 tests in English and maths – diagnostic assessments are intended to identify gaps earlier so pupils don’t hit GCSE with shaky foundations. This could have implications for how you structure lower-secondary maths and science curricula.
• Primary curriculum additions – explicit teaching of identifying fake news and misinformation, enhanced financial literacy, and more emphasis on oracy. That all plays into media literacy around science, statistics and climate claims.
• More space for AI, data science and digital skills post-16 – the government is “exploring” a level 3 qualification in data science and AI, designed to give more young people high-value technical skills.
• Triple science encouraged as a default offer – schools are expected to work towards offering triple science GCSE as standard, rather than a niche option.
• EBacc scrapped as a performance measure, but its academic core is retained in a re-badged “Academic Breadth” bucket in Progress 8.

The review is explicit that the curriculum must respond to “rapid technological, environmental and social change”, while still keeping strong subject disciplinary knowledge at its heart. That balancing act – more AI and data, but without turning the curriculum into a rotating list of ‘hot topics’ – is very much the backdrop for this week’s debate.

2. Triple science entitlement vs the STEM teacher pipeline

For secondary science departments, the most immediate headline is the proposed entitlement to triple science GCSE. In principle, any student who wants to study separate biology, chemistry and physics should be able to do so. Tes’ coverage of the triple science proposals digs into the tension between policy ambition and workforce reality.

Subject bodies and researchers quoted in the piece welcome the ambition but are blunt about feasibility without a serious staffing plan:

• A quarter of state schools currently have no specialist physics teacher, and nearly half of GCSE physics lessons are taught by a non-specialist teacher.
• Recent data show physics ITT targets missed by around two-thirds, with chemistry targets also significantly undershot, even as biology recruitment looks relatively healthier.
• The Royal Society of Chemistry flags widespread understaffing and warns that schools may be forced into “compromises and substitutions” – for example, cutting other subjects or further increasing class sizes – to deliver triple science.

For STEM leaders, this raises some practical questions: if triple science becomes a statutory entitlement, do you have the lab space, equipment and – most importantly – specialist staff to make it a meaningful option rather than something reserved for already-advantaged pupils? The article underscores that without targeted recruitment, retention and workload reforms, there’s a real risk that the entitlement widens rather than narrows participation gaps in STEM.

3. Progress 8, ‘breadth’ and a bigger role for science

While the Francis review recommended leaving the structure of Progress 8 largely intact, the government has gone a different way. Schools Week reports that ministers intend to scrap the EBacc measure and restructure Progress 8 into a new set of buckets – with science a clear winner in the short term.

Key proposed changes highlighted in the article include:

• English and maths remain the first two buckets.
• Two dedicated “science” buckets are created for qualifications such as double science, the separate sciences and computing. That effectively guarantees more Progress 8 “real estate” for STEM subjects.
• Four further “breadth” buckets will require schools to include subjects from at least two of three areas: humanities, languages and creative subjects.
• Vocational qualifications would sit only in the final two buckets, prompting concern from some leaders about the status of applied and technical pathways.
• The government also signals interest in a new level 3 data science and AI qualification, again tying accountability measures tightly to future technical skills.

For STEM departments, having guaranteed “science buckets” could protect curriculum time for separate sciences and computing. But the article also warns that, in smaller schools, the new structure might push leaders to favour academic GCSEs over vocational options in creative and technical fields – something to watch if your school relies on applied STEM courses to engage certain groups of learners.

4. SEND, disadvantage and the STEM participation gap

Curriculum reform doesn’t happen in a vacuum. Tes’ analysis of a new Institute for Government report suggests that, under current spending plans, the government will “struggle to fix the SEND crisis by 2029” and faces an uphill battle on its “opportunity mission”.

Highlights from the piece that matter for STEM outcomes include:

• Pupils with EHCPs are missing, on average, a full day of secondary school every week. Unsurprisingly, this has a profound effect on access to practical science, labs, and sustained maths teaching.
• High-needs funding has grown substantially but remains under severe pressure, putting the financial sustainability of some local authorities at risk.
• Suspensions and exclusions are much higher among pupils with SEND and those from disadvantaged backgrounds – with suspensions ten times more common in the most deprived areas than the least.
• Teacher recruitment plans are described as “unfocused”, with doubts over whether the promised additional teachers will be enough to meet need.

