The policy landscape, often a dense thicket of regulatory minutiae, has recently presented us with a vision of genuine clarity and strategic purpose in the form of the proposed Progress 8 reforms. For too long, the accountability metric, like an over-zealous accountant, valued the EBacc structure with an exclusionary zeal, subtly relegating the Arts to the sidelines of the academic pageant. Now, with the intended scrapping of the EBacc’s restrictive mandate and the subsequent restructuring of P8, a necessary correction to the academic compass is at hand. This is not mere policy tinkering; it is a profound philosophical shift. It is the long-overdue assurance that our curriculum can be both robustly academic and truly reflective of the breadth of human endeavour.
The change to the subject slots, especially the guaranteed prominence given to Creative subjects on an equal footing with Languages and Humanities, finally dismantles the tyranny of the ‘EBacc core’. The fact that students’ subject choices will now be based on genuine interest and future opportunity rather than on the desperate calculus of historical league table drivers is a liberation for the soul of Key Stage 4. This proposed structure allows a student to weave a far richer tapestry of knowledge. The mandate for school leaders to proactively design options that promote true breadth in Arts, Languages, and Music is a welcome pressure to ensure that a holistic education is the rule, not the exception.
Furthermore, the new accountability framework is a profound opportunity to tackle the systemic issue of complacency. The fact sheet wisely guides us to abandon long-established attainment patterns and instead focus on fluid accountability measures. By structurally guaranteeing the value of subjects like Art and Music within the new performance measure , the reforms necessitate a re-evaluation of resource allocation, staffing, and professional development. This is the necessary friction that sparks growth—a deliberate design for school leaders to move beyond mere compliance and into a period of strategic, intentional planning.
This bold restructuring, with its clear expectation for a “cutting-edge” curriculum and the championing of new enrichment benchmarks on civic engagement, life skills, and the arts, is the intellectual equivalent of reaching the summit of Jacob’s Ladder. It connects the academic enterprise directly to the external world and future opportunities. By aligning curriculum with high-value technical pathways like a post-16 Data Science and AI qualification, and formalising community partnerships, these changes ensure our schools are not simply factories for grades, but essential engines for relevant, tangible learning.
Authentic Leader Fact Sheet: Proposed Changes to Progress 8 Measures
Progress 8 is a key performance indicator used in secondary schools in England to measure the academic progress students make between Key Stage 2 (KS2 SATs) and their GCSE results. It compares a student’s progress in a set of eight subjects against that of other students nationwide with similar prior attainment.
A positive score means students at a school made more progress than expected; a negative score means they made less progress.
Current Progress 8 Structure
The current measure is based on a student’s performance across eight subjects, organised into three buckets:
English (highest score from English Language and Literature): Double Weighted
Mathematics: Double Weighted
EBacc Subjects (three of the following: sciences, computer science, geography, history, or languages)
Open Group (three subjects from the EBacc group or other approved arts, academic, or vocational qualifications)
Proposed Changes to Progress 8 Structure
The government is proposing a restructuring of the subject buckets to better balance a “strong academic core with breadth and student choice,” particularly aiming to boost the arts.
The total number of subjects remains eight, but the buckets are changing:
Slot Number
Proposed Subject Slot
Weighting
Notes
1 & 2
English
Double
Highest score from English Language or Literature.
Four slots with specific requirements to ensure breadth.
How the Dedicated Science Slots (5 & 6) Work
These slots take the two highest scores from a selection of science subjects.
If a student takes Combined Science (a double award), the two-subject grade is averaged (e.g., a grade 5 and 6 averages to two scores of 5.5) and can fill one or both slots.
The options are: Combined Science, Biology, Chemistry, Physics, Computer Science, or Computing.
How the Breadth Slots (7, 8, 9, 10) Work
These slots are designed to ensure students study a wide range of subjects.
Breadth Slot Number
Requirement
Categories to Choose From
7 & 8
Must be filled by subjects from two of these three categories:
1. Humanities: Geography, History, Religious Studies.
9 & 10
Takes the two highest scores in any approved subjects.
Any subject not already counted (including English language/literature if not used in slot 1 & 2), or other eligible subjects/technical awards.
2. Creative: Art and Design, Music, Drama, Dance, Design and Technology.
3. Languages: Modern Foreign Languages and Ancient Languages.
Key Technicalities
More than 8 Subjects: Only the highest grades relevant to the eight slots are counted.
Fewer than 8 Subjects: Students receive a zero score for any slots that are not filled, which negatively impacts the overall Progress 8 score.
Reasoning: The changes are intended to address criticism that the current system sidelined the arts and to put Creative subjects on an equal footing with Humanities and Languages.
When Will This Happen?
The government will hold a consultation on these proposals.
The final response is expected in the summer term of 2026.
The new structure is intended to be in place for schools to use when students make subject choices for the 2027-28 academic year.
Considerations for Future Curriculum and Assessment Planning
The proposed curriculum and assessment reforms, driven by the scrapping of the EBacc and the significant restructuring of Progress 8 (P8), demand immediate and intentional planning from school leaders. This involves moving beyond mere compliance to strategically integrating new subject priorities and adapting to revised accountability mechanics well before the 2028 implementation date.
Leaders must urgently audit the curriculum for new literacies, specifically mapping where topics like financial literacy and digital/AI misinformation can be woven into existing subjects like Maths, Computing, and PSHE. Furthermore, the removal of the EBacc’s restrictive structure offers a profound opportunity: Key Stage 4 (GCSE) subject options must be intentionally designed to promote true breadth in Arts, Languages, and Music, basing subject uptake on genuine student interest and future opportunity rather than historical league table drivers.
This intentionality must also address the logistical commitment of planning for a three-science pathway for all students, requiring proactive resource allocation, laboratory scheduling, and science staffing reviews.
