Well, what are our first thoughts on seeing the Review’s interim report? The voice of the arts and cultural learning sector was definitely heard through the call for evidence process, and this is reflected in the interim report findings. This is just an interim report revealing the findings from their call for evidence – recommendations will come in their final report later this year. We will make a full response on these findings to the Review Panel but for now here are our headline takeaways, covering what we’ve found, what we like – and how it aligns perfectly with our own data and recommendations – and just a couple of points we might question or challenge…
1. EVERY CHILD
The system is not working well for all (as we knew)
What the Review interim report says: “The socio-economic gap for educational attainment remains stubbornly large, and young people with SEND make less progress than their peers. While the explanations often lie outside curriculum and assessment, we shall take steps to ensure that the curriculum and assessment system reflects high expectations for all, and properly supports the progress and achievement of all young people.” Page 6
CLA view: It’s good to see this emphasised so strongly. The Review presents social justice as an important consideration and emphasises the need to address persistent attainment gaps – between socio-economically disadvantaged students and their peers, as well as between students with SEND and those without. This acknowledgement is important. The Review is using language identical to our own in saying that it “applies a social justice lens throughout its work, applying high aspirations for all.” CLA has long applied a “social justice and inclusion lens” to all its work.
2. EBACC IMPACT
The EBacc has damaged take up of – and time available for – some subjects (as we knew)
What the Review interim report says: “Responses to the Call for Evidence suggest that the English Baccalaureate (EBacc) performance measures may unnecessarily constrain the choice of students, impacting their engagement and achievement, and limiting their access to, and the time available for, vocational and arts subjects.” And: “Given the structure of the EBacc, to be eligible for the performance measure, a student taking the national average of nine subjects at key stage 4 would necessarily have seven subjects already pre-selected (with a choice between history or geography), or eight subjects if taking triple science. In addition, students in schools with a religious designation are often mandated to enter a religious studies GCSE. All this limits the uptake of triple science, computing, and arts subjects and we have heard strong concerns from schools, and from organisations representing the arts and other non-EBacc subjects, on this constraining effect of the EBacc.” Page 24
CLA view: The Review is acknowledging that the EBacc performance measures have had an impact on student choice, as has been asserted by CLA for more than a decade, in our newsletters, in the Arts in Schools (2023) report and in our Report Card. The Review has heard “strong” concerns from our sector. Despite the odd cautious modal verb such as “may” (as in ‘may have had …’) or “potentially”, the Review has heard loud and clear that their consultees see that the EBacc has had a constraining effect on pupil choice in relation to arts subjects, as is evidenced by our Report Card. CLA has long stated that the current EBacc accountability framework is adversely impacting education and has called for reform of the school accountability system – scrapping or reforming the EBacc and reforming Progress 8. The direction of travel seems to be that the arts will be valued within a new approach to accountability measures and we very much welcome this.
3. THE PURPOSES OF THE CURRICULUM
We had to hunt to find these in the report, but they are there – just in a separate document
What the Review interim report says: At first CLA was perplexed to see no references to schooling or curriculum purposes in the interim report, but they do appear within the linked ‘Conceptual Position Paper’ document. “The national curriculum is a purposeful, teleological endeavour aimed at nationally advancing education. It serves three key goals: equipping students with knowledge and skills necessary for life and work; fostering responsible citizenship in a democratic society; and promoting holistic development – intellectual, social, cultural, spiritual and moral, emotional, and physical.”
CLA view: One of CLA’s foundational asks has been for new purposes for education – with the Expressive Arts as core and equal curriculum area mapped onto these new purposes. We hope that this set of curriculum purposes – and the very particular choice of wording – will be consulted upon and reworked into a set of clear purposes, as in Wales, where education has four excellent purposes which are encapsulated in the Curriculum for Wales. (Might be best for England’s purposes not to include the word “teleological” or everyone will have to go and look it up.) There are six “ambitions for a refreshed national curriculum” (page 19) which provide a starting point.
