The government has confirmed the most significant overhaul of the National Curriculum in over a decade, largely adopting recommendations from Professor Becky Francis’s Curriculum and Assessment Review. The reforms are aimed at equipping pupils with “skills for life and work” for the 21st century.
Implementation Timeline
Final Revised Curriculum Publication: Spring 2027.
Full Implementation (First Teaching): September 2028. New Compulsory Subject Content The changes focus on introducing essential life and digital skills:
Financial Literacy: Teaching on budgeting and concepts like mortgages, to be integrated into Maths or compulsory Primary Citizenship lessons.
Media and AI Literacy: Greater focus on identifying misinformation, disinformation, and AI-generated content.
Compulsory Primary Citizenship: Citizenship will become mandatory in primary schools, covering financial literacy, media literacy, law, and democracy.
Climate Change and Diversity: The curriculum will include more content on climate change and feature better representation of diversity. Major GCSE and Accountability Changes Substantial shifts are planned for secondary school examinations and performance measures:
Scrapping the EBacc: The English Baccalaureate (EBacc) accountability measure will be scrapped, with the aim of encouraging a greater breadth of GCSE study, particularly in the arts and creative subjects.
Guaranteeing Triple Science: Schools will be required to work towards offering the three separate science GCSEs (Biology, Chemistry, Physics) as standard.
Reducing Exam Time: The Department for Education (DfE) plans to cut overall GCSE exam time by up to three hours for each student on average.
Progress 8 (P8): The measure will be reformed, though specific details on its final structure are pending.
New Statutory Year 8 Reading Test: A new mandatory reading test for Year 8 pupils will be introduced, intended to identify and address reading difficulties. Wider School Experience
Oracy: Oracy (speaking, listening, and communication) is to be given the same status as reading and writing in the curriculum, supported by a new oracy framework.
Enrichment Benchmarks: Schools must offer and advertise to parents a new set of core enrichment activities, covering:
Civic engagement, Arts and culture, Nature and adventure, Sport and Life skills.
Progress 8 (P8) Accountability Reforms
The government has confirmed it will reform the Progress 8 (P8) school performance measure, although the specific details of the final structure are still pending.
• DfE Stance vs. Review Recommendation: This is a point of divergence from the Curriculum and Assessment Review, which recommended retaining Progress 8 largely unchanged (other than renaming the EBacc section). The DfE’s decision to reform it is explicitly linked to the scrapping of the EBacc measure.
• The Aim of Reform: The goal of the P8 reform is to ensure the accountability measure now encourages students to study a greater breadth of GCSE subjects, specifically aiming to give equal status to the arts alongside humanities and languages.
• Progress 8 currently divides a student’s best 8 grades into three ‘buckets’: English & Maths (double-weighted), three EBacc subjects, and three ‘Open Group’ subjects.
• What is Expected: Given the removal of the EBacc as a measure, the P8 reform is highly likely to involve changes to the ‘EBacc bucket’ to reflect the new priority of a broader curriculum. However, the exact mechanism—such as how many non-EBacc subjects will be allowed to count or whether the points structure will change—has not yet been finalised by the DfE.
The government is aiming to publish the final revised National Curriculum, including the full details of these assessment changes, by Spring 2027
GCSE Triple Science Entitlement
The government has confirmed it will introduce a statutory entitlement for all GCSE pupils to be able to study Triple Science (separate GCSEs in Biology, Chemistry, and Physics).
Goal: The primary aim is to address the socioeconomic gap in Triple Science uptake, ensuring that access to this STEM pathway is not curtailed by a student’s background or the school they attend. Currently, a significantly lower proportion of disadvantaged pupils take Triple Science.
Mechanism (Access, Not Compulsion): The reform is about access, not mandatory uptake. The change requires all secondary schools to offer the three separate science GCSEs as standard, meaning every child will have the option to choose them. This is a significant change, as many schools currently only offer ‘Combined Science’ (a double GCSE).
Implementation: The Department for Education (DfE) has stated that schools will be expected to work towards offering Triple Science as standard, ahead of the full statutory entitlement. This staggered approach acknowledges the practical challenge of recruiting or retraining specialist science teachers—a key concern raised by school leaders.
So what now?
Elevate Intentionality: Strategic Focus on the New Curriculum
The new curriculum, slated for first teaching in September 2028, requires immediate, high-level planning. Intentionality means moving beyond mere compliance to strategic integration.
• Audit for New Literacies: Do not wait until 2028. Elevate intentionality by immediately mapping where financial literacy and digital/AI misinformation can be woven into existing subjects (Maths, Computing, Citizenship, PSHE). Design a whole-school strategy now, rather than rushing a few isolated lessons later.
• Design for Breadth (Post-EBacc): The scrapping of the EBacc and the reform of Progress 8 creates an opportunity. Intentionally design your Key Stage 4 (GCSE) curriculum to reflect true value, not just accountability measures. Ensure your staffing and options structure genuinely promote uptake in Arts, Music, and Languages based on student interest and economic opportunity, not just league table mechanics.
• Plan the Three Sciences Pathway: The commitment to ensuring all students can take three science GCSEs as standard is a significant logistical change. Be intentional about resource allocation, laboratory time, and science staffing needs, particularly for students who might have previously been guided towards Combined Science.
Combat Complacency: Accountability and Attainment Gaps
Complacency—particularly around established attainment patterns—is a risk during any transition. Leaders must actively target areas of underperformance.
• Tackle Year 8 Head-On: The introduction of the statutory Year 8 reading test is a direct government action to combat complacency regarding secondary-level literacy. School leaders must treat the results of this test as a major diagnostic tool, not just an assessment.
• Advice: Develop rapid intervention programs for pupils who do not meet the expected standard, using the data to address the “problem pupils experience during the first years of secondary school”—a known factor in widening attainment gaps.
• Scrutinise Accountability Metrics: Do not assume the goalposts are static. The DfE has promised to “reform” Progress 8 and scrap the EBacc.
• Advice: Combat complacency by forming a small working group to track DfE announcements on the new P8 methodology. Ensure subject leaders understand that the value of their subject (e.g., Arts) is now guaranteed to be viewed more equitably in the new system.
Champion Growth: People, Skills, and Curriculum
Growth is not just about student attainment; it’s about the professional development required to teach a “cutting-edge” curriculum.
• Invest in Digital CPD: To teach students how to spot AI-generated content and misinformation, staff themselves must be experts. Champion growth by commissioning immediate, practical CPD for all teachers on digital literacy and the responsible use of AI in learning and assessment.
• Prioritise Oracy and Communication: The push for oracy to have the same status as reading and writing is a profound call for growth in classroom practice.
• Advice: Embed explicit instruction in speaking, listening, and debate across all subjects. This is not just an English department initiative; it’s a whole-school effort to build the communication skills valued by employers and university pathways.
• Model Reflective Practice: Use the new curriculum as a moment for all departments to ask: “How can we better represent diversity and global contributions in our subject content, while maintaining our core foundational knowledge?”
Inspire Deeper Connections: Community and Opportunity
The reforms emphasize moving beyond the exam hall to prepare children for society and the world of work. Inspiring deeper connections is essential to this mission.
• Integrate Enrichment and Community: The new enrichment benchmarks on civic engagement, life skills, and arts are now part of the accountability framework.
• Advice: Inspire deeper connections by formally partnering with local businesses, civic groups, and arts organisations to deliver these benchmarks. Frame lessons on budgeting and mortgages not as abstract concepts, but as direct connections to financial wellbeing in their community.
• Connect Post-16 Pathways: Ensure the proposed exploration of a post-16 qualification in data science and AI is discussed early with your feeder colleges and sixth-form providers.
• Advice: This fosters a deeper connection between your school’s curriculum and the high-value technical and academic pathways your students will progress to.
By using this framework, school leaders can view the curriculum review not as a burden of change, but as a clear mandate to create a relevant, robust, and modern education system for their students.
It just got a little more interesting, didn’t it?
Good luck and I hope this is of some use to you and what you do next.
Once upon a midnight dreary, while I pondered, weak and weary…
I sometimes have the huge capacity to get in my own way; we all have the capacity for self-sabotage; by using the mantra, the commitment to elevate intentionality, combat complacency, champion growth, and inspire deeper connections, I might have a way forward for me and possibly for you. Who knows?
The first half-term ended with some health matters, which was not the glorious conclusion that I was planning. Being open with you as well, it really played to my own anxiety of not being there at the point where everyone needs the help, or at least, as many boots on the ground, as possible. Guilt being the cement boots that drag us all down to the river bed.
Time away has allowed me to reflect; reflection creates a plan and this is what I feel that I have assessed about myself as a leader and how I will attempt to do better.
1. Running over people’s input because I’ve already decided the answer
The Problem: I ask for opinions constantly. In the main, I do it to challenge leaders at all levels about assumptions and hope it strengthens how they may well approach the situation. In my mind, it is about owning the issue, whatever it may be, and not having me or another ‘sage like’ leader deciding they don’t necessarily believe in and then have someone else to blame if things don’t go according to plan. I do recognise that sometimes I’m waiting for someone to validate my conclusions. I mentally catalogue why differing perspectives are “wrong” and explain why my logic is better. What I don’t want is any member of my team to stop bringing ideas.