A major risk during this transition period is complacency, especially concerning long-established attainment patterns and metrics. Leaders must actively anticipate and combat this by focusing intensely on diagnostic data and fluid accountability measures. The introduction of the statutory Year 8 reading test must be treated as a critical diagnostic tool, not just an assessment hurdle. Data from this test should immediately inform rapid intervention programs to tackle the known problem of widening attainment gaps during the first years of secondary school. Additionally, leaders must scrutinise the evolving accountability landscape; the promise to “reform” P8 means the goalposts are not static.
To combat complacency, a small working group should be tasked with tracking DfE announcements on the new P8 methodology, ensuring all subject leaders—particularly those in the Arts—understand that the value of their contribution is now structurally guaranteed to be viewed more equitably within the new performance measure.
Curriculum reform must be partnered with a commitment to championing growth in people and professional skills, ensuring staff are equipped to teach a “cutting-edge” curriculum. To effectively educate students on issues like spotting AI-generated content and misinformation, an immediate investment in digital CPD for all teaching staff is essential, focusing on the responsible use of AI in learning and assessment.
Another key area for growth is oracy and communication, which is being pushed to have the same status as reading and writing. This is not a departmental initiative; it requires embedding explicit instruction in speaking, listening, and debate across all subjects to build the critical communication skills valued by employers and universities.
This period of change also serves as an opportune moment to model reflective practice, prompting departments to review and better represent diversity and global contributions within their subject content while maintaining foundational knowledge.
Finally, the reforms require school leaders to inspire deeper connections between the curriculum and the external world, focusing on community and future opportunities. The new enrichment benchmarks on civic engagement, life skills, and the arts are now part of the accountability framework, making formal partnerships essential. Leaders should collaborate with local businesses, civic groups, and arts organisations to deliver these benchmarks meaningfully. For instance, lessons on financial skills like budgeting should be framed as a direct connection to financial wellbeing within the student’s community, making the learning relevant and tangible.
Furthermore, to ensure seamless progression, leaders must engage early with feeder colleges and sixth-form providers to discuss the proposed exploration of a post-16 qualification in data science and AI. By fostering these connections, the school’s curriculum is directly linked to the high-value technical and academic pathways that their students will ultimately progress to, giving the reforms maximum positive impact.
Authentic Checklist: Preparing for Progress 8 Reform
Immediate Actions (Next 6–12 Months)
Audit Curriculum
Map current KS4 subject offer against proposed Progress 8 buckets.
Identify gaps in Arts, Languages, and Humanities provision.
Form a Working Group
Assign responsibility for tracking DfE announcements and consultation outcomes.
Include subject leaders from Arts, Science, and Languages.
Plan for Science Pathways
Review feasibility of offering three separate sciences for all students.
Assess lab capacity, timetable implications, and staffing needs.
Medium-Term Actions (2026–2027)
Embed New Literacies
Integrate financial literacy and digital/AI misinformation into Maths, Computing, and PSHE.
Invest in CPD
Launch digital CPD for staff on AI use and misinformation detection.
Develop oracy training across all subjects.
Review Subject Diversity
Ensure curriculum reflects global contributions and diversity.
Long-Term Actions (2027–2028)
Redesign KS4 Options Process
Promote genuine breadth and student choice in Arts, Languages, and Music.
Strengthen Community Partnerships
Formalise links with local businesses, arts organisations, and civic groups for enrichment benchmarks.
Engage with Post-16 Providers
Discuss alignment with emerging qualifications (e.g., Data Science and AI).
Ongoing
Monitor Accountability Changes
Regularly update staff on evolving Progress 8 methodology.
Use Year 8 Reading Test Data
Implement rapid interventions for literacy gaps.
Champion Growth
Embed reflective practice and professional development across departments.
I said in my post yesterday it had just got interesting; and here we are. More interesting still.
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.
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.
The final weekend of the school holiday is always a time of transition, often packed with the last-minute preparations for the new academic year. To find a moment of calm before the new term’s demands began, my family and I escaped to Wales, where the sea—which we treat as a family friend—offers a sense of peace and perspective. This is me making a concerted effort to be more ‘Lyme Regis’.
Our journey took us to the Devil’s Bridge, just outside Aberystwyth, where we decided to walk the path known as Jacob’s Ladder. Beyond its spiritual meaning, Jacob’s Ladder is also a real place—a famous flight of slate steps at Devil’s Bridge Falls (Pontarfynach). The steps descend into a deep gorge and then climb back up, visually echoing the biblical ladder connecting Earth and heaven. This challenging walk is a key part of a circular nature trail that offers stunning views of the waterfalls and the famous “Three Bridges”.
In ancient scripture, Jacob’s Ladder is a powerful symbol of a direct path between the earthly and the divine, with angels ascending and descending between realms. It’s also a captivating physics experiment where a shimmering electrical arc climbs and re-forms in a relentless, cyclical ascent. Both of these images—the biblical promise and the cyclical physical climb—are fitting symbols for a school leader’s work. The descent into the gorge can be likened to the complex financial pressures and intricate new compliance regulations that must be meticulously managed. The demanding climb back up represents the work of upholding educational standards, fostering pupil well-being, and leading a school community through significant change.
Ultimately, the significance of the name “Jacob’s Ladder” lies in this duality. It is both a spiritual metaphor for a divine connection and a scientific term for a physical phenomenon that, by a remarkable visual coincidence, embodies that very same upward motion. This briefing is designed to be your guide for this ascent. It synthesises the critical policy shifts and regulatory updates to provide a clear, actionable roadmap, ensuring you’re equipped not only to meet the challenges of the coming months but to lead your school confidently towards a new, more nuanced vision of success.
Critical Need to Knows
The 2025/26 academic year represents a period of profound transformation for the education sector, driven by a series of interconnected policy shifts in funding, accountability, and statutory guidance. For school leaders, the imperative is to move beyond a reactive stance and adopt a proactive, holistic strategy.