Meanwhile, Schools Week reports on a new government review into rising NEET numbers , led by Alan Milburn, focusing in particular on mental health and disability as barriers to participation. Nearly one million young people aged 16–24 are currently not in education, employment or training, with a significant proportion citing long-term sickness or disability as the main barrier.

For STEM teachers and careers leads, these stories are a reminder that any expansion of STEM pathways – triple science, new AI/data qualifications, technical routes – will only reach all young people if attendance, mental health and SEND support are in place. Otherwise, the richest new curriculum content may simply be inaccessible to the students who could benefit most.

5. Ofsted, data and new intervention regimes

5.1 Schools: report cards and late data changes

As the new Ofsted report-card inspection framework goes live, school leaders are still digesting changes to how performance data will be used. In an exclusive Tes piece , heads’ leaders say schools that volunteered to be first in line for the new inspections should be allowed to withdraw after Ofsted announced late changes to its Inspection Data Summary Reports (IDSRs).

The article notes that:

• Ofsted will now band schools as below, at or above average on each performance measure.
• The detail of this approach was set out only days before the first wave of report-card inspections, which unions argue undermines fairness and preparation.
• Leaders are worried that the new use of data, combined with the five-point grading scale, could intensify pressure and create new high-stakes thresholds.

None of this is STEM-specific, but if your school’s results in science or maths sit a little below national averages – perhaps because you’ve been ambitious with curriculum breadth or inclusive entry into higher-tier papers – it’s worth understanding how those data will be interpreted under the new system.

5.2 FE and apprenticeships: new Ofsted triggers and intervention rules

In the FE and skills world, the accountability picture is also shifting. FE Week’s report on new Ofsted triggers for college intervention explains how the report-card model will interact with DfE oversight: “urgent improvement” or persistent “needs attention” grades in key evaluation areas could now trigger letters to improve and FE Commissioner-led reviews.

Alongside this, a second FE Week article sets out fresh DfE intervention rules for apprenticeship providers under the new regime:

• Where there was previously one overall apprenticeship grade, report cards will now show separate grades for curriculum, teaching and training; achievement; and participation and development.
• During the first 12 months of transition, DfE says it will avoid automatic sanctions based solely on Ofsted grades, opting instead for a more “case-by-case” approach.
• The department emphasises that it will use “multiple data sources” with the learner experience “central” to decisions.

For STEM departments in colleges and providers, this means that the quality of apprenticeship curriculum and teaching in technical subjects will be more visible – and more finely graded – than before. It also suggests a growing role for internal data on progression, participation and learner development, not just qualification outcomes.

6. AI, leadership and a system that won’t sit still

6.1 AI as a ‘critical friend’ for school leaders

While policy shifts grabbed headlines, there was also a more practical piece this week on how AI is already being woven into leadership routines. In “5 ways AI can help save school leaders time and effort” , a head of a junior school in Vietnam describes how tools like ChatGPT are being used (cautiously) to streamline workload.

The article suggests five main uses:

• A ‘critical friend’ for tricky conversations – drafting scripts, exploring scenario responses and generating key phrases for meetings with families or staff.
• Project management support – synthesising multiple action plans into coherent timelines, spotting overlaps or gaps in implementation (think curriculum roll-out across science and maths, or lab refurb projects).
• Streamlining communication – first drafts of newsletters, policy summaries or reports that leaders can then refine.
• Administrative tasks – converting notes into reports, generating checklists, and summarising long documents.
• Thinking partner for strategy – using AI to explore different options or to stress-test plans, while keeping control of final decisions firmly with humans.

The author is careful to emphasise boundaries: protecting confidentiality, avoiding inputting personally identifiable information, and treating AI output as a draft or prompt, not an authority. For STEM leaders, there’s clear potential here when planning curriculum change or managing complex timetable implications of triple science, new qualifications or enrichment.

6.2 “The landscape is shifting like never before”

That sense of being in a fast-moving system is echoed north of the border. In a Scottish context, Tes reports on a speech by the president of ADES (the Scottish association of education directors), who describes education as “shifting like never before”.