4. THE RELATIVE HEALTH OF ARTS SUBJECTS
There is a surprising assumption that everything in the garden is rosy for Art and Design – but it is acknowledged that drama and music take-up has declined and D&T has fared particularly badly
What the Review interim report says: “Art and design continues to thrive at GCSE: it remains among the most popular subjects for take-up. In contrast, some subjects within the category ‘the arts’ have seen a decline: notably drama and, to a lesser extent, music. However, design and technology stands out as the subject that has fared worst over time.” Page 14
CLA view: The Review has examined uptake and highlighted where uptake is strong and where it is an issue. The report definitely identifies an issue with drama and (“to a lesser extent”) music, as our Report Card covers. There is no mention of dance in the Review narrative – it is referenced in Figure 2 on page 14. The CLA Report Card has highlighted the 70% decline in design and technology GCSE take-up since 2010, but would also assert, in line with view of the National Society for Education in Art and Design, that this fall is directly linked to the uptake of some art and design specialisms which are being offered as lower-cost alternatives to design and technology – so we see the picture for art and design as much more complex than is presented by the Review interim report. We know that the Review team will be working on deep dives into all arts subject areas as part of the next phase of the Review, so we hope that this stage will address the relevant subject issues in detail. We might also question what exactly constitutes “thriving” here, and we hope that any further deep subject analysis might interrogate that descriptor further.
There is also the issue, as we highlight in our Report Card each year, that we still know very little about arts provision in primary schools. All the available arts enrolment and qualifications data is for secondary, so any conclusions about the health of subjects is partial. The government needs to find ways to capture and share data on primary arts provision in order to reveal the full picture.
As a side note, the report talks about the “the category, ‘the arts’”. The sciences, for example, don’t seem to need the same cautious inverted commas treatment. Nomenclature is important. We love the term Expressive Arts – it gives a proper name to the arts curriculum area which we think would be helpful if the arts are now to be revalued within schooling. Might the Review consider adopting this term, as Wales has done?
5. CORE SUBJECTS
English and maths will remain central – but so will understanding of human culture through the arts and humanities
What the Review interim report says: We can see that words English and maths each appear 30+ times in the report, which says that “being secure in foundational subjects such as maths and science will remain pivotal, now and in the future; as will young people’s understanding of human culture through the humanities, languages and arts.” It also says: “The evidence is clear that achieving grade 4 in GCSE maths and English has a significant positive impact on adult lives: increased levels of numeracy and literacy have been shown to have strong positive associations with earnings, employment, health, life satisfaction, and civic engagement. Employers will often set this as an entry requirement, and providers often require a grade 4 in maths and English for progression to level 3 qualifications.” Page 35
CLA view: Whilst the language does suggest an emphasis on English, maths and science, it is also seeking balance by acknowledging that the arts and humanities provide ways to understand human culture. We obviously agree. The arts have intrinsic value in and of themselves. They can be many things: they are an expression of what it is to be human and are valuable for learning about the world and the people around us. Expressive Arts subjects and experiences teach us who we are now, and who we might become. Education in the arts is a means of developing self-confidence, critical and creative thinking, focus, motivation, and the ability to communicate and cooperate effectively. They play an important role in developing personal, social and creative wellbeing. They are about learning new skills, developing craft, and honing talent; they are a vital and enriching part of life. CLA’s new Capabilities Framework is building a shared language and understanding of the personal and societal benefits that Expressive Arts subjects and experiences bring to children and young people by presenting these benefits in the form of seven evidenced capabilities. See the latest edition of our Report Card (publication date 2 April 2025) for more information on this.
6. ENRICHMENT
Breadth can be provided by enrichment beyond the curriculum such as through arts subjects
What the Review interim report says: “Our polling also suggests that three quarters of key stage 4 pupils were able to study all the subjects they wanted to. Whilst outside the scope of this Review, it should be noted that breadth may also be provided by enrichment activities beyond the curriculum, such as through musical and dramatic performances and sports.” Page 20
CLA view: We’d put an amber flag on this point. CLA will always be nervous about attempts to only value Expressive Arts subjects in terms of “enrichment” beyond the curriculum/classroom while Expressive Arts subjects are not firmly anchored within the mainframe of the curriculum and accountability structures in schools. Whilst we know that extra-curricular work and activities beyond the classroom are extremely valuable for arts delivery – and can support attainment and achievement – they should only ever be seen as additional: it is important that extra-curricular arts provision is not seen as a substitute for curriculum arts delivery but is available for young people to extend their arts engagement to a deeper level. Opportunities should be made available for young people to continue with their arts interests outside of exam syllabuses at Key Stages 4 and 5.