The headline figures for funding increases can be misleading, concealing a more complex financial reality shaped by the consolidation of grants. Similarly, the accountability landscape is being fundamentally reshaped with a new Ofsted inspection framework that moves away from a single, high-stakes judgement to a more nuanced, multi-dimensional assessment.
Simultaneously, updates to statutory safeguarding and curriculum guidance signal a heightened government focus on emerging risks, particularly in the online domain and in relation to pupil attendance.
The most critical points for school leaders to address immediately are:
Funding is Tighter Than it Appears: The headline increase in per-pupil funding largely represents the formalisation of previous pay and pension grants, meaning the net injection of new money is modest.
Accountability is Being Reshaped: The new Ofsted report card system fundamentally alters how a school’s performance is judged, shifting the focus from a single grade to a multi-faceted evaluation of up to 11 key areas.
Safeguarding Remains a Strategic Priority: Updates to statutory guidance, particularly Keeping Children Safe in Education (KCSIE), signal a heightened government focus on emerging risks, including online harms and the critical link between attendance and safeguarding.
Part I: Financial and Strategic Planning
The National Funding Formula (NFF) 2025/26: A Deeper Dive
Per-Pupil Funding & Grant Consolidation
The Department for Education has allocated an additional £2.3 billion to the core schools’ budget for the 2025/26 financial year. This investment translates to an average per-pupil funding increase of 2.23% for mainstream schools. The total Dedicated Schools Grant (DSG) schools block for this period is £48.7 billion, with average per-pupil funding projected at £6,466, a 2.15% increase compared to the previous year.
However, a close examination of the NFF reveals that this headline figure is not a measure of new money but rather a restatement and re-packaging of existing funds. A significant portion of the increase, specifically 1.28%, is allocated to ensure the continuation of funding for the 2024 teachers’ and support staff pay awards. Furthermore, a number of historic grants, including the Teachers’ Pay Additional Grant (TPAG), the Teachers’ Pension Employer Contribution Grant (TPECG), and the Core Schools Budget Grant (CSBG), are being rolled into the NFF.
Minimum Funding Guarantee (MFG) & Funding Floor
The changes to the Minimum Funding Guarantee (MFG) and the funding floor create a complex new reality for budget forecasting. For 2025/26, local authorities have the flexibility to set the MFG between minus 0.5% and 0% per pupil. This represents a shift from the previous year’s range of 0% to 0.5% and could allow some schools to experience a modest per-pupil funding reduction, even as the NFF average increases.
A specific change in the regulations for 2025/26 is the exclusion of funding allocated for split-sites premises and Private Finance Initiative (PFI) premises costs from the MFG calculation. This separates these high-cost, historically based factors from core pupil-led funding protection. It means a school’s PFI costs could change without being covered by the MFG, introducing a new line item for financial risk assessment.
High Needs and Early Years Funding
The high needs budget will see a significant increase of almost £1 billion, bringing the total funding to £11.9 billion for 2025/26. This represents a substantial increase of over 9% compared to the 2024/25 baseline and suggests a strategic response to the growing national crisis in special educational needs and disability (SEND) provision.
For Post-16 education, the national funding rate for students aged 16 and 17 has been increased to £5,105, with other funding bands increased proportionately. A key policy shift is the removal of the “under-delivery tolerance” for T Levels from the 2025/26 academic year. This means that any under-delivery in student recruitment is now subject to financial recovery as part of the T Level reconciliation process. This signals a maturation of the program and moves to hold providers more financially accountable for their recruitment, requiring leaders to improve their enrolment forecasting and management.
The DfE Energy Purchase Scheme
The Department for Education is introducing a new energy purchase scheme under which maintained schools will be able to access the Department’s own energy contract. This scheme helps schools transition to a more stable energy contract sourced via Crown Commercial Service (CCS) and is designed to protect them from market volatility and reduce procurement risks.
A new regulation (Regulation 23) has been introduced that creates a direct, punitive mechanism for financial compliance. It provides local authorities with the power to deduct money from a school’s budget share where an undisputed energy invoice has not been paid. School leaders must therefore implement robust internal financial controls and invoice management systems to avoid this deduction, as it could bypass normal budget allocation processes and impact their ability to spend on other priorities.
Compliance, Curriculum, and Safeguarding
New Statutory Guidance: The Pillars of Safeguarding
Keeping Children Safe in Education (KCSIE) 2025
The new Keeping Children Safe in Education (KCSIE) 2025 guidance was published in an “information-only” version in July 2025, with the final statutory version set to come into force on September 1, 2025. A fundamental change is that the Department for Education’s
Working together to improve school attendance guidance is now statutory. This elevates attendance from a key performance metric to a core safeguarding responsibility. The guidance explicitly states that being absent, as well as missing, from education can be a warning sign of a range of safeguarding concerns, including sexual or criminal exploitation.
The guidance also updates the list of online safety risks, adding disinformation, misinformation, and conspiracy theories as emerging threats that require a more sophisticated approach to curriculum and staff training.
Early Years Foundation Stage (EYFS) Statutory Framework
A new version of the EYFS statutory framework will also come into force on September 1, 2025. Non-compliance with the new regulations is classified as a criminal offence, which can result in a fine. This criminal penalty elevates the importance of these changes beyond typical policy updates, signalling a no-tolerance approach to safeguarding failures in early years settings.
Curriculum & Policy Updates
Relationships, Sex and Health Education (RSHE) Guidance
New statutory guidance for Relationships Education, Relationships and Sex Education (RSE), and Health Education was published in July 2025 but will not formally come into force until September 1, 2026. This one-year implementation window presents a strategic opportunity for proactive leaders to prepare for the changes. The new guidance is designed to address growing online risks, including misogynistic attitudes and harmful views about relationships.