The Action I Need to Take (Elevate Intentionality / Combat Complacency):
What specific steps will I take to truly listen before responding?
I will adopt the “2-second rule”: After someone finishes speaking, I will wait a full two seconds before I open my mouth. This prevents me from forming my rebuttal while they are still talking.
I will make the practice of restating: “So, what I hear you saying is [summarise their point]. Did I get that right?” before sharing my own perspective.
How will I track my own speaking time vs. listening time in the next meeting?
I will use a simple tally sheet or an app on my phone to track how many times I interrupt or dominate the discussion (aiming for less than 25% of the total time). I will reflect, learn and hopefully grow.
2. Treating emotions like malfunctions that slow down progress
The Problem: If someone is upset, sometimes my instinct is to use logic to explain why their feelings are based on a misunderstanding of the facts. Dismissing how people feel teaches my team that I don’t care about the human cost of my decisions. They may well call my “objectivity” cold. They might not tell me to my face, possibly because I will use logic to tell them they are wrong. No-one wants Spock when the dog has passed away.
The Action I Need to Take (Inspire Deeper Connections):
Instead of explaining, what is one validating phrase I can use next time someone shares a tough emotion?
“That sounds incredibly frustrating, and I can see why you feel that way. Thank you for bringing the human context into this.” (This prioritises empathy before problem-solving.)
How will I explicitly factor in the human impact of my next major decision?
I will add a mandatory final bullet point to my decision-making checklist: People Impact & Mitigation. I will list who will be most affected by the change and what resources (time, emotional support, training) I will dedicate to helping them adapt.
3. Confusing brutal honesty with leadership courage
The Problem: I pride myself on “telling people exactly what they need to hear,” but my directness can land like contempt. When I point out a mistake, I’m diminishing them instead of helping them improve. The cost of my efficiency is their confidence. My efficiency is long established; their professional growth must be paramount.
The Action I Need to Take (Champion Growth):
How can I reframe critical feedback to focus on the desired future state (growth) instead of the past mistake?
I will shift the language from: “The report was messy and late,” to: “I have high expectations for you. For our next deliverable, let’s focus specifically on a structure that allows for X impact and ensures we hit the deadline. What support do you need to achieve that?”
Who can I ask for feedback on the tone I use during these conversations?
I will ask my direct supervisor or a peer mentor torole-playa difficult coaching conversation with me, specifically asking them to critique my body language and vocal tone (not just my words). I spent 5 years as Head of Drama in the dim and distance; I do this so often, but I feel not as often as I should. The strike through is for anyone who might use this advice to grow themselves.
4. Moving so fast through my own certainty that I create silent resistance
The Problem: I see the path clearly and execute quickly. Anyone who needs more explanation feels like dead weight. Speed without alignment is just me charging ahead while my teams drag their feet. They are unconvinced, but they’ve learned questioning me is pointless.
The Action I Need to Take (Elevate Intentionality / Combat Complacency):
What is the critical point in the next project where I need to pause specifically for an alignment check?
Immediately after the kick off of a meeting and before the team begins executing tasks. I will schedule a separate, 30-minute “Challenge Session” focused only on identifying risks.
What are two specific questions I can ask to surface quiet concerns without inviting a debate?
“If this project failed, what would be the number one reason, and who here quietly suspects it?” Failure criteria is something I have tried before, and ironically, failed in establishing; I keep coming back to it, because I think it can work. Ask yourself, what is the ‘minimum failure cost’ of this project?
“If you had to put a bet on a hidden obstacle, where would you place your money?”
5. Doubling down on bad decisions because admitting mistakes feels like losing
The Problem: I have strong convictions, and changing my mind can feel like weakness. My refusal to acknowledge mistakes has the capacity to destroy my credibility.
The Action I Need to Take (Champion Growth / Inspire Deeper Connections):
What is one recent failure I can now openly own with my team this week?
I will choose a small, low-stakes decision from the last quarter where I stubbornly proceeded despite early warning signs. In our next meeting, I will say: “I want to circle back to [Specific Project]. I overlooked [Specific Data Point] because I was too committed to my initial idea. I was wrong, and I apologise. The takeaway for all of us is to always prioritise evidence over conviction.”
How can I make “What did we learn?” the first question in our next project retrospective, rather than “What went wrong?”
I will institute a “Lessons Learned Log” where, instead of assigning blame, every item must be formatted as: “As a result of X, we now understand Y.” I will personally contribute the first entry to model the behaviour.
Quoth The Raven Leader:
As you emerge from the terrible “pit” of self-doubt and anxious isolation, having survived the terrifying “pendulum” of your past habits, remember this truth: The most chilling horror is not the fear of the unknown, but the terror of the unexamined self.
You have peered into the abyss and catalogued the demons that held you captive—the instinct to logically dismiss emotion, the pride of brutal honesty, and the refusal to admit a mistake. By charting your path with the clear intentionality of the “2-second rule”, the empathy of “People Impact & Mitigation”, and the courage to say, “I was wrong, and I apologise”, you have seized control of the narrative.
Let the final dread be of the leader you might have been—and embrace the brighter, more connected leadership you are now determined to forge. Nevermore shall you allow the old patterns to return.
This article aims to provide a strategic analysis of the proposed Year 8 reading test in England, examining its stated purpose, underlying rationale, design features, and potential risks. While the test is presented as a diagnostic tool to identify literacy gaps and support classroom planning, concerns persist about its use as an accountability measure.
Drawing comparisons with the Welsh model and highlighting implications for schools, teachers, and students, the article offers practical recommendations for implementation, risk mitigation, and fostering a positive reading culture.
It aims to support school leaders in navigating the policy landscape with clarity and purpose. It was originally written on the back of the initial announcement about these coming into play on Monday 29th September 2025 and was updated in light of the Secretary of State’s statement on Friday 17th October 2025.
In many respects, I am glad I sat on it while developments took hold. What I offer here are my views, but I would also like to make sure that the reader knows is that context is key. What I would like to see in my own school may well vary both externally and internally. These are not my final thoughts; these are my opening gambits.
The analysis of the proposed Year 8 reading test in England can be structured into four strategic themes, covering the policy’s aims, the evidence supporting it, its intended practical benefits, and the significant risks it carries.
Key Points by Theme
1. Elevate Intentionality: Purpose and Accountability
Prohibit the publication of school-by-school results and to bar Ofsted from using the specific test scores as definitive criteria in inspection judgment
Policy aims to be diagnostic, but functions as an accountability tool.
Accountability creep likely due to data sharing with DfE and Ofsted.
Contrast with Welsh model, which prohibits accountability use.
2. Combat Complacency: Rationale and Target Groups
Addresses “wasted years” between KS2 and KS4.
Reading seen as gateway to curriculum.
Targets white working-class underachievement.
3. Champion Growth: Design and Instructional Utility
Likely computer-adaptive for accurate, actionable results.
Risks: curriculum narrowing, teaching to the test, teacher stress, student disengagement.
Safeguard: legal firewalls to prevent accountability misuse
1. Elevate Intentionality: Purpose and Accountability
This theme explores the core conflict between the government’s stated purpose for the test and its expected real-world function as an accountability tool.
Policy Intent vs. Reality: The explicit, stated goal of the test is diagnostic—to efficiently identify specific literacy gaps in 13-year-olds and directly inform teachers’ planning. However, its functional purpose is widely expected to be as an accountability mechanism.
Accountability Creep: The crucial decision to share the standardised test data with the Department for Education (DfE) and Ofsted is seen by professional bodies as rendering initial low-stakes assurances “effectively meaningless”. Consequently, school leaders are expected to pre-emptively treat the assessment as high stakes due to the inherent fear of negative inspection outcomes.
The Structural Conflict: This approach contrasts sharply with the Welsh model, where mandatory Personalised Assessments (PAs) are explicitly mandated not to be used for school performance or accountability. The English policy instead prioritises centralised data oversight to compel institutional compliance.
2. Combat Complacency: Rationale and Target Groups
This theme focuses on the evidence base and the structural failings in the education system that the new test is designed to rectify.
• Addressing the “Wasted Years”: The test is a direct response to the lack of centralised accountability between Key Stage 2 (KS2) and Key Stage 4 (KS4), which has historically contributed to a reading “slump” after pupils leave primary school. The government views this as a transition failure, believing secondary schools become “less enthusiastic” about improving struggling readers.
• Literacy as a Gateway: The DfE frames robust reading skills as the “gateway to the entire curriculum”, arguing that weak literacy fundamentally limits a student’s ability to access all subject-specific content.
• Targeting Attainment Gaps: A primary social justice imperative behind the policy is to tackle persistent under-achievement in reading among white working-class children. By mandating a check at Year 8, the policy aims to force systematic intervention before high stakes GCSE courses begin.
3. Champion Growth: Design and Instructional Utility
This theme highlights the assessment’s technical design and the necessary steps required to ensure it supports actual student progression in the classroom.
