The Francis review: Good in parts, but with one huge omission
The DfE: presiding over change. But why did its review not acknowledge concerning pointers on pupil disaffection? Image: iStock/Getty Images.
Review seemed better on the micro than on the big picture of how children are experiencing school.
Following up on my piece earlier this week previewing the government’s curriculum and assessment review, I read the review’s final report with mixed feelings yesterday.
This 197-page document is good in parts, and especially in the micro, with the sections on individual subjects appearing at an initial glance largely positive.
And, while being careful – critics will say too careful - not to reject outright the dominant traditionalist-leaning reforming narrative of Conservative-led governments since 2010, the report subtly pushes back against what could be seen as the extremes of the Gove/Gibb agenda of recent years.
But caution was the watchword in this report. And the elephant in the room is that the review, staggeringly I think given how serious all of this is, seemed not to acknowledge at all the challenges England’s school system – and its secondary schools in particular – seem to be facing around pupil wellbeing and disaffection.
To continue reading this article…
You'll need to register with EDUCATION UNCOVERED. Registration is free and gives you access to one article per month. But please consider a subscription which will give you full access to all the news articles and analysis on the website. As a subscriber you'll also be able to comment on each news article. as well as support our journalism and extend the reach of the site.
By Warwick Mansell for EDUCATION UNCOVERED
Published: 6 November 2025
Comments
Submitting a comment is only available to subscribers.
The structure of Secondary Schools needs to be considered. The'Grammar School' model of constant movement between subject classrooms, huge numbers of teachers over the school years, and little or no pastoral side is a major problem to inclusion and student belonging. A better idea would be teams of multi-specialist teachers - eg my subject knowledge would be good for teaching Chemistry, Physics, Maths, Music and Geography. These teams could take a single year group from Y7 to Y11. Because they'd get to know the students and parents to a much greater degree over that span of time, the student experience would be more inclusive and positive. The opposite of what some schools have been moving towards.
Excellent piece Warwick. Yes, the acceptance that the purpose of schools is to increase test scores in 'traditional' academic areas sits at the heart of the review and ignores. as you say, the voices of the very young people who schools is purported to be for in a "nanny knows best" way. This has been shown in often rabid responses to the modest suggestions to be more inclusive in the Progress 8 measures towards wider arts / vocational subjects (not that this does this necessarily) from the usual suspects with the "destroying the gains made" rhetoric. In terms of your last point re: post-Covid whilst I know the remit was "evolution not revolution" is disappointing that no consideration has been given to schools structures. The acceptance of both the academy model (i.e. the neo-liberalisation of school structures) and the 1 teacher, 30 students, 60 minutes model from 9-3:30 in a time when other structures have adapted and changed to the technology revolution of the last 20 years. A nod to the possible impact of AI but no real change to this basic structure or to assessment. The recommendation that there is not another review for 10 years means opportunities missed and little change of embracing them.