Broader Policy and Workforce Changes
The education landscape is also set to be influenced by broader policy shifts. New guidance states that all new teachers will be required to hold, or be working towards, Qualified Teacher Status (QTS). This policy creates a tension with the ongoing teacher recruitment crisis by potentially restricting a school’s ability to hire unqualified subject experts, like artists or musicians, and limiting a school’s capacity to innovate or fill staffing gaps. Additionally, the government’s plan to change the mandatory conversion of ‘Inadequate’ maintained schools into academies to a “discretionary power” is expected to take effect over the next 12 months.
The New Era of Accountability
Ofsted’s Framework Transformation
From Single Grades to Detailed Report Cards
From November 2025, a significant shift in the accountability framework will come into force. The single-word judgments of “Outstanding,” “Good,” “Requires Improvement,” and “Inadequate” will be replaced by a new, more detailed “report card” system. My views on their late summer term announcements, my belief in their quest for the educational Golden Ratio can be found via that link.
This change is intended to provide a more nuanced understanding of school performance, moving beyond the high-stakes, simplistic model that created immense pressure on leaders and staff.
The new report card will assess schools across up to 11 distinct areas of evaluation. The new framework places a critical emphasis on safeguarding, which will be judged on a binary “Met” or “Not Met” scale—a clear signal that it is a non-negotiable standard. The new system also aims to incorporate contextual data, acknowledging the unique challenges faced by schools in areas with higher socio-economic complexities.
The New Inspection Experience
The inspection process itself is also changing to alleviate pressure on school leaders and staff. Schools will now be notified of an inspection at 9:30 AM on a Monday, with the inspection commencing the following day. A key procedural change relates to how inspectors will conduct their work. For graded (Section 5) inspections, “deep dives” will continue to be used to gather evidence of the curriculum, but for ungraded inspections, they will be replaced by “areas of focus”. This strategic shift from a prescriptive process to a collaboratively agreed upon agenda presents a major opportunity for leaders to shape the inspection narrative.
Strategic Recommendations and Action Plan
Based on the forthcoming changes, a tiered, prioritised action plan is recommended for school leaders to ensure compliance and effective forward-planning.
Immediate Actions (for September 2025)
Financial Review: Re-evaluate budget baselines and projections, accounting for the consolidation of grants into the NFF and the new MFG parameters. For maintained schools, assess the viability of the DfE energy purchase scheme and implement robust internal controls to manage potential financial risks from non-compliance.
Compliance & Policy Update: Immediately review and update all safeguarding policies to align with the new statutory guidance in Keeping Children Safe in Education (KCSIE) 2025 and the updated Early Years Foundation Stage (EYFS) framework. Given that non-compliance with the EYFS framework is a criminal offence, this review must be meticulous.
Staff Training: Mandate a briefing for all staff on the new statutory status of attendance guidance and the expanded online risks (disinformation, misinformation, conspiracy theories) outlined in KCSIE.
Accountability Preparation: Conduct a full internal self-evaluation against the new Ofsted report card criteria. Leaders should prepare documentation and data that provides rich context for each of the graded areas.
I would also highly recommend leaders evaluate their GSCE results against this review of the statements and statistics on said results via this link: subtleties of a ‘stable’ system
Mid-Term Priorities (for the 2026 Academic Year)
Curriculum Planning: Begin strategic planning for the implementation of the new RSHE guidance. Initiate the parental consultation process early and consider piloting the new curriculum content, particularly on online harms and suicide prevention, to prepare for the statutory deadline.
Recruitment Strategy: Reassess recruitment strategies in light of the new QTS requirement for all new teachers.
Policy Monitoring: Closely monitor the legislative progress of the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill and other forthcoming white papers to anticipate further changes to the education landscape.
Table 1: The National Funding Formula 2025/26 – Deconstructing the Uplift
This table is based on provisional data from a local authority and is intended to illustrate the financial impact of grant consolidation, not as a definitive national calculation.
Factor
Sub-level
2024-25 (£)
2025-26 (£)
Variance Excl. Grant Transfer (£)
Variance Excl. Grant Transfer (%)
Basic Entitlement
Primary
3,562
3,847
264
0.6%
Age Weighted Pupil Unit (AWPU)
Key Stage 3
5,022
5,422
371
0.6%
Age Weighted Pupil Unit (AWPU)
Key Stage 4
5,661
6,113
419
0.6%
Deprivation
Primary FSM
490
495
0
0%
Table 2: The New Ofsted Report Card Judgements
The new grading scales are still being finalised, but the areas of assessment are established.
Area of Evaluation
Description
Grading Scale
Curriculum
Design and implementation of the school’s curriculum.
Five-point scale (details to follow)
Developing Teaching
Quality and effectiveness of teaching practices.
Five-point scale (details to follow)
Leadership and Governance
Effectiveness of leadership and management structures.
Five-point scale (details to follow)
Behaviour and Attitudes
Pupil conduct and the school’s approach to fostering positive behaviour.
Five-point scale (details to follow)
Attendance
Pupil attendance rates and the effectiveness of attendance policies.
Five-point scale (details to follow)
Personal Development and Well-being
How the school supports pupils’ personal growth and mental health.
Five-point scale (details to follow)
Achievement
Pupil progress and academic outcomes.
Five-point scale (details to follow)
Inclusion
Support for vulnerable and disadvantaged pupils, including SEND.
Five-point scale (details to follow)
Safeguarding
Meeting required standards for pupil safeguarding and welfare.
Binary scale: “Met” or “Not Met”
Early Years (if applicable)
Evaluation of the early years setting.
Five-point scale (details to follow)
Sixth Form (if applicable)
Evaluation of the sixth form setting.