• Diagnostic Design: The assessment is anticipated to use a computer-adaptive format. This design ensures the rapid delivery of accurate growth scores and actionable results, allowing instructional planning to be prioritised.
• Filling the Data Void: The test aims to establish a crucial national baseline and a consistent metric of literacy standards at the midpoint of KS3, a metric that has been absent since the Year 9 SATs were abolished in 2008.
• Policy Recommendation: For the test to champion genuine growth, the DfE should couple the assessment mandate with ring-fenced investment in high-quality Continuous Professional Development (CPD) for secondary teachers. The test’s value must be felt primarily at the classroom level, not simply for governmental data collection.
This theme outlines the major risks identified by stakeholders and proposes a necessary safeguard to protect the broader educational environment.
• Risk of Narrowing: Stakeholders warn that the centralised pressure will inevitably lead to a narrowing of the KS3 curriculum —or as we understand it, “teaching to the test”. This is argued to undermine the need for a “broad and balanced curriculum taught by teachers who are trusted”.
• Undermining Professionalism: The introduction of another national test implicitly suggests that existing localised professional judgment and formative assessments are insufficient, thus adding significant stress and pressure to teachers and staff.
• Student Engagement: There is a fear that introducing another high-stakes test risks exacerbating disengagement and making the assessment counterproductive, especially since pupils’ enjoyment of reading has already fallen to its lowest level in two decades.
• The Crucial Safeguard: To mitigate these systemic risks, the primary recommendation is to Mandate Legal Firewalls Against Accountability Creep. This requires clear, statutory legislation to explicitly prohibit the publication of school-by-school results and to bar Ofsted from using the specific test scores as definitive criteria in inspection judgments.
Recommendations for Our Academy
(edited to add: it is all about context…)
The proposed test must be viewed as an opportunity for targeted intervention rather than solely a compliance exercise, especially in a context where persistent attainment gaps are critical.
1. Strategic Policy and Purpose (Managing Accountability Creep)
We must establish a clear internal firewall to shield instructional practice from external pressure.
• Prioritise Diagnostic Use: Explicitly treat the Year 8 test internally as a diagnostic tool—its stated purpose —rather than a high-stakes accountability check. Use the resulting data to efficiently identify literacy gaps and inform instructional planning for individual students.
• Decouple from Staff Performance: Provide assurances to staff that the test data (shared with the DfE and Ofsted) will not be used as a definitive criterion for internal teacher or departmental performance judgments. This is crucial to prevent the test from adding “stress and pressure” to teachers and to encourage trust in existing professional judgment.
• Lobby for the “Crucial Safeguard”: Actively support calls from professional bodies to Mandate Legal Firewalls Against Accountability Creep. This includes advocating for legislation to prohibit the publication of school-by-school results.
The school should leverage the test’s format to address the “reading slump” prevalent in Key Stage 3 (KS3).
• Target the “Wasted Years”: Initiate or reinforce a systematic, whole-school literacy strategy across Years 7 and 8 to actively combat the perceived lack of centralised accountability after primary school. This is the direct structural problem the government aims to rectify.
• Utilise Adaptive Data: Fully exploit the computer-adaptive format of the assessment. Use the rapid delivery of accurate growth scores and actionable results to drive specific, small-group intervention, particularly for students identified as falling behind.
• Literacy as a Gateway: Train staff across all subjects (not just English) to understand their role in reading instruction. Literacy is the “gateway to the entire curriculum”, and intervention must ensure students can access the subject-specific content in Science, History, and Maths.
• Invest in CPD: Dedicate funds to ring-fenced investment in high-quality Continuous Professional Development (CPD) focused on effective secondary literacy instruction and how to interpret and act on adaptive assessment data.
3. Student Engagement and Risk Mitigation
Given that student enjoyment of reading has fallen to its lowest level in two decades, the school must protect the curriculum from the worst effects of testing.
• Protect the Broad Curriculum: Actively resist any pressure to allow the test to lead to a narrowing of the KS3 curriculum—the phenomenon known as “teaching to the test”. The school should commit to maintaining a “broad and balanced curriculum”.
• Counter Disengagement: Recognise the risk that introducing another high-stakes test risks exacerbating student disengagement. Implement or expand non-assessed reading-for-pleasure initiatives, such as silent reading time, library access, and book clubs, to foster a positive reading culture separate from assessment pressure.
• Focus on Attainment Gaps: Directly address the social justice imperative of the policy: tackling persistent under-achievement in reading among specific groups, such as white working-class children, who may be disproportionately represented in the inner-city school’s cohort
Edited to add:
The DfE statement on Friday 17th October from the secretary of state aligns with and directly addresses several key themes and rationales detailed in this analysis of the proposed Year 8 reading test, while also using language that attempts to mitigate the risks identified. I am not claiming foresight or wisdom, but I do wonder whether Bridgit has been reading over my shoulder…
Areas of Alignment and Direct Support:
• Policy Intent (Diagnostic Use): The statement explicitly emphasises the test’s diagnostic purpose. It stresses that the assessment is intended to “give you the tools and data you need to identify where children need additional help” and provide “invaluable data for schools – giving you insights to ensure no child needing additional support slips through the cracks.”
• Addressing the “Wasted Years”: The statement addresses the structural failure identified in the original article by mentioning the “gap where too many children slip further behind” between the “crucial staging posts at the end of year 6 and year 11”. This is the government’s direct response to the “lack of centralised accountability between Key Stage 2 (KS2) and Key Stage 4 (KS4)
• Literacy as a Gateway: The statement frames the policy with the rationale that a child “must first be able to read” before they can “engage in everything their school offers,” which aligns with the DfE’s framing of robust reading skills as the “gateway to the entire curriculum”
• Targeting Attainment Gaps: The concern about “disadvantaged children” being less able to read is mentioned in the statement, echoing the original articles theme that the policy has a “social justice imperative” to tackle persistent under-achievement
Areas of Contrast and Risk Mitigation:
• Accountability vs. Low-Stakes: The government’s statement repeatedly attempts to reassure teachers that the test is not an accountability measure, saying, “it is not about putting you… under the microscope” and is “without being onerous or adding unnecessary pressure onto pupils.” This is a direct attempt to pre-empt and mitigate the major systemic risk identified in the document: Accountability Creep
The original article however, warns that this low-stakes assurance is “effectively meaningless” because sharing standardised data with the DfE and Ofsted means school leaders are expected to pre-emptively treat the assessment as high stakes
• Teacher Stress and Professionalism: The statement aims to counter the risk of “Undermining Professionalism” and “teacher stress” by saying, “I know your expertise will help them feel confident,” and “Your expertise and dedication are among our education system’s greatest strengths.” The original article warns that introducing another national test implicitly suggests that existing professional judgment is “insufficient”.
So, let us revisit in the coming weeks. Today saw the first official statement; tomorrow may show us the dull or bright reality.
Approaching October half term is always an important time for our senior leaders to focus on fixing behaviour. The new intake, hormonal battles and plans in the summer that seemed so sweet are now in action as we descend into darkness. The challenge is joining up two big, different ideas. To get it right, they need to Elevate Intentionality, fight against being settled (Combating Complacency), keep pushing people to improve (Championing Growth), and Inspire Deeper Connections across the school team.
Inspiring Deeper Connections: Agency Versus Authority
The biggest challenge for our senior school leaders is figuring out how to Inspire Deeper Connections between two very different plans that represent two different types of leadership. On one side, we have the vital, detailed work—the kind often done by operational leaders—of making sure all our rules and systems (like the detailed checklist offered for children’s files and using data analysis) are working perfectly. This work puts children and colleague agency first.
On the other side is the big, expensive new idea: the Behaviour Hub and the focus on detentions as a key area of development. This model risks being seen as the traditional, middle-aged approach of command-and-control authority.
Leaders must join these two ideas together. If they don’t, the simple but important fixes—the little things that empower staff—will get ignored because everyone will be focused on the high-profile, costly project, letting authority overshadow agency. This is about making sure everyone is working on the same team, with a clear link between how we manage small problems and how we handle big ones.
Elevating Intentionality: Justifying the £250,000 Crossroads
Great school leadership starts with Elevating Intentionality—meaning leaders must think very carefully and on purpose about where every penny goes. The desire to fix things ourselves shows a real impetus to focus on strong internal processes.
But then there’s the Behaviour Hub, which is a special, full-day provision for students, mainly Years 7 and 8. It is set to cost about £250,000 every single year to run. This is a massive amount of money. Leaders need to be very intentional when they look closely at this cost and ask: Will spending all this money just reinforce a powerful, male-coded disciplinary structure, making us complacent about the vital work of operational leadership?
Elevating Intentionality means making sure that the resources are shared; fixing the simple things—the checks, balances, and children’s trails. Leaders must prove that the Hub is truly needed because the system-level fixes alone weren’t enough, not just because the powerful intervention model is easier to demonstrate action is being taken.