7. REPRESENTATION
Representation is important and much more can be done in this area to represent all young people (as we knew)
What the Review interim report says: “There is already scope within the national curriculum for teachers to weave together topics and themes to create an inclusive and diverse learning experience. However, we have heard compelling arguments that the curriculum needs to do more in ensuring that all young people feel represented, and that it successfully delivers the equalities duties to support equality of opportunity and challenge discrimination. Some of this has come from pupils themselves in our roundtables with young people. Pupils told us that not being able to see themselves in the content they learn, or encountering negative portrayals, can be disempowering and demotivating, a point supported by wider evidence. Ensuring that a diverse range of perspectives, experiences and representation are contained in set texts has also been seen to support student engagement and positive outcomes, alongside empathy and understanding of others.” Pages 27/28
CLA view: We wholeheartedly endorse this approach. In our detailed Blueprint for an art-rich education we go beyond “set texts” to say that “representation in schools must be considered across the diversity of genres, course materials and activities, e.g. texts, artists studied, composers selected, stories, histories and performances experienced, and in the engagement of cultural partners.” This detailed recommendation evolved from the Arts in Schools report consultation, during which we heard from our Youth Group that they “did not see themselves in the curriculums they studied; that their schooling did not fully reflect their lives and cultures, and that this limited their sense of agency, personal voice, and ability to contribute to the life of the school and the wider community.” This mirrors the Review’s findings.
8. ASSESSMENT OVERLOAD
It is acknowledged that the volume of assessment is too much – but they are treading carefully in looking at the role of non-exam assessment
What the Review interim report says: “In our next phase of work, the Review will consider carefully whether there are opportunities to reduce the overall volume of assessment at key stage 4 without compromising the reliability of results, and therefore the trust that stakeholders (from colleges and employers to parents and young people themselves) have in these qualifications. We will also take a subject-by-subject approach to consider assessment fitness for purpose and consider the impact of different assessment methods on teaching and learning. We will consider potential risks and trade-offs with non-exam assessments, such as deliverability (including the impact on teacher workloads), the risk of malpractice and risks to equity. Given all of the evidence, we are clear that traditional examined assessment should remain the primary means of assessment across GCSEs.” Also:“Evidence shows that, compared to many other countries, students in England spend more hours sitting exams … Students in England typically sit between 24 and 31 hours of exams in year 11 (depending on subject combination) …” Pages 40 and 41
CLA view: CLA would agree with the assessment overload point and has long called for changes to student assessment in line with Rethinking Assessment (see our Blueprint for an art-rich education and the Arts in Schools Report). We have recommended that Rethinking Assessment is used to form the basis for considering approaches to arts assessment, reflecting the use of digital learner profiles, and achievements beyond exams. Arts subjects require an accountability, assessment and progression system that is sensible, proportionate, and developed through consultation with teachers and practitioners.
9. PARENTAL DEMAND
The Review’s polling tells us that 19% of parents and 15% of young people want more arts provision – but at the same time it’s clear they do want the vital capabilities that arts subjects deliver
What the Review interim report says: “We have also heard consistently from children and young people and their parents that they want more focus on the applied knowledge and skills that will equip them for later life and work; such as financial education, careers knowledge and politics and governance. For example, our polling shows that 34% of key stage 4 learners and 43% of their parents would have liked more focus on finance and budgeting, and 32% of key stage 4 learners and 36% of their parents would have liked more time on employment and interview skills (figure 7). The National Parent Survey data further confirms these trends: nearly half of parents think that too little time is spent on skills related to financial management (48%); and around a third would like more attention to life skills (32%); and preparation for the job market (32%).” Page 26
CLA view: See poll findings on page 26. Our Capabilities Framework makes the personal and societal benefits of studying arts subjects very clear, and they include creative thinking, problem solving, employment and communication skills, all of which polled highly. There are also the issues of to what extent appreciation of the value of arts subjects has been determined by a) the previous government’s prevailing and persistent narrative of “strategically important subjects” which excluded the arts, and b) arts subject content – across knowledge and skills – not being designed to appeal to the needs of young people or to labour market needs. We would suggest that there is a lot of nuance in the interpretation of the polling around parental and student demand which requires further consideration and research. And that further focused polling across each subject area – and around the purposes of schooling – would be helpful.