Five-point scale (details to follow)
The Interconnectedness of Change
The changes anticipated for the 2025/26 academic year are not isolated policy adjustments but are part of a deeply interconnected, strategic re-shaping of the education landscape. The new Ofsted framework, with its heightened focus on safeguarding, curriculum, and attendance, holds leaders accountable for the very policies and procedures that have been updated.
To successfully navigate this period, school leaders must abandon a siloed approach to planning. Just as the waterfalls at Devil’s Bridge are a continuous, powerful force, a leader’s work is a relentless cycle of vigilance and renewal. Financial decisions must be made with a full understanding of their implications for compliance and curriculum delivery. Similarly, safeguarding protocols must be viewed not only as a duty but as a central part of a school’s overall effectiveness, as it will now be a binary determinant of inspection outcomes. By adopting a holistic, proactive, and data-driven approach, school leaders can ensure their institutions are well-equipped to meet the challenges and opportunities of the coming year.
Have a superb start to the term.
Useful links:
DfE Statutory Guidance and Resources
Keeping Children Safe in Education (KCSIE) 2025: Find the official statutory guidance that outlines the legal requirements for schools and colleges to safeguard and promote the welfare of children.
Early Years Foundation Stage (EYFS) Framework: Access the statutory framework that sets the standards for learning, development, and care for children from birth to five.
School Funding and National Funding Formula (NFF): Get details on the NFF, the high needs budget, and the specific grants that have been rolled into the core budget.
Qualified Teacher Status (QTS) Routes: Explore the official information on how to obtain QTS for new teachers, including for those trained outside the UK.
Ofsted News on the New Report Card System: Read the official announcement on the planned move away from a single-word judgment to a more detailed report card system.
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
In March 2025, the government released their initial findings on the Curriculum and Assessment Review, a link to my synthesis written in March is here: C&A interim educational landscape the current provision March 2025.pdf The UK government’s Curriculum and Assessment Review is being led by Professor Becky Francis CBE.
She is the Chief Executive of the Education Endowment Foundation and an expert in education policy, particularly regarding curriculum and social inequality. She chairs a panel of experts who are working on the review. An interim report was published in March 2025, with the final report and recommendations expected in autumn 2025.
As July gentle fades into August and the beginning of a proper shutdown for this authentic leader – this is me attempting to be more Lyme Regis, it feels like I must get a few matters out of my mind, partly to allow the Lyme Regis and partly to lay down some plans on what we must do next.
Strategic Priorities
The recent Educational Landscape Review has illuminated critical areas demanding urgent attention from education leaders. Far from being a mere critique, the review serves as a roadmap for future-proofing our educational system, ensuring it remains equitable, relevant, and effective for all learners. In the coming months, leaders must proactively address the identified disparities, curriculum imbalances, and structural weaknesses to prepare for the inevitable changes these insights will precipitate. This involves a multi-faceted approach focused on fostering equitable access, refining curriculum, enhancing future relevance, and strengthening post-16 provisions, all while cultivating a culture of adaptability and continuous improvement.
Firstly, addressing the persistent disparities in equitable access and outcomes, particularly for disadvantaged and SEND learners, must be paramount. While the knowledge-rich curriculum has yielded overall attainment improvements, its impact has not been uniformly positive. Education leaders need to move beyond a one-size-fits-all approach and embed a robust social justice lens across all educational practices. This means scrutinising existing support systems and designing targeted interventions that genuinely elevate aspirations and equip every learner with the skills and confidence for life and work. In the coming months, this will entail a thorough audit of current provisions for these groups, engaging with their families and communities to understand their unique needs, and allocating resources strategically to bridge attainment gaps. Professional development for staff on inclusive pedagogies and differentiated instruction will be crucial to ensure all teachers are equipped to support diverse learners effectively.
Secondly, the review’s findings on curriculum structure and content necessitate a bold re-evaluation of what and how we teach. The tension between breadth and depth, the primary curriculum overload, and the premature narrowing of KS3 due to early GCSE preparation are undermining foundational learning and fostering disengagement. Education leaders must initiate a comprehensive review of curriculum sequencing across all key stages, prioritising mastery of core concepts over superficial coverage. For Key Stages 1 and 2, this means advocating for a streamlined curriculum that allows for deeper exploration of foundational literacy and numeracy. At Key Stage 3, leaders must champion a curriculum that maintains its breadth, encourages intellectual curiosity, and avoids rote repetition, allowing students to genuinely engage with subjects before specialization. The ongoing review of EBacc constraints demands close attention, and leaders should be prepared to advocate for reforms that promote a child’s choice and a more balanced curriculum. I would go further and argue that the curriculum from Key Stage 3 to Key Stage 4 must evolve from broad and balanced and become ‘Developed and Divergent’.
This period requires proactive collaboration with teachers to identify areas for curriculum refinement and to pilot new approaches that foster deeper learning.
Thirdly, ensuring curriculum relevance for future needs is no longer an option but a necessity. The call for modernisation to reflect digital literacy, sustainability, and global challenges, alongside addressing subject-specific imbalances and vagueness, signals a need for significant curricular evolution. Education leaders must champion the integration of 21st-century skills and global competencies across all subjects, moving beyond outdated content. This will require investing in teacher training for new pedagogical approaches and digital tools. Furthermore, the imperative to reflect diverse identities and broaden pupils’ horizons within the curriculum must be taken seriously. This is not just about representation but about fostering a more inclusive and globally aware citizenry. In the coming months, engaging with external experts, industry leaders, and community groups will be vital to inform these curricular updates and ensure their practical relevance.