Championing Growth by Combating Complacency
The way we decide to handle poor behaviour shows if we truly want to Champion Growth. The plan to focus heavily on detentions as a key area of development is simple to enforce. But this easy punishment route, often seen as a quick fix from the top, risks making staff Complacent because it stops them from asking the challenging question: why did the student behave that way?
The Behaviour Hub suggests a better way to Champion Growth. It requires reflective practice, uses behaviour passports and praise on exit, and must be curriculum aligned. This approach, focused on teaching and understanding, sees poor behaviour as a chance to teach something new. Leaders must Champion Growth by making sure this reflective attitude, which values collaboration over consequence, is used by all teachers, not just the Hub staff. They must use the data driven approach to selection from the Hub to help the whole school learn how to better teach students self-control, which is a better goal than just giving out a detention. Behaviour is a curriculum model. Would not resources be better used to adapt and develop the curriculum in such a way that enhances the opportunities for children to learn and develop rather than knit pom-poms and bake cakes? Is this allowing our children to be able to adapt and thrive?
What Happens Next? The Unresolved Questions
These two sets of ideas—the detailed rule-making and the expensive new room—are both important. But the biggest challenge is making sure they work together. As senior leaders look at this plan, they need to be honest and Elevate Intentionality to solve the following problems:
Why is the high-cost, high-control Hub model being pushed forward so quickly? Does it risk marginalising the less visible, but vital, work of developing internal processes that empower colleagues agency?
How can leaders Inspire Deeper Connections so that the different ideas—like the collaborative reflective practice in the Hub and the strict use of SLT detentions—actually make sense together without one feeling like a defeat for the other?
Are we simply Combating Complacency by spending a massive £250,000 on a new room, or are we truly trying to Champion Growth across the entire school with our daily actions and our respect for different styles of leadership?
Will the pressure to get the new Hub up and running cause the equally vital work of systemic reform to be tabled for wider discussion and just forgotten about later, thus quashing the agency-focused approach?
The systematic, curriculum approach, one that spreads responsibility, offers potency to all colleagues and creating a dynamic for children in which to develop and grow is the actual champion. Better to tackle these matters collectively than to shift towards an out of sight, out of mind model. There’s a reason that the dunces cap and standing in the corner facing the wall went the way of the cane.
I know I have been quiet. It means I have been noisy elsewhere. For me, this blog is a therapy; an expression of the soul of what I am doing. For those that read this and know me, this is a peek behind the curtain. For everyone else, I hope that this might offer an inspiration.
Professional growth must not be a managerial, tick box exercise. We are teachers; we are in a graduate profession. We must feed and grow ourselves to achieve something.
Professional growth in education is more than a required administrative process; it is, fundamentally, a commitment to moral purpose. For teachers, authentic development is the engine that drives student success and shapes the next generation. This journey requires intentionality, a refusal to stand still, a dedication to supporting colleagues, and a relentless focus on the human connections that underpin great teaching.
The Foundation of Authenticity
Authentic professional growth begins with deep reflection. It is the starting point of a meaningful, impactful conversation with a coach, transforming an administrative task into a deeply personal framework. Teachers are encouraged to view their development not as a mere checklist, but as an opportunity to align their individual ambitions with their professional journey. This requires honesty about practice, a willingness to receive peer feedback, and a commitment to modelling high standards for both students and colleagues alike. This developmental process is deliberately designed to help colleagues align their current role and goals with potential career progression, identifying the stepping stones toward roles like a Middle Leader or a Trust Development Team member; in short, influence the whole, not just the corner you are in.
Elevating Intention and Combating Complacency
A growth plan achieves its potential when it blends individual ambition with collective purpose. Every professional goal should directly connect to the school’s or Trust’s strategic mission, such as creating a community of empowered citizens. For teachers, this means constantly articulating and evidencing curriculum intent, implementation, and impact. This proactive approach actively combats complacency by upholding the notion that “It’s not enough to beat the odds, we must change the odds.” Intention is refined by applying high-level standards to daily practice; for example, Upper Pay Scale (UPS) Teachers are expected to actively lead and mentor colleagues, championing innovation and contributing to whole-school improvement. Even leadership targets are framed as leading initiatives that promote key qualities like sustainability or citizenship, ensuring personal growth directly serves the wider educational vision. This commitment to continuous improvement is further evidenced by using data-informed self-evaluation—turning academic data into actionable insights to refine teaching—and engaging in curriculum deep dives to ensure professional mastery and clear articulation of curriculum impact.
Championing Growth and Inspiring Deeper Connections
Sustained growth is institutionalised through supportive structures, promoting a culture where experience is shared and expertise is cultivated. Growth is championed by implementing formal structures, such as designing and leading a coaching programme for middle leaders, and actively identifying and mentoring future UPS candidates. Furthermore, UPS teachers are explicitly tasked with leading Continuous Professional Development, coaching colleagues, and setting the tone for a culture of high expectations and equity. This is a critical move from simply growing to generating growth in others. Professional growth is inherently a collaborative endeavour, which supports the wider goal of fostering citizens with agency by prioritising inter-staff collaboration. Teachers are expected to show unity, co-plan, and support faculty-wide standardisation by sharing good practice and participating in marking moderation for professional development. Colleagues are also expected to Live the Culture and Lead the Culture by taking initiative in shaping routines and upholding professional standards, as outlined in the principles of ‘The Mirror’. Finally, inspiring deeper connections means that targets must extend beyond the classroom into the real world, including developing partnerships with local businesses to enhance careers education and leading cross-curricular projects that promote global citizenship, while also fostering positive relationships with students and encouraging positive parental engagement.
Uploads of documents used over the past few days will be available to download.
I hope to not be silent for a few weeks, but we are in the midst of the longest term and the hardest work. Authenticity occasionally means going the extra mile and not seeking the immediate rewards.
I have never been a fan of donning the hi-vis. Admittedly, part of it is a matter of vanity; a dislike for man-made fibres and my compulsion to remind colleagues and others that teaching is a graduate profession and not a glorified babysitting service. However, from a safeguarding point of view, it makes perfect sense. Balance this against that across the UK, senior leaders are increasingly taking on responsibilities that were once handled by support staff, such as acting as caretakers or even lollipop people makes you consider how funding for education really has hit rock bottom.
This isn’t just an anecdote; it’s a symptom of a system where budgets are so stretched that schools are making what they call “impossible choices.” For example, some schools have had to cut back on support staff and services like language and mental health support, relying on parent-teacher associations for basic equipment like reading books and playground equipment.
The National Education Union (NEU) and the National Association of Head Teachers (NAHT) have stated this is what their members are saying where they are. They report that school staff are overstretched, morale is low, and school buildings are falling into disrepair. This is leading to larger class sizes, which are now among the highest in Europe.
The core of the problem lies in “real-terms cuts.” This means that while some government funding for schools may have increased in cash terms, it has not kept pace with inflation and the rising costs schools face.
Research by the “Stop School Cuts” Coalition, which includes major education unions, found that 74% of schools in England have less funding in real terms than they did in 2010. This figure represents 14,112 schools that cannot afford the same staffing and resources they could 15 years ago. The research also revealed that over 1,000 schools have suffered cumulative real-terms cuts exceeding £1 million each.
The coalition calculates that core funding for mainstream schools per pupil fell by a further £127 in 2024/25, leaving schools with £558 less per pupil compared to 2010-11 in real terms.
The consequences of these funding cuts go far beyond a senior leaders’ job description. They are having a direct and negative impact on the quality of education:
Staffing Crisis: The crisis is a major driver of the recruitment and retention crisis in education. The value of teacher and school leader pay has been cut by around a fifth since 2010. This, combined with high workload and burnout, leads to a significant number of teachers leaving the profession within their first few years.
Reduced Curriculum: As schools are forced to make savings, subjects like arts, music, and sports are being lost, narrowing the educational opportunities available to children.
SEND Provision: The lack of funding is a major contributor to the crisis in special educational needs and disabilities provision. Many local authorities are spending more on SEND than they receive from the government, and teachers report a lack of confidence that a referral for a special needs assessment will result in a child getting the help they need.
Crumbling Infrastructure: Capital spending on school buildings has also seen a significant real-terms decline since 2010, leading to a situation where schools are struggling to maintain and repair their buildings.
In a realm that I am not expert in, outside of my experiences as an authentic, senior leader, here is my view on what this or any government need to implement when it comes to funding for schools.
Elevate Intentionality
The UK’s educational funding crisis is a complex issue requiring a strategic, intentional approach. Rather than relying on temporary solutions or reactive measures, the government must adopt a long-term, cross-departmental strategy to ensure every child has access to quality education. This means a shift from ad hoc funding injections to a sustainable, ring-fenced budget for schools that accounts for inflation and rising costs. We need to prioritise spending on what truly matters: a well-supported teaching workforce, up-to-date resources, and safe, well-maintained school buildings. An intentional approach also means being transparent with the public about where funding is going and the impact it’s having, building trust and accountability into the system. It’s about designing a system that works for all students, not just some. If the next initiative from the DfE is led by a sporting hero or D list celebrity, we know we are in real trouble. We need something sustainable.
