Scrap the “dual science route” at GCSE, Association for Science Education proposes, in broad-ranging critique of curriculum and assessment regimes
The ASE is calling for more emphasis on practical interaction with science, such as, in this case, robotics. Image: iStock/Getty Images
Education Uncovered is looking ahead to the publication of the government’s final Curriculum and Assessment Review report, in the autumn, by covering responses from subject associations. Detailed subject-by-subject findings did not appear in the interim report, published in March. So it seems important to document what subject associations have been saying, especially as some of their conclusions appear to contradict the review’s overall pledge of an “evolution, not revolution” approach to reform.
In the first, then, of what I hope will be an ongoing series, I report below on the submission of the Association for Science Education.
England’s national curriculum for science suffers from a host of weaknesses and should be subject to radical change, including the scrapping of differentiated subject options and reduced content at GCSE, a "diploma-style" post-16 offer, more emphasis on practical work and reduced assessment requirements at primary level.
These were among the conclusions of a submission by the Association for Science Education (ASE) to the government’s Curriculum and Assessment review, which is due to report back in the autumn.
Although the review team, led by Professor Becky Francis, of the Education Endowment Foundation, has promised an “evolution, not revolution” approach to reform and was generally positive in its interim report about the effects of the last curriculum review under the Conservatives, the submission by the ASE suggests a more substantial departure from the status quo.
The ASE’s submission also footnotes research to which Professor Francis herself contributed, and which again might point towards more radical changes than the review appears to envisage.
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: 20 June 2025
Comments
Submitting a comment is only available to subscribers.
The comments from the ASE highlight a key concern always of the curriculum that it is focused (at the subject level) not on offering an introduction to subject to foster engagement and interest but only as a stepping stone to further academic study in that area. This might be of interest to some but as acknowledge in the survey data turns many away from science, and a general understanding of science and science principles is very important as we saw during the COVID crisis.
As you will be aware, the responses of the professional associations for English, including the National Association for the Teaching of English, also call for substantial change rather than "evolution". This is because the Gove/Gibb "reform" of curriculum and assessment over a decade ago was a paradigm shift in its overall rejection of the student-centred approaches that had developed over the preceding half century in favour of simplistic ideas of learning and assessment that resembled the 19th century Utilitarian regime satirised by Dickens (the pupil should be "instructed" in "knowledge" and their learning should be tested in terms of factual recall). This top-down approach is reflected in the draconian disciplinary measures you've recently investigated. Children are bored if not intimidated by the experience of school, and teachers desperately want change towards a more humane and even joyful ambience.
Yes, John's comment above I think echoes large groups of people across the country who are feeling that the current curriculum iteration (2014) and the accompanying moves in pedagogy and assessment are retrograde and regressive. There is an opportunity here to really carpe diem. Firstly, scrap GCSEs in an 11-18 assessment system they have no place. We might have some assessments at the end of Y9 which then allow pupils to make some choices about a more technical / vocational options or more academic options BOTH of which need to be equally valid. This would allow a broader education 14-18 with all pupils needing to have some "academic" and some "technical" areas but also allows more time for wider educational opportunities. There is a real opportunity here for needful "revolution" not least because of the advent of AI the current assessment model is redundant as it the judging of schools. Scrap Ofsted and replace it with a collegiate support network. Personally I would go further and either scarp or at least being back under democratic control the academies a thinned curriculum and less restrictive assessment system would give school level freedoms. Restrict HT pay (no more CEO nonsense) to 2.5x average teacher salary in the school.