Finally, the review’s insights into 16-19 provisions and qualifications highlight systemic issues that demand immediate attention. While A-levels retain their strength, the lack of clarity and instability in vocational pathways are causing poor outcomes for a significant cohort of learners. Education leaders must work collaboratively with further education colleges, employers, and policymakers to establish clearer, more valued vocational routes that genuinely prepare students for the workforce. The acknowledged failure of the GCSE re-sit policy for English and Maths underscores the need for a more nuanced approach to supporting these learners. Furthermore, while SATs have value, concerns about grammar and writing assessments impacting literacy development warrant a careful re-evaluation. The impending review of GCSE reform, particularly regarding exam stress and assessment volume, offers an opportunity for leaders to advocate for a more holistic and less high-stakes assessment system that genuinely measures learning. This period calls for strong advocacy and practical solutions to create a more diverse and effective post-16 landscape.
The Educational Landscape Review presents a formidable yet exciting challenge for education leaders in the coming months. The identified key points are not isolated issues but interconnected threads that weave the fabric of our educational system. By prioritising equitable access, rigorously refining curriculum, championing future relevance, and strengthening post-16 provisions, leaders can proactively shape the evolution of education. This will require courageous decision-making, collaborative spirit, and an unwavering commitment to putting the needs of all learners at the heart of every reform. The coming months are a crucial period for laying the groundwork for a more just, responsive, and effective education system for generations to come.
Leadership Reflections
Our first, and perhaps most resonant, chord must be struck in the realm of equitable access and outcomes. The knowledge-rich curriculum, while yielding overall attainment improvements, has revealed persistent disparities, casting a spotlight on our disadvantaged and SEND learners. This is a call to “truly see” beyond the metrics to the human stories. Leaders must move beyond programmatic fixes, embedding a social justice lens so deeply that it becomes an intrinsic part of our educational DNA. This means a daily recommitment, a “fall in love with you every day” philosophy, to the vital connections with every student, ensuring high aspirations are not just words but lived realities. In the coming months, this demands a self-reflective audit of current support systems, engaging in open dialogue with families and communities to understand their unique needs, and allocating resources with discerning strategic patience. Professional development must become a crucible for inclusive pedagogies, empowering every educator to navigate the intricate emotional landscapes of their classrooms.
Secondly, the very architecture of our curriculum, its structure and content, demands an intellectual alchemy. The tension between breadth and depth, the overwhelming deluge of the primary curriculum, and the premature narrowing of Key Stage 3 are not mere administrative challenges; they are impediments to genuine mastery and intellectual curiosity. Education leaders must orchestrate a dynamic interplay of intention and action. This means meticulously planning and defining a culture where foundational concepts are mastered, not merely touched upon. For Key Stages 1 and 2, the imperative is a streamlined curriculum that allows for deeper exploration, much like the thoughtful cultivation envisioned in Huxley’s “Island”. At Key Stage 3, we must champion a curriculum that resists the pull of early specialization, preserving its breadth and fostering engagement. The ongoing review of EBacc constraints offers an opportunity for leaders to advocate for reforms that prioritise children’s choice and curriculum balance, recognising that a truly rich education is a symphony, not a monotone. This period requires proactive collaboration with teachers, nurturing their potential, and empowering them as the “lifeboats” of the school.
Thirdly, the relevance of our curriculum for future needs is a profound imperative. A knowledge-rich foundation remains vital, but it must be a living, evolving entity, reflecting the digital complexities, the sustainability challenges, and the global interconnectedness of our world. Leaders must relentlessly combat complacency, challenging the status quo by integrating 21st-century skills and global competencies across all subjects. This is about enriching the soil of our educational landscape so that diverse identities can flourish and childrens’ horizons are broadened beyond measure.
In essence, the Educational Landscape Review is a perpetual overture to ongoing work, a deepening commitment to educational justice. For education leaders in the coming months, it is a call to embody authentic leadership: to elevate intentionality, combat complacency, champion growth, and inspire deeper connection. By embracing these movements, we can ensure that the “Alchemy of Belief” continues to transform lives, one intentional act at a time, building a resilient, compassionate, and truly authentic education system.
Authentic Action Pathways
Recommit Daily to Your Purpose: Adopt the mantra, “I Fall in Love with You Every Day”. This isn’t a romantic ideal, but a conscious, deliberate choice to revitalise essential bonds with children, colleagues, families, and the fundamental mission of education itself. It’s a philosophical stance against complacency, ensuring you remain connected to the “why” behind your work.
Cultivate Emotional Intelligence as a Survival Mechanism: Draw lessons from the “crucible” of challenging experiences. Understand that self-awareness, self-management, social awareness, and relationship management are not just theories, but practical tools “forged in the fires of continuous crisis”. Embrace your “scars” as sources of profound self-awareness, enabling you to map the intricate emotional landscapes of schools.
Transform Weaknesses into Strengths: Confront perceived weaknesses head-on, just as the author transformed impatience into strategic patience and a need for control into deep trust. This journey of strengthening oneself through challenging experiences is central to authentic leadership, embracing imperfections to deepen empathy and wisdom.
See Beyond the Metrics – “Truly See”: As inspired by John Berger’s “Ways of Seeing,” strive to “truly see” beyond superficial data points to the human stories and individual complexities within your school. This holistic view is essential for understanding the nuances of equitable access and outcomes.
Champion Intentionality: Meticulously plan and define the culture you wish to cultivate, much like the author’s articulation of “Belonging, Connection, and Purpose”. Intentionality elevates every action, ensuring alignment with your core values and desired outcomes.
Combat Complacency with Healthy Disruption: Don’t shy away from challenging the status quo. Use tools like anonymized student narratives to highlight the human cost of insufficient systems, fostering a healthy disruption that leads to improvement.
Empower Middle Leaders – Your “Lifeboats”: Actively cultivate the potential of your middle leaders, whom the blog affectionately terms the “lifeboats” of the school. This distributed leadership, informed by Alma Harris’s insights, empowers others and builds collective capacity.