Combat Complacency
For too long, the UK’s education system has operated under a veil of complacency, where the growing crisis has been met with insufficient action. The anecdotal evidence—headteachers taking on caretaker duties, crumbling school buildings, and teachers leaving the profession in droves—is not just a warning sign; it’s a call to action. We must reject the notion that “good enough” is an acceptable standard for our children’s future. The government must acknowledge the severity of the real-terms cuts to school budgets since 2010 and the devastating impact this has had on staffing, curriculum, and infrastructure. This requires an honest, open dialogue with unions, teachers, and parents to develop and implement effective solutions, moving beyond rhetoric and into decisive policy changes. This needs to be a proper dialogue and not one with apocryphal claims that every teacher in the land has agreed to ideas. In short, not a new, OFSTED framework re-launch.
Champion Growth
A thriving education system is the bedrock of a prosperous society. To champion growth, we must invest in the future by properly funding schools and the educators within them. This means addressing the recruitment and retention crisis by offering competitive pay and manageable workloads that reflect the value of the teaching profession. We also need to reverse the narrowing of the curriculum by ensuring schools have the resources to offer a rich and varied education in subjects like arts, music, and physical education. Furthermore, championing growth means fully funding and reforming the Special Educational Needs and Disabilities (SEND) provision, ensuring that every child, regardless of their needs, receives the support they require to flourish. By investing in our schools, we are investing in the economic and social potential of the next generation. And hopefully generations to come.
Inspire Deeper Connections
The funding crisis has highlighted a disconnect between policy and practice, between government promises and the reality on the ground. To solve this, we must inspire deeper connections across the education ecosystem. This means fostering stronger partnerships between schools, local authorities, and communities. For instance, creating more accessible and efficient channels for communication and collaboration can ensure that funding decisions are made with the direct input of those on the front lines. Additionally, it means rebuilding the relationship between the government and teaching unions, moving from adversarial posturing to collaborative problem-solving. By uniting all stakeholders—teachers, parents, unions, and policymakers—we can work together to build a shared vision for an education system that is not only well-funded but also equitable, innovative, and a source of national pride.
The upcoming OFSTED framework, slated for November 2025, represents a fundamental shift in educational evaluation. It replaces the single, high-stakes judgement with a more nuanced “report card” and a five-point grading scale for key areas. This change moves from a “best fit” to a “secure fit” methodology, demanding that schools consistently meet the standards for a grade. It is here, in this new era of granular accountability, that the principles of authentic leadership become not just beneficial, but essential. This “secure fit” approach requires more than just meeting a checklist; it necessitates a deep and truthful alignment between a school’s stated values and its daily practices.
In a metaphorical sense, OFSTED is seeking an “educational golden ratio,” a perfect, harmonious balance between vision and reality. Just as the mathematical ratio defines a unique proportional relationship that is both aesthetically pleasing and structurally sound, this new framework seeks to find the precise, harmonious balance that defines truly outstanding education. For leaders, achieving this requires a blend of core competencies: a profound sense of self-awareness, an unwavering commitment to genuine values, and the courage to act with absolute integrity. An authentic leader doesn’t perform for an inspection; they lead their institution with a clear, honest purpose that is, by its very nature, inspection-ready because it is lived out every day. This approach ensures that the institution’s blueprint for success is not merely theoretical but is the foundational reality of its operation.
Elevate Intentionality
Under the new OFSTED framework, intentionality becomes the cornerstone of a secure grade. The previous “best fit” approach often allowed for a degree of interpretive leeway, where a school’s positive trajectory could influence a judgment despite some inconsistencies. Now, inspectors will demand that schools consistently meet the standards for a given grade. For leaders, this means articulating not just what they teach, but why. This is a direct call to the authentic leader’s core: a deep, well-articulated sense of purpose. A leader who embodies this principle will be able to demonstrate how their curriculum, policies, and practices are all rooted in a clear, ambitious vision for high-quality, inclusive education. This isn’t about rote compliance but about a profound alignment of personal and institutional values, where every decision—from subject sequencing to resource allocation and professional development planning—is a deliberate step toward a shared, compelling goal. For example, a leader can show how a decision to prioritize historical thinking skills in the curriculum is not a random choice but a deliberate effort to empower students to critically evaluate information, a skill essential for their future civic lives.
Combat Complacency
The shift from a single, high-stakes judgment to a detailed “report card” with grades for inclusion, curriculum, achievement, and leadership is designed to combat complacency. It removes the high-pressure “all-or-nothing” element of the previous system and replaces it with a focus on continuous, transparent improvement. For the authentic leader, this change is an opportunity. They are already self-aware, possessing a clear understanding of their institution’s strengths and weaknesses. The new framework’s report card encourages this level of honest self-evaluation, allowing leaders to focus on specific areas for development without the existential threat of a single negative judgment. Furthermore, by placing a renewed emphasis on staff well-being, the framework directly supports the authentic leader’s commitment to empathy and compassion, urging them to manage workload and foster a culture of open communication and support. This new, more transparent system encourages a proactive approach to improvement, where leaders are not just reacting to a single grade but are constantly using data from various graded areas to refine their strategies, ensuring that the school is always in a state of positive evolution.
Champion Growth
Authentic leaders are not just stewards of their institutions; they are champions of growth, both for their students and their staff. The new framework places a greater emphasis on the quality of teaching and professional development, requiring leaders to show how they are improving staff’s subject and pedagogical knowledge. An authentic leader will see this not as a burden, but as a central part of their role. They build a culture of professional learning where staff take ownership of their development, share best practices, and engage in collaborative dialogue about curriculum and pedagogy. This is evidenced by a leader’s visible presence, their clear expectations, and their commitment to creating a supportive and challenging environment. By prioritizing the continuous growth of their team through mechanisms like peer coaching, collaborative inquiry groups, and access to the latest educational research, leaders create a professional environment where expertise flourishes and staff feel genuinely valued and invested in the collective mission. This commitment to intellectual humility and ongoing learning sets a powerful example for the entire school community.
Inspire Deeper Connections
The framework’s move towards a more collaborative approach aims to inspire deeper connections with the entire educational community. The introduction of “richer conversations” with leaders, coupled with the detailed report cards for parents, fosters a new level of transparency and engagement. An authentic leader, with their focus on relationships and trust, is perfectly positioned to leverage this. They will engage effectively with other leaders, partners, and the broader community, including parents and carers, to build a network of support for their students’ achievement and well-being. The more granular detail in the new report cards provides a more comprehensive picture for parents, giving them a more nuanced understanding of a school’s strengths and areas for improvement. This shared insight fosters a more transparent and collaborative relationship, ultimately working toward a more just, connected, and flourishing society. Instead of a single, cryptic grade, the detailed report card serves as a conversation starter, allowing leaders to discuss specific areas of success and to collaboratively problem-solve with parents and other stakeholders.
The Currency of Qualifications vs. the Joy of Learning
The tension between qualifications and a love of learning is a central theme in the Curriculum and Assessment (C&A) review document. While the review acknowledges the success of a knowledge-rich curriculum in raising attainment, it also highlights persistent disparities and the pressure this system places on the educational experience. The report reveals a significant volume of examination hours at Key Stage 4, a figure comparable to Singapore but substantially higher than other high-performing nations.
This intense focus on terminal exams, which in many cases entirely determines a student’s final grade, has led to what can be described as a “deep but divergent” Key Stage 4 curriculum. Teachers, burdened by the need to cover a vast volume of content and prepare students for rigorous, high-stakes assessments, are often forced to teach narrowly. The curriculum, though deep in its chosen disciplines, becomes divergent, offering less breadth and variety, which can stifle the natural curiosity and “joy of learning” that is so crucial for long-term engagement. This intense pressure can lead to student burnout and a focus on rote memorization over genuine understanding and critical thought. This can also reduce opportunities for non-examination assessments like coursework, which might otherwise allow for a more holistic evaluation of a student’s skills and understanding, such as their ability to conduct independent research or collaborate on a long-term project. The next phase of the C&A review is specifically exploring how to reduce this assessment volume without compromising the reliability of qualifications, signaling an official recognition of this issue and opening the door to a more balanced approach that values both academic rigor and a genuine love for lifelong learning.
A Deeper Dive: Preparing for Inspection in a Secure Fit World
For curriculum area leaders, preparing for an inspection under the new framework is a three-pronged task focused on Intent, Implementation, and Impact. This is not about a last-minute audit, but about demonstrating the integrity of your work.
1. Curriculum Intent: The “Why” and the “What”
You must be able to articulate the foundational logic of your curriculum. This goes beyond simply listing topics; it’s about explaining your vision and the principles that underpin your design choices.
Coherent Sequencing: Explain how your curriculum is logically structured to build on prior learning. How do concepts taught in Year 7 lay the groundwork for understanding in Year 9? For example, in a history curriculum, can you show how an early unit on the Roman Empire provides the necessary foundation for a later study of the Renaissance, demonstrating a clear progression of knowledge and skills? Provide concrete examples of this progression and be prepared to justify the decisions made.