The article highlights a few themes that will resonate with STEM departments anywhere in the UK:

• Persistent inequalities, recruitment and retention pressures, and rising additional support needs – all set against a challenging financial backdrop.
• A call for systems leadership, connecting education with health, social care and communities, rather than “myopic, school-focused” reform.
• Emphasis on community-led solutions and integrated services, with young people’s voices at the centre of decision-making.

For STEM leaders, it’s a reminder that curriculum and qualification reforms will land very differently depending on local context – rural vs urban, levels of poverty, local employers, and available support services.

7. What’s (not) new from EEF this week

You also asked specifically about the Education Endowment Foundation. There haven’t been major new EEF news releases or evaluations published in the 5–11 November window, but the Foundation is deeply woven into this week’s biggest story: Professor Becky Francis, EEF’s chief executive, chairs the curriculum and assessment review panel, and the final report draws heavily on evidence from EEF trials and toolkits.

If you’re trying to interpret what the review means for practical STEM teaching – for example, how to build secure conceptual understanding in maths and science while also making space for applied projects – it’s worth looking up relevant strands in the EEF Teaching and Learning Toolkit alongside the report itself.

8. Reflections & questions for STEM teachers and leaders

To close, here are some prompts you might use for department meetings, CPD sessions or personal reflection over the coming week.

8.1 Curriculum and qualifications

• Triple science planning: If every student who wants triple science is entitled to it, what would that mean for your staffing, lab space and option blocks? Which groups of pupils currently don’t access triple science, and why?
• Computing and data science: With new Progress 8 science buckets and a possible level 3 AI/data science qualification on the horizon, how well do your computing and maths curricula prepare students for data-rich pathways?
• Balancing breadth and depth: The review talks about securing foundational concepts and avoiding overloaded curricula. Where in your schemes of work could fewer, deeper ideas lead to better understanding in maths or science?

8.2 Inclusion, SEND and NEET risk

• Which students are least likely to complete key STEM qualifications in your setting (by SEND status, disadvantage, gender, ethnicity)? How do the NEET and SEND stories this week change how you view those patterns?
• How might your department adapt practical science, project work or assessment routines to support pupils with high absence or additional needs, so they’re not automatically locked out of triple science or higher-tier maths?
• Are there STEM-focused progression pathways (e.g. T Levels, apprenticeships, applied science courses) that could be made more visible to students who are currently at risk of becoming NEET?

8.3 Accountability, data and wellbeing

• Do staff in your department understand how their subjects will feature in the new Progress 8 buckets and Ofsted report cards? Would a short briefing or Q&A help reduce anxiety and speculation?
• How can you use your own internal data – misconceptions, attendance patterns, work-scrutiny findings – to tell a fuller story about STEM learning than headline exam scores alone?
• Given the concerns about workload and wellbeing in Ofsted’s new arrangements, what could you stop doing in your department that doesn’t add value for learners?

8.4 AI and professional learning

• Could AI play a limited, well-governed role as a “critical friend” – for example, in drafting communications or generating first-draft lesson ideas – without compromising confidentiality or professional judgement?
• What kind of staff training would you need so colleagues feel confident using AI tools safely and ethically, rather than either ignoring them or using them in ad-hoc ways?
• How might you involve students in discussions about AI, data literacy and misinformation so that new curriculum content lands as part of a coherent whole rather than a bolt-on?

8.5 Systems thinking

• What local partnerships (with universities, colleges, employers, libraries, youth or mental-health services) could help you respond to these reforms in a joined-up way?
• If the “landscape is shifting like never before”, what would it look like for your STEM department to model shared leadership – involving technicians, early-career teachers, and students themselves in decisions about curriculum and assessment?

None of this has to be solved this week. But being aware of the direction of travel – towards more triple science, more AI and data, new accountability measures and a sharper focus on inclusion – can help you make deliberate choices rather than reacting later under time pressure.

Note: This blog post is an AI curated summary of news articles from various sources. The aim is to provide educators with a comprehensive overview of recent developments in the education sector. All hyperlinks direct readers to the original news articles for further reading.