10. A FAST-CHANGING WORLD
There is recognition of the need for the curriculum to keep up with rapid technological and social changes
What the Review interim report says: “Attention is needed to address opportunities and challenges created by our fast-changing world. The rise of artificial intelligence (AI) and trends in digital information demand heightened media literacy and critical thinking, as well as digital skills. Likewise, global social and environmental challenges require attention to scientific and cultural knowledge and skills that can equip young people to meet the challenges of the future.” Page 7
CLA view: AI is referenced here, as is the importance of critical thinking – which is indicated in our new Capabilities Framework (within ‘Interpretation’) as a key capability developed through studying arts subjects. CLA has long asserted that England requires a more rounded set of purposes for its schooling which are reflective of the world in which children live and will one day work. Schools must be supported in the ambition to provide a high-quality, future-facing and well-rounded educational experience for all students. It’s good to see that the curriculum must be “cutting edge and fit for purpose”. See our Blueprint for an art-rich education and the Arts in Schools report.
11. TIMEFRAME OF ANALYSIS
The Review sometimes looks at data sets from 2016 but does not systematically trace the trajectory since 2010/11
What the Review interim report says: “The last review of the national curriculum was launched in 2011, more than a decade ago.” And: “[In drama and media and for PE/sports] the proportion of pupils taking technical awards had overtaken GCSEs by 2020.” Pages 10 and 14
CLA view: CLA has always charted decline since the introduction of the EBacc in 2010, so we paint a different picture timescale-wise to that of the Review and can therefore fully chart the long-term decline of arts subjects over a 15-year period. Given that this is the first review of the curriculum since 2011, it would make sense for their data sets to take 2011 as their starting point. The report briefly mentions “over two decades” at one point but doesn’t analyse data for that full period. We would stress that it is important to examine shifts in take-up from pre-Covid to now, and to ensure that the scrutiny of technical qualifications data extends into 2024 to reflect the reality of take-up responses to previous government announcements about changes to these qualifications. See point 12 below …
12. TECHNICAL QUALIFICATIONS
Relatedly to point 11 above, the Review is stating that entries into arts technical qualifications have increased since 2010; the Review argues that a range of vocational and technical qualifications at level 2 and 3 need to be maintained
What the Review interim report says: There is an acknowledgement in the report that there are issues with the technical qualifications landscape (CLA would agree) although they do say that T Levels are broadly working well, as are some of the other applied general qualifications. There is a welcome commitment to maintaining the range of technical qualifications at levels 2 and 3, recognising the need for a range of pathways at post-16. However, there is not a reflection that arts technical qualifications take-up is declining. “For example, while the proportion of pupils entering music GCSEs has declined from 7% in 2016 to 5% in 2024, we have seen an increase of entries into Technical Awards in music from 1% to 2% over the same period. There were also similar patterns in drama and media and for PE/sports, where the proportion of pupils taking Technical Awards had overtaken GCSEs by 2020. Therefore, take-up of arts subjects qualifications may in some cases be more stable than the trends in GCSE take-up imply.” Page 14
CLA view: Well they definitely were increasing, but the previous government put the brakes on that in 2022! CLA’s new 2025 Report Card addresses this directly. Some of the interim report’s data stops at 2020, and the last government’s announcement that it was to scrap BTECs had a significant impact on take-up which has been declining between 2021/22 and 2023/24 – except for Level 2 dance qualifications (which is for particular reasons which we cover and address in the new CLA 2025 Report Card edition). We would suggest that this area requires much closer scrutiny in relation to positive uptake before 2022; declining uptake since 2022; and how this problem can be turned around. Before our new Report Card edition we all might have speculated that the decline in arts GCSE and A Level take-up could have been mirrored by a positive uptick in vocational qualifications take up, but our new edition makes clear that this has not recently been the case.