Ambitious End Points: Have a clear vision of the knowledge, skills, and cultural capital pupils will have acquired by the end of each key stage. This should be an ambitious vision for every child, regardless of their starting point. The end points should not just be about content mastery but also about the development of transferable skills like critical thinking, communication, and resilience.
Rationale: Be prepared to justify your curriculum’s design choices. Why do you teach certain topics in a specific order? How do these choices reflect the unique context of your student body and community? For instance, a curriculum leader in an urban area with a high percentage of multilingual learners might include texts that reflect a diversity of cultures, and be prepared to articulate the pedagogical rationale behind this choice.
2. Curriculum Implementation: The “How”
This is where you demonstrate how your vision translates into tangible practice in the classroom. Inspectors will want to see that your curriculum is being delivered with precision and expertise.
Instructional Quality: Be ready to provide evidence of effective teaching across your team. Show how teachers check for understanding using a variety of formative assessment strategies, such as quick quizzes, exit tickets, or targeted questioning. Demonstrate how they identify and correct misconceptions in real-time, and how they adapt their teaching to meet the needs of all learners, including those with SEND.
Subject Expertise: Demonstrate that your team has a secure grasp of the subject matter. This can be shown through collaborative planning documents, meeting minutes that focus on pedagogical development, or peer observation feedback. A deep understanding of the subject allows teachers to not only deliver content but also to inspire a passion for the material and answer complex questions from students.
Joint Lesson Visits: Be prepared to observe lessons alongside inspectors. This is a key opportunity to discuss teaching quality and curriculum delivery in a collaborative, rather than adversarial, setting. Use this time to articulate your understanding of what is happening in the classroom and to demonstrate your leadership in action.
3. Curriculum Impact: The “Show Me”
Under the new framework, impact is not solely defined by data. It’s about what students “know and can do.”
Work Scrutiny: Prepare to present a range of pupil work to show progress over time. Select pieces that demonstrate both the acquisition of core knowledge and the development of skills. For instance, a pupil’s early and later essays can reveal the progression of their analytical and writing abilities, while a portfolio of science lab reports can show the development of scientific inquiry skills. This evidence should tell a compelling story of student learning and growth.
Pupil Voice: Be confident that your students can articulate what they are learning, why it is important, and how it connects to other topics. Inspectors will be talking to pupils to gauge their understanding and engagement. Be prepared for them to ask questions like, “What is the most interesting thing you’ve learned this term?” or “How does this topic relate to what you learned last year?” This is the ultimate proof that your curriculum’s intent and implementation have translated into genuine impact.
Beyond the Grades: While qualifications are the “currency,” be ready to show the broader impact of your curriculum. How does it foster resilience, creativity, and a genuine love of learning? How are students prepared for life beyond the classroom, equipped not just with qualifications but with the knowledge and character to thrive? This is the core of the authentic leader’s purpose, and it is what the new framework is designed to find.
And so, as the dust settles on this new framework, the true test won’t be in the polished performances or last-minute preparations. It will be found in the everyday, honest work of leaders who have already embraced their own educational golden ratio. The most successful schools won’t be the ones that simply pass the inspection, but the ones that have built a culture where the inspection is a mere formality—a simple reflection of their unwavering commitment to a truly authentic vision. After all, you can’t fake the golden ratio; you have to live it.
This past week—beginning with my well-planned start to the year unravelling spectacularly at 7:05 a.m. on Monday, September 1st—has been a whirlwind of unexpected challenges. It’s been a series of unfortunate incidents that make this job both compelling and, at times, maddening. But amidst the chaos, I’ve been reminded that authentic leadership isn’t about the sprint—it’s about the marathon. It’s a journey that demands endurance, vulnerability, and a commitment to growth. This reflection is for anyone who works with me, offering insight into what it means to lead authentically, especially when everything feels like it’s wobbling.
From Sprint to Sustained March
Leadership is often romanticised as a series of grand, heroic gestures—decisive moments that lead to swift victories. The myth of Pheidippides, the Greek messenger who ran a frantic, dying sprint to announce victory, embodies this misconception. This model, while dramatic, often leaves leaders and their teams drained and disillusioned.
In contrast, the historical reality of the marathon offers a richer metaphor. The Athenians didn’t rely on a lone hero; they marched together as a unified army, demonstrating collective strength and shared purpose. This sustained, unified march is a far more accurate representation of authentic leadership—a continuous, deliberate, and profoundly human endeavour. Many of us have felt like Pheidippides—exhausted, overwhelmed, and sprinting toward an elusive finish line. But the truth is, we’re not alone. We are part of a team, a community, and a shared mission. The real work of leadership lies in walking together, even when the path is unclear.
Embracing the Wobble Zone
As we march forward, we inevitably enter what psychologist Carol Dweck might call the “wobble zone”. This is the uncomfortable, uncertain space between our comfort zone and our stretch zone—the place where growth happens. Dweck’s research on mindsets reveals that our beliefs about our abilities shape how we respond to challenges. Those with a fixed mindset see intelligence and talent as static, leading them to fear failure and avoid risk. This is the curse and the first failings of a teacher and a leader. We grow pepole; children and adults alike. We grow ourselves by our contact with people and experiences.
In contrast, those with a growth mindset understand that abilities can be cultivated through effort and perseverance.
The wobble zone is where authentic leadership is tested. It’s where mistakes are made, self-doubt creeps in, and the temptation to revert to old habits—such as micromanagement or a lack of transparency—is strongest. But it is also where transformation begins. An authentic leader doesn’t shy away from the wobble zone; they lean into it. They use discomfort as a catalyst for reflection, connection, and renewal. This means acknowledging fatigue, showing vulnerability, and engaging transparently with the team. It means saying, “This week was hard,” and asking, “How do we move forward together?”
A Renewed Commitment to the March
The true work of authentic leadership isn’t about surviving the chaos of a single week; it’s about using those challenges to forge a stronger path forward. As we continue our march together, let’s turn the lessons of the wobble zone into a renewed commitment to our shared journey.
Elevate Intentionality
Instead of simply reacting to challenges, let’s be more intentional about how we lead. This means making a conscious choice to lead from a place of purpose and values, not from a place of fear or exhaustion. When the path is unclear, intentionality allows us to regroup and remember our shared mission.
Combat Complacency
Authentic leadership demands endurance, not comfort. The marathon requires us to continuously move forward, even when it feels difficult. We must actively resist the urge to retreat or become complacent when faced with setbacks. Each wobble is an opportunity to strengthen our resolve and reaffirm our commitment.
Champion Growth
Let’s embrace the wobble zone not as a sign of failure but as the very space where growth happens. By adopting a growth mindset, we can transform mistakes into lessons and self-doubt into a catalyst for positive change. This means celebrating small victories and supporting each other through every misstep.
Inspire Deeper Connections
Finally, the march is a collective effort. Authentic leadership is about walking together, not alone.
By showing vulnerability and transparency, we inspire deeper connections and build a unified community. The victory isn’t about reaching the finish line first; it’s about making sure we all get there together. Let’s continue the march, not as sprinters chasing fleeting victories, but as a community committed to the long road of meaningful leadership.
Finally, it is almost, very nearly Friday, isn’t it?
The GCSE results for England, Wales, and Northern Ireland were released today, Thursday 21st August 2025. This cohort of children was in Year 6 when the first COVID-19 lockdown occurred, and their transition to secondary school and early secondary education was significantly disrupted. I write in the capacity about this situation as a deputy head teacher at a secondary school and as a father of one of those year 6s.
The key points from the national picture are only really interesting within the context of your own setting. So, I work in an inner-city school, which has a high proportion of disadvantaged children as well as a high number with SEND and EAL needs, all varying in some shape or form. Our results are not for sharing here: anyone inside the profession knows that any headlines we have today are the base figures. Reasonable adjustments and remarks are also key factors.
Overall Performance for England and Wales:
Overall results are largely stable, with minimal variation from the previous year.
The proportion of entries achieving a grade 7 or above (equivalent to A/A* in the old system) is 21.8% for all students and 23.0% for 16-year-olds in England, a slight increase from last year. This figure is also higher than the pre-pandemic level in 2019 (20.8%).
The overall pass rate (achieving a grade 4 or above, a “standard pass”) is 67.1%, slightly down from 67.4% in 2024. For 16-year-olds in England, this figure is 70.5%, also a marginal increase.
Subject-Specific Trends:
The proportion of students achieving a grade 4 or above in English and Maths has fallen slightly for 16-year-olds, meaning more students will be required to resit these exams.
English Language: The standard pass rate for all students fell from 61.6% to 59.7%. For 16-year-olds, it dropped from 71.2% to 70.6%.
Maths: The standard pass rate for all students fell from 59.6% to 58.2%. For 16-year-olds, it saw a marginal decline from 72.0% to 71.9%.
There was a notable increase in entries for Combined Science and a decline in entries for separate sciences (Biology, Chemistry, and Physics).
Entries in History and German also fell, while entries in Statistics and Music saw increases for the second year in a row.
Gender and Regional Disparities:
The gender gap has narrowed to its smallest level since 2000. While girls continue to outperform boys overall, the gap at the top grades (7+) has closed due to a slight improvement in boys’ results and a marginal dip in girls’ results. In maths, boys actually outperformed girls in terms of top grades and standard passes.