Inspire Deeper Connection and Resonant Harmony: Foster empathetic listening and consistent adult behaviour. Remember Paul Dix’s principle, “When the Adults Change, Everything Changes,” and strive to build a community where belonging is fostered through fairness and mutual respect, guided by the “unseen contract” of Tim Scanlon.
Foster Open Dialogue and Collective Wisdom: Encourage open dialogue about both achievements and challenges. This fosters a culture where collective wisdom can flourish, leading to continuous improvement and a shared sense of ownership.
Authentic Pathways
Pathway 1: Be Clear About What We’re Doing – Our School’s Heartbeat
This is about making sure everyone knows why we’re teaching what we’re teaching, and how it connects to our school’s values and goals.
Define Our School’s Culture: Let’s work together (teachers, leaders, maybe even students and parents) to decide what makes our school special – like feeling like you belong, having good connections, and understanding our purpose. This will guide everything we do.
Check Our Lesson Plans: Look at our subject plans. Do they show how we help students feel like they belong, connect with others, and find their purpose? Do they push students to aim high?
Understand Why We Test: For every test or assessment, let’s be clear about its reason. Is it to help students learn, to see what they know, or to find out where they need help? How does each test help students feel connected to their learning journey?
Listen to Everyone: Make sure we have ways to hear from everyone involved – teachers, students, parents, and school leaders – as we go through this review.
Pathway 2: Don’t Just Stick to the Old Ways – Look for What’s Missing
This pathway is about honestly looking at what we’re doing now and finding ways to make it better, even if it means trying new things.
Hear From Students: Let’s find ways to collect honest, anonymous feedback from students about what they like (or don’t like) in their lessons and tests. This helps us see the real impact of our system.
Map Our Lessons: Let’s look at all our lesson plans across different years. Are we repeating too much? Are there big gaps? Are we forcing younger students to focus too early on exam subjects, making them bored later?
Check How Many Tests We Do: Let’s count all the tests and assignments students have, especially older ones. Ask students and teachers if they feel too much stress from tests, and if every test is truly useful.
Talk About Why Students Zone Out: Get teachers together to talk openly about why students might lose interest in lessons or tests. Let’s not be afraid to shake things up a bit if needed.
Pathway 3: Help Everyone Grow – Empowering Our Key People
This pathway is about helping our colleagues, especially our subject leaders, get better at what they do and lead improvements.
Train Our Subject Leaders: Give special training and support to our subject leaders. Teach them how to develop lessons and design tests, and how to lead their teams effectively. They are like the “lifeboats” of our school, guiding us.
Update Our Lessons: Ask our subject leaders and teachers to brainstorm ideas for making our lessons more modern. How can we include topics like digital skills, caring for the planet, world issues, and show different cultures and viewpoints?
Invent Better Tests: Encourage our subject leaders and teachers to come up with new, creative ways to test students. The aim is to make tests less stressful but still show what students have learned and really help with reading and writing skills.
Learn Together: Start or restart groups where teachers can learn from each other about the best ways to teach. Focus on helping all students learn deeply and get the support they need, especially those who find learning harder.
Pathway 4: Build Stronger Connections – Creating a Supportive Community
This pathway is about making our school a place where everyone feels connected and respected, and where decisions are made together.
Listen and Get Feedback: Set up ways for teachers and students to regularly give feedback on new lesson ideas or test changes. Listen carefully and openly to everyone, remembering that “When the Adults Change, Everything Changes.”
Agree on Fair Testing: Have discussions to make sure everyone agrees on what fair and respectful testing looks like. This is about building trust and making sure everyone feels like they belong, based on an “unseen agreement” of fairness.
Try Out New Ideas: Pick a few key areas or subjects to try out new lesson plans or test methods first. See how they work, get feedback, and make changes as needed. We don’t have to get it perfect right away.
Share Our Progress: Clearly tell everyone – students, parents, staff, and school leaders – about the changes we’re making and why they’re good. Celebrate our successes and show that we’re all working together to make our school better and fairer for everyone. This is a continuous journey towards fairness in education.
Finally, embrace the “Perpetual Overture”: Recognise that leadership is not about a final destination, but a “perpetual overture” to ongoing work. This mindset encourages continuous improvement and a deepening commitment, allowing for adaptability in the face of evolving challenges.
And with that, there will be a round up for subscribers in the next couple of days and I will be back around results week. In many respects I hope you are re-visiting this after a good, restful and well-earned break. For me, the rest comes when I have cleared and sorted my mind into the right boxes, ready for moving onto the next academic year.
At first glance, the rigorous, often contentious world of OFSTED—with its meticulous frameworks and demanding criteria—seems far removed from the ancient, almost mystical elegance of the Golden Ratio. Represented by the Greek letter phi (ϕ), this irrational number, approximately 1.618, defines a unique proportional relationship: the ratio of the whole to the larger part is the same as the ratio of the larger part to the smaller. This mathematical harmony, closely linked to the Fibonacci sequence, manifests in nature—from sunflower spirals to nautilus shells—and has long inspired artists and architects, including Leonardo da Vinci, in their pursuit of aesthetic perfection. Imagine a line divided into two parts, ‘a’ and ‘b’, such that (a+b)/a=a/b. When this condition is met, the parts are said to be in the Golden Ratio.
Yet, in a subtly profound, if entirely metaphorical, sense, the Office for Standards in Education, Children’s Services and Skills (OFSTED) is engaged in a perpetual quest for an “educational golden ratio.” This isn’t about literally measuring classroom dimensions for aesthetic delight; it’s about discerning, and indeed striving to mandate, the precise, harmonious balance that defines truly outstanding education and care.
OFSTED’s Architectural Blueprint
Consider the core tenets of OFSTED’s enduring mission, viewed through this peculiar lens. Its standards and quality assurance frameworks are not mere bureaucratic instruments; they are blueprints for educational excellence. Like a master builder seeking perfect proportions, OFSTED aims to define the ideal balance between safeguarding, pedagogy, leadership, and pupil outcomes. They are, in essence, crafting the architectural blueprints for optimal learning environments, much like a master builder meticulously designs a structure with perfect aesthetic balance, ensuring every component aligns to an exacting, elevated standard.