12. TEACHER AGENCY
There are some hints that the Review thinks teacher agency has been impacted by curriculum content and curriculum overload
What the Review interim report says: “The national curriculum should enable students to master high-quality and aspirational learning, no matter what their individual needs or backgrounds. It should also support teachers to use their professional expertise in designing or selecting an engaging and stretching programme of learning that best suits their students’ needs.” And: “… in some subjects the current construction and balance of content appears to be inhibiting [mastery in a subject] which may … reduce teachers’ professional capacity to consolidate, tailor, adapt or extend material for their pupils.” There is also this: “The national curriculum should empower teachers to foster a love of learning.” Pages 6, 19, 27
CLA view: Teacher agency is important in terms of what is taught, and how, and in developing communities of practice to build confidence and skills, and to share what works well (although the latter is a workforce training issue rather than a curriculum issue). In our Arts in Schools report consultations teachers described having had lost agency in terms of what and how they teach, which of course goes beyond just the arts. We now require a curriculum in which teachers are afforded much more agency in adapting the curriculum for the needs of their pupils and communities. The “love of learning” point is important and we value the recognition of this. A government-approved lesson-by-lesson curriculum is not an approach that can foster a love of learning.
14. THREE-YEAR GCSES
Too many schools are getting a jump on content by starting GCSEs in year 9 and effectively reducing KS3 (as we knew)
What the Review interim report says: “Due to the volume of content to be covered at key stage 4, many schools begin preparing pupils for GCSE in year 9 (ordinarily the final year of key stage 3), which narrows the curriculum offer and may curtail learning in curriculum subjects not selected for further study. Findings from the NFER’s Teacher Voice omnibus survey in 2019 show that 56% of schools begin teaching GCSEs in year 9 for all or most subjects, and some even begin doing this as early as year 7.” Page 21
CLA view: We have long been aware of this practice and regret the erosion of the key stage 3 in this way, given its affordances in terms of curriculum time for the Expressive Arts. Whilst this data is gloomy, it does reveal a problem with content overload – and fear of not meeting targets and inspection outcomes – for key stage 4 qualifications which we hope the Review will seek to address.
15. MISSING
What we were surprised not to see addressed in the Review’s report
What the Review interim report doesn’t say: Although there is stress on the importance of the ability to write well, the report doesn’t mention oracy/spoken language at all, which is very surprising, given that the Labour government has talked about this a great deal. And it does not talk about wellbeing, happiness and enjoyment, although the word “thrive” appears across ten pages (in relation to the aspiration for students to thrive in school, the workplace and the world). Wellbeing is mentioned only once in relation to the damaging impact of high-stakes assessment: “A frequently raised concern is the impact of an intensive, high-stakes assessment system on wellbeing, due to the pressure that exams can place on students.” Page 40
CLA view: We are sure that the Review will come back to wellbeing but it does feel rather central to schooling at the moment, given the issues with attendance. And oracy’s is important for communication skills, which are highly valued in the Review’s polling. We hope that the next stage of the Review will address both of these areas in depth – we would be disappointed not to see them covered in the final report’s recommendations. As the Oracy Education Commission report, ‘We Need to Talk’ stated in October 2024, it is vital for schools to be incentivised to provide a broad curriculum, enabling children to access the value of the Expressive Arts and citizenship as contexts for literacy. The report places a clear emphasis on the value of the Expressive Arts in developing children’s oracy and communication skills.
16. BEYOND SCOPE
And finally, there are a lot of issues beyond the scope of this review, particularly for the arts
What the Review interim report says: “The arts are a good illustration of some of the dilemmas for this Review, in that not all of the issues that have been identified relate to the curriculum or assessment framework. For example, in arts subjects we have heard calls for improvements in equipment, more specialist teachers and better access to extra-curricular activities. These are important issues, and where we received evidence that extends beyond curriculum and assessment, we have passed that on to the Department for Education, who will reflect it in wider work.” Page 20
CLA view: We always knew that some aspects of arts provision in schools, such as the arts teaching workforce in particular, were beyond scope, and would have to be addressed in other ways by DfE, and not by this Review. We avoided detailed reference to these in our evidence submission, but clearly many points, such as specialist teachers, extra-curricular provision, and equipment, were all raised through the evidence submission and must now be addressed by DfE. The new plans to create a National Centre for Arts and Music Education (many of our members are asking why music always gets its own separate namecheck when it should just be absorbed within “Arts”) is also likely to pick up some, but by no means all, of these issues.