Regional disparities remain, with London having the highest proportion of students achieving top grades and standard passes, and the West Midlands and North East having the fewest. However, the gap between London and other regions has narrowed slightly.
Vocational and Technical Qualifications (VTQs):
Over 360,500 VTQ results were also issued.
The most popular subjects for Technical Awards were Leisure, Travel and Tourism, and Health, Public Services and Care.
Opinions and Analysis:
Ofqual’s perspective: The exams regulator, Ofqual, has hailed the results as a sign of “continued stability,” emphasizing that the standards of the qualifications have been maintained year-on-year. They believe the results are a reliable “passport to opportunity” for students.
School leaders and experts: Many in the education sector have noted the resilience of this particular cohort, who faced significant disruption during their early secondary school years due to the pandemic. However, there is a recurring concern that the results once again expose the deep-seated inequalities in the education system, particularly the impact of socio-economic factors on student attainment.
Student sentiment: Qualifying children have expressed a mix of emotions, from pride and relief to disappointment and anxiety. Online forums show some students expressing frustration over grade boundaries, while others offer support and reassurance that GCSE results do not define future success.
Resits and future implications: The slight decrease in English and Maths pass rates for 16-year-olds means that more students will be required to resit these exams in their post-16 education. This is a point of concern for colleges and the students themselves.
Long-term trends: The results continue a trend of top grades remaining higher than pre-pandemic levels, a phenomenon that has been observed for the past two years. The narrowing gender and regional gaps are seen as positive developments by some, while others caution that the disparities are still “stubbornly entrenched” and require significant investment to truly address.
The Narrative of Stability and Subtlety
What follows is a more detailed analysis of the national picture.
An Analytical Commentary on the 2025 GCSE Results: The Nuances of a ‘Stable’ System
The 2025 GCSE results have been officially framed as a return to “stability” following the period of turbulence caused by the Covid-19 pandemic. While headline figures from exam regulators like Ofqual and the Joint Council for Qualifications (JCQ) support this claim, a comprehensive analysis of the underlying data reveals a more complex and nuanced picture. The overall grade distribution is broadly consistent with that of 2024, yet this top-level consistency masks several critical and evolving trends that warrant closer examination.
This report delves into these subtleties, analysing the marginal changes in grade outcomes, the continued narrowing of the long-standing gender gap, the stubborn persistence of regional and socioeconomic disparities, and the mounting pressure on the mandatory English and Maths resit policy. The findings suggest that while the system may be in a state of statistical equilibrium, it is not without significant stress. The data on subject entries points to pragmatic shifts in student choices, while a comparative analysis with other UK nations highlights divergent educational outcomes. This commentary provides a multi-layered perspective on the state of secondary education, moving beyond surface-level statistics to offer a professional and strategic assessment of the challenges and opportunities ahead.
The Lasting Echo of Disruption
The cohort of students who sat their GCSE exams in 2025 is the final group to have their education significantly impacted by the Covid-19 pandemic. Their last term of primary school and their transition to secondary education were profoundly disrupted by school closures and the rapid shift to remote learning. Education Secretary Bridget Phillipson has acknowledged the “remarkable resilience” this cohort has demonstrated in navigating these challenges.
This cohort’s unique educational journey has had a direct and lasting consequence on the national educational data landscape. For the first time, a core metric for measuring school performance, the Progress 8 score, will not be published. This is because the students did not sit their Key Stage 2 SATs, which provide the prior attainment data necessary to calculate student progress from primary to secondary school. The absence of this benchmark fundamentally changes the way these results must be interpreted. Without the ability to distinguish between raw attainment and genuine academic progress, a comprehensive understanding of school effectiveness is limited. Analysts are thus compelled to rely on aggregate attainment figures, making it more challenging to pinpoint whether changes in performance are due to effective school support or are simply a reflection of the academic profile of the student intake. This lack of a longitudinal performance measure necessitates a more granular analysis of other available demographic and policy-related data to uncover the deeper trends at play.
The Headline Figures and the ‘Stability’ Watchword
The central message from official sources regarding the 2025 GCSE results is one of “stability”. The Joint Council for Qualifications (JCQ) and Ofqual have reported figures that appear to support this claim. Overall, 67.1% of all entries achieved a grade 4 or above, representing a marginal reduction from 67.4% in 2024. When focusing on the core group of 16-year-olds, the proportion achieving a grade 4 or above was 70.5%, a negligible increase from 70.4% last year.
At the top end of the grading spectrum, a fractional increase was observed. The proportion of all UK entries awarded a grade 7 or above rose to 21.9% this year, up slightly from 21.8% in 2024. In England, the percentage of entries from 16-year-olds receiving top grades also saw a small uptick from 22.6% to 23.0%.
This emphasis on stability is not accidental. Sir Ian Bauckham, Chief Regulator at Ofqual, has stated that the “standard of work required to achieve a grade seven or a grade four at GCSE is the same this year as it was last year”. The consistent use of the term “stable” across multiple official communications serves a strategic purpose. It aims to instil confidence in the exam system and reassure the public that grading standards have successfully returned to a predictable, pre-pandemic-like state. This narrative, while statistically accurate at a macro level, conceals the underlying tensions and shifts that are only visible through a more detailed examination of specific demographic, regional, and subject-level data.
A Comparison to Pre-Pandemic Standards
While the 2025 results are considered stable in comparison to 2024, they remain elevated when benchmarked against the last pre-pandemic exam year, 2019. This suggests that the grading system has settled at a new “normal” that is slightly higher than the pre-Covid baseline.
For example, the proportion of entries at grade 7 or above is 21.9% this year, which is significantly higher than the 20.8% recorded in 2019. Similarly, the standard pass rate (grade 4 or above) stands at 67.4% in 2025, which is also a marginal increase over the 67.3% seen in 2019. The proportion of grade 9s issued also rose slightly from 5.1% to 5.2%. The overall rate for grades 1 or above, however, has fallen, sitting at 97.9% in 2025, a decrease from 98.3% in 2019 and the lowest since 2005.
The continued elevation of grades above the 2019 benchmark indicates that the grade inflation that occurred during the pandemic has not been entirely reversed. This is a testament to the “comparable outcomes” policy, a mechanism that ensures grade boundaries are adjusted to prevent a sharp drop in results, even if exam papers are perceived as more challenging. This policy has successfully created a new, slightly higher standard for the GCSE, which will serve as the benchmark for future cohorts. This establishes a subtle but lasting legacy of the pandemic on the national grading landscape.
The Narrowing, Yet Enduring, Gender Gap
One of the most notable trends in the 2025 results is the continued narrowing of the gender gap, which is now at its “narrowest point this century”. This is a significant development, particularly at the top grades. The proportion of female entries awarded a grade 7 or above was 24.5%, compared to 19.4% for male entries. While girls remain ahead, the gap has closed to 5.1 percentage points, a notable reduction from the 5.7 percentage points of the previous year.
The closing of this gap is not a consequence of a decline in girls’ performance. In fact, the proportion of top grades for 16-year-old girls remained steady at 25.5%, while for boys, it rose by 0.7 percentage points, from 19.8% to 20.5%. Similarly, at the grade 4 or above level, the gap narrowed by 0.6 percentage points, with boys’ performance remaining stable at 64.1% while girls’ attainment saw a small drop from 70.8% to 70.2%. The data indicates that the narrowing of the gender gap is primarily driven by an improvement in male performance, rather than a significant regression among female students. This trend is consistent with a similar improvement in male attainment at A-level this year. This suggests that male students have responded particularly well to the post-pandemic, exam-heavy assessment environment. The underlying causes of this academic resurgence among male pupils warrant further investigation to determine if it is tied to pedagogical methods, curriculum content, or socio-cultural factors.
The London-West Midlands Divide: A Regional Commentary
Significant regional disparities continue to be a defining feature of the English education system, with London consistently outperforming all other regions. For top grades (grade 7 and above), London’s proportion stood at 28.4% this year, a slight decrease from 28.5% in 2024, but still substantially higher than the lowest-performing regions. London’s top-grade performance is more than 10 percentage points higher than the worst-performing regions, such as the North East, which had a rate of 17.8%.
At the standard pass level (grade 4 and above), London also maintained its lead, with 71.6% of entries achieving this benchmark. However, this figure is down from 72.5% in 2024. This decline, coupled with a slight narrowing of the gap to other regions like the West Midlands (62.9%) and the North East (64.9%), contributes to the overall perception that the regional divide is closing. The West Midlands had the lowest pass rate of any English region.
The perceived narrowing of the regional gap is a statistical artifact. While London’s pass rate saw a decline, most other regions saw either a slight increase or a stable performance. London’s continued and substantial lead in top grades underscores a deep-seated stratification within the English education system. This persistent disparity is likely symptomatic of wider socio-economic inequalities and varying levels of investment in communities across the country. The gap between London and the North East has now been in place for three consecutive years. The sustained superior performance of Northern Ireland (31.6% at grade 7 or above), which operates under a different system, serves as a compelling counter-example and a point of reference for policy discussions.