Inspections, then, are not just audits but acts of discernment. Inspectors are seeking that elusive, harmonious balance—the point where safeguarding, effective learning methodologies, and genuine pupil progress coalesce into a beautiful, eminently functional educational panorama. It is the discernment of whether the individual “parts” of an institution indeed sum to a truly “golden” whole for the children it serves. And accountability and improvement? This is the iterative, often demanding, process of continuous design refinement. Should any element prove “off-kilter,” OFSTED identifies these imbalances, providing the insights deemed necessary to adjust, course-correct, and thereby guide institutions closer to that optimal, almost perfect, state of educational excellence. Thus, while ϕ will never grace an official OFSTED report, their mission is, in a witty, metaphorical sense, to assist every educational setting in discovering and achieving its own “golden standard” of quality. It is less about mathematical beauty and more about the beautiful, profound outcome of a well-run, effective, and safe learning environment.
The Underpainting of Reform
As the educational landscape prepares for OFSTED’s revised inspection framework, the regulator has begun laying down a careful underpainting—a foundational wash to support a more considered rollout. This phased approach for the autumn term of 2025, with deliberately fewer inspections in November and December led exclusively by their most experienced personnel, aims to apply a gentle initial wash to the canvas, ensuring a steady foundation. External inspectors, like new colours introduced to a complex palette, will be phased in only after rigorous training and quality checks. This emphasis on training and quality assurance, extending even to senior inspectors participating in pilot inspections under direct OFSTED leadership, underscores a commitment to precision in every stroke.
Transparency and feedback mechanisms—random exit interviews, continued post-inspection surveys, and roundtable discussions—will offer a reflective counterbalance, akin to the interplay of light and shadow in a painting, seeking a broader, more comprehensive vista of the sector. Additional measures include avoiding inspections in the final week of term, a more robust system for deferral requests, co-developed guidance materials, and a dedicated helpline. Coupled with unprecedented public access to inspector training via the OFSTED Academy, all these initiatives strive to prevent discord in the brushstrokes, aiming to reduce friction and foster trust.
The Blurred Lines of Critique
However, despite these thoughtful and ostensibly judicious procedural adjustments, an independent critique from the sector introduces a persistent blurring of lines in the distant hues. A primary concern revolves around the sheer pace of the roll-out, which many perceive as unduly rushed, risking implementation before the canvas is truly prepared. There are urgent pleas for a more measured and genuinely collaborative approach, allowing schools and colleges the vital time to adapt, to truly internalize the new perspective—a call for strategic patience rather than a frantic application of paint.
Beyond mere speed, the very design of the framework itself continues to create a fundamental disharmony in the scene. The proposed five-point grading system, for instance, is widely viewed as fundamentally flawed, a design in need of deeper, more structural reform, not merely minor adjustments. Critics contend that procedural tweaks, while perhaps alleviating immediate friction, ultimately fail to address these underlying issues with the framework’s core principles. This isn’t merely a detached policy discussion; it’s the lived reality of institutions striving for transformation against a perceived misalignment in foundational “proportions.”
Toward a More Harmonious Future
Ultimately, the quest for true reassurance and trust transcends these operational refinements. Many believe genuine confidence will only emerge from a fundamental rethinking of the inspection model itself. There is a profound desire for more meaningful engagement with the sector, aiming to co-create a system that genuinely supports improvement and nurtures growth, rather than simply enforcing compliance. This echoes the need for a system rooted in principled, passionate, and genuinely present leadership.
As the autumn term approaches, all eyes will be fixed on how OFSTED’s announced measures translate into practice, and whether they can indeed bridge the gap between procedural improvements and the sectors deeply held desire for a more supportive and effective inspection system. The pursuit of this “educational golden ratio” is therefore less a definitive conclusion and more a perpetual underpainting—the ongoing work, the deepening commitment, and the relentless pursuit of an inspection system that truly serves its profound purpose of educational justice, thereby helping compose a more just, connected, and flourishing society.
And for the authentic amongst us…
School leaders should aim to achieve an “educational golden ratio” by focusing on a harmonious balance between safeguarding, pedagogy, leadership, and children’s outcomes.
This involves discerning how the individual parts of their institution contribute to a truly “golden” whole for the children it serves.
In practice, this means:
Striving for excellence: School leaders should view OFSTED’s frameworks as blueprints for educational excellence, not just bureaucratic instruments.
Continuous refinement: They should engage in an iterative process of continuous design refinement, adjusting elements that are “off-kilter” to guide institutions closer to an optimal state of educational excellence.
Engaging with reforms: As OFSTED’s revised inspection framework rolls out, leaders should be prepared for a phased approach, with an emphasis on training and quality checks for inspectors.
Providing feedback: School leaders should utilize transparency and feedback mechanisms, such as post-inspection surveys and roundtable discussions, to offer a broader view of the sector.
Utilising support: They should be aware of and utilise additional measures provided by OFSTED, such as avoiding inspections in the final week of term, a more robust system for deferral requests, co-developed guidance materials, and a dedicated helpline. Public access to inspector training via the OFSTED Academy is also available.
Advocating for change: Leaders should continue to advocate for a more measured and genuinely collaborative approach to reforms, particularly concerning the pace of roll-out and fundamental issues with the framework’s core principles, such as the proposed five-point grading system.
Seeking meaningful engagement: There is a desire for more meaningful engagement with the sector to co-create a system that truly supports improvement and nurtures growth, rather than simply enforcing compliance. This aligns with the need for a system rooted in principled, passionate, and genuinely present leadership.
The Authentic Leader 