IN BRIEF – Some further points and observations:
- Balance across knowledge, skills and experiences: Knowledge is mentioned a lot. Skills too, to a lesser extent (yes, CLA has counted the instances of their use!). We’d like to see more reference to experiences – we see all three as vital to the study of arts subjects. The report says that “Subject specific knowledge remains the best investment we have to secure the education young people need in a world of rapid technological and social change.” But the report also tells us that young people and parents are calling for more “applied knowledge”.
- The Review is still focused on “evolution not revolution”: “… in recognition of the significant problem of capacity within the system, we will continue with our ‘evolution not revolution’ approach in the next stage of the Review, an approach that has been widely welcomed.”
- Quality: The word “quality” pops up quite a bit but not really in a substantive way and we’d like to see more thought given to what high-quality actually means.
- Depth and breadth at KS1 and KS2: “We have also consistently heard from primary practitioners and subject experts that the curriculum at key stages 1 and 2 is not effectively balancing depth and breadth.”
- Whole child: The report says that “the curriculum should allow schools to support the full development of the students and prepare them for their future life and work.” This chimes completely with our long-standing call (see our Blueprint for an art-rich education) for a new emphasis on a rounded learning experience for the personal development and wellbeing of the “whole child” – for the present as well as for the future.
- Post-16 qualifications: There is a commitment to maintaining a range of Level 2 and 3 pathways which serve more than 40% of young people (page 30), including strong occupational pathways at Level 2, recognising that T Levels are not an appropriate pathway for all learners.
- Resits and the “forgotten third”: The Review interim report says that “we think the expectation for study of maths and English should remain, but with greater nuance in measures to ensure that as many learners as possible can achieve positive outcomes.” We would wholeheartedly agree with this as the current system is disadvantaging too many young people. “In addition to concerns about attainment, we have also heard concerns about the practice of exam resits being expected repeatedly and rapidly.” “Review of Post-16 routes will ensure there are a breadth of opportunities, and will reform the current system of maths and English re-sits.” CLA welcomes the report’s commitment to replacing the current requirement for resits of GCSE Maths and English at post-16 with “greater nuance in measures to ensure that as many learners as possible can achieve positive outcomes.” (page 37)
- Too much ‘teaching to the test’: “We have also heard concerns that exams – coupled with the volume of content needing to be covered and their use in accountability measures – can lead to ‘teaching to the test’, with students spending too much curriculum time rote learning facts and model answer structures and revision at the expense of depth of understanding of the content.”
- Nuance: We hope that the follow-up deep dives into subject areas will uncover all the curriculum content issues for specific arts subjects.
- Complexity: “A balanced and cautious approach is necessary given the diverse, and often conflicting, views expressed by stakeholders. This kind of approach is also necessitated by the fact that many of the issues raised are extremely complex, and elements of the system that are outside the scope of this Review may be contributing to the outcomes we are observing.”
- Societal role: The report does talk about the civic and economic needs of the country. These are obviously important, but we would like to see more of an emphasis on pupil wellbeing alongside this national benefit narrative. We would come back to our call for a proper consultation on the purposes of our schooling system.
- Progression: “The national curriculum should be coherently and logically sequenced and allow space for schools to support mastery of core concepts, effective transitions, and progression through each key stage of education.” And: “We have also heard through the Call for Evidence that transitions are not always well-aligned between key stages, particularly between key stage 2 and key stage 3.”
- Response to the call for evidence: They “received 7,021 responses, with 5,327 individual responses (including 820 from parents and pupils and 2,360 from teachers, lecturers and school and college leaders), and 1,694 from organisations (including 523 schools and colleges, 73 universities and higher education institutions, as well as local authorities, charities and research organisations).”
- What next? CLA will be consulting on its detailed response to the interim report for the Review Panel. We will share our final response with all our members. As ever, do get in touch with your thoughts and views.
Image: Curious Minds Artsmark Small & Rural (St Mary’s Primary School). Credit: Henry Iddon.