Table 1: Regional and National GCSE Performance (2025 vs. 2019)
Region/Nation
Grade 7/A+ (2025)
Grade 7/A+ (2019)
Grade 4/C+ (2025)
Grade 4/C+ (2019)
North-east England
17.8%
16.4%
64.9%
63.8%
North-west England
18.8%
18.6%
64.2%
64.9%
Yorkshire & the Humber
18.4%
17.8%
63.6%
64.1%
West Midlands
18.5%
18.1%
62.9%
63.8%
East Midlands
18.1%
18.3%
65.0%
65.8%
Eastern England
22.2%
20.5%
68.0%
67.1%
South-west England
21.4%
20.4%
67.8%
67.1%
South-east England
24.6%
23.5%
70.0%
69.3%
London
28.4%
25.7%
71.6%
71.5%
England
21.8%
20.7%
67.1%
66.9%
Wales
19.5%
18.4%
62.5%
62.2%
Northern Ireland
31.6%
30.5%
83.5%
82.2%
*Note: Data for England (Grade 4/C+ in 2025) reflects the JCQ data point, and the 2019 data point is higher than in some other snippets due to different methodologies.
Performance by School Sector
The 2025 results reinforce the significant and stable attainment gap between state-funded and private schools. Data from state-funded institutions reveals that 20.6% of entries were awarded top grades (grade 7 or above), while at private schools, this figure stood at 49.2%. This disparity is even more pronounced at the standard pass level, where a 24 percentage point gap exists between state schools (66.5% at grade 4 or above) and private schools (90.5% at grade 4 or above). This gap has remained virtually unchanged from the previous year.
Within the state sector, there are further differences. Free schools demonstrated a higher proportion of top grades (22.7%) compared to both academies (19.5%) and comprehensives (19.8%). The stability of the state-private school gap over time points to a deeply ingrained stratification within the educational system. It suggests that despite various policy efforts and reforms, the fundamental divide in resources, teacher recruitment and retention, and overall educational provision between these sectors continues to result in profoundly different student outcomes. The performance of free schools, however, presents an interesting data point for policymakers, as it may indicate that certain operational models within the state sector are more effective at raising high-level attainment.
English and Maths: The Resit Imperative
The headline GCSE results for English language and Maths show a decline in the overall pass rate for all students. However, this aggregate figure can be misleading. A more detailed analysis reveals a critical distinction between the performance of the core 16-year-old cohort and the post-16 resit candidates. For 16-year-olds in England, the proportion achieving a grade 4 or higher in English language fell only slightly, from 71.2% in 2024 to 70.6% in 2025. In Maths, the drop for this age group was even more negligible, from 72.0% to 71.9%.
The fall in the overall national pass rate is therefore a direct consequence of the massive and growing post-16 resit cohort, whose pass rates are significantly lower. The pass rate for students aged 17 or older was 20.9% for English and 17.1% for Maths. This data reframes the narrative from one of academic decline among the core student population to one of a systemic challenge with a specific government policy. The mandatory resit requirement, which forces students to retake these qualifications until they achieve a standard pass , is clearly creating a high-volume, low-success pipeline that statistically pulls down the national average.
The Post-16 Resit ‘Crisis’: A Critical Evaluation
The number of GCSE entries from students aged 17 and over has risen sharply, by 12.1% this year, and now accounts for 7.8% of all GCSE entries. This surge is attributed to a larger student demographic and the return to pre-pandemic grading standards. This significant increase in resit entries has amplified existing concerns about the effectiveness of the government’s mandatory resit policy.
Education leaders have been vocal in their criticism, calling the policy “not fit for purpose” and arguing that it “undermines young people’s confidence and motivation”. The data strongly supports this viewpoint. Less than a fifth of resitting students manage to achieve the grade 4 required to exit the resit cycle. For example, despite the rise in entries, the post-16 pass rate for maths remains around 4 percentage points below the pre-pandemic level of 21.2%. This demonstrates a fundamental disconnect between the policy’s objective and its practical outcomes. The data suggests that for a majority of students, repeated exposure to the same qualification format is not an effective path to mastery. This can be demoralizing for students who have already failed to achieve the required grade, consuming valuable educational resources without providing a meaningful return.
A closer look at the resit data reveals a further complexity: the gender gap in post-16 maths resits has flipped, with male students now outperforming female students. This finding indicates that different demographic groups respond differently to the resit environment, suggesting that a one-size-fits-all policy may be disproportionately ineffective for certain student populations. The commentary argues that this policy, while born of good intentions, is creating a system that is both inefficient and psychologically damaging for many young people, making a strong case for a review and the consideration of alternative qualifications.
Shifts in Subject Entries and Student Choices
Beyond the core subjects, the 2025 GCSE results reflect significant shifts in student choices. The subject with the most entries was the Combined Science double award, which saw a 0.9% increase in entries. This increase occurred concurrently with a notable decline in entries for the individual triple sciences (Biology, Chemistry, and Physics), which each fell by approximately 6%. This trend suggests a pragmatic shift, with students opting for a combined qualification that provides a solid science foundation without the higher academic demands of the triple award.
In the humanities and languages, History entries declined by 5.7% after several years of continuous growth. Meanwhile, entries in Spanish continued to climb, rising by 2.6% and surpassing French for the first time. This development may reflect a changing perception of the global relevance and utility of different languages among students and parents. Furthermore, Statistics saw a 9.5% increase in entries, marking its second consecutive year of strong growth.
These shifts are a powerful indicator of how students and schools are adapting to the evolving educational and economic landscape. The rise of Combined Science and Statistics points to a demand for qualifications with a clear, practical application that can serve a wider range of academic pathways. These trends suggest that the curriculum is responsive to perceived value and practical utility, highlighting a system that is in a state of continuous, if subtle, evolution.
Comparative Analysis with Wales and Northern Ireland
The 2025 GCSE results highlight a striking divergence in educational outcomes across the UK’s nations. Northern Ireland’s students achieved notably stronger results than their counterparts in both England and Wales. A significant 31.6% of entries in Northern Ireland were awarded a grade 7 or above, compared to 21.8% in England and 19.5% in Wales. This lead is not a one-off anomaly; it is a sustained trend, with Northern Ireland’s top grades rising from 30.5% in 2019 to 31.6% in 2025.
Similarly, the standard pass rate (grade 4 or above) is substantially higher in Northern Ireland (83.5%) than in England (67.1%) and Wales (62.5%). While the grading systems and educational policies in the three nations differ, the consistent outperformance of Northern Ireland’s students offers a compelling point of comparison. It suggests that Northern Ireland’s educational framework, which has been subject to different reform trajectories than England’s, may be more effective at producing high overall attainment. The data provides a valuable point of reference for English policymakers and underscores the fact that there is no single solution to raising national education standards.
A System in Equilibrium, but Not Without Stress
The 2025 GCSE results present a picture of delicate equilibrium. The official narrative of stability holds true at a surface level, as overall grade distributions and pass rates show only minimal variation from the previous year. This confirms that the system has settled into a new, consistent rhythm following the return to pre-pandemic grading standards.
However, a deeper dive into the data reveals that this stability is built upon a foundation of significant, yet subtle, changes. The narrowing gender gap, driven by an improvement in male performance, signals a potentially significant shift in student dynamics. The persistent regional and socioeconomic disparities highlight a system that continues to entrench inequality, with London’s sustained dominance and the significant gap between state and private schools serving as stark reminders of this challenge.
Most critically, the results expose the mounting pressure on the mandatory English and Maths resit policy. The combination of a surge in resit entries and persistently low pass rates indicates a systemic issue, one that is draining educational resources and potentially demoralizing a large number of young people. The data suggests that this policy, while well-intentioned, is not an effective mechanism for improving numeracy and literacy on a mass scale.
Looking Ahead: Policy Implications and Next Steps
Autenticity in our collective next steps as a profession need to consider these points.
Reforming the Resit Policy: The data on post-16 resits is a flashpoint for a long-simmering debate. The low success rates and the psychological toll on students necessitate a fundamental reassessment of the current approach. Policymakers should explore more flexible and evidence-based alternatives, such as vocational-specific qualifications or functional skills pathways that are better suited to the needs and ambitions of students who struggle with the GCSE format.
Addressing Regional Disparities: The entrenched regional gap requires sustained, long-term investment. Targeted educational, economic, and social programs are needed to address the root causes of generational disadvantage that are reflected in the data. Simply waiting for statistical fluctuations to close the gap is not a viable strategy.
Understanding Subject Trends: The shifts in subject entries, particularly the rise of Combined Science, Spanish, and Statistics, should be closely monitored. This data provides valuable insight into student and market demands, which can be used to inform curriculum development and resource allocation to ensure that the educational system remains relevant and responsive.
While the 2025 GCSE results offer a reassuring narrative of stability, the underlying data points to a system in constant flux. The path forward requires moving beyond the headlines to address the subtle but significant challenges that will shape the future of a generation
The Authentic Leader 