How Students are Being Blindsided

Hearing about the Government’s recently announced Curriculum and Assessment Review, I was initially heartened; finally, there was some recognition of the curriculum reform that is so sorely needed in this country. I was pleased to see the new Labour government taking an innovative and proactive approach. But upon analysis, the Review is fundamentally out of touch with the realities facing today’s education system, which is at breaking point.
The Need for an Overhaul
Students are being blindsided. On the surface, it seems that the government is finally doing something to tackle the deeply-rooted problems in the education system. But what has been proposed is simply not enough. A full pedagogical overhaul is needed if we are to genuinely break down barriers to opportunity, which is the Review’s primary aim. The Review Aims, Terms of Reference and Working Principles reflect an insubstantial and incoherent approach that fails to address the need for modernised teaching methods, student disengagement and the inequality of a system that places disproportionate emphasis on timed assessments as the main measure of achievement.
The UK education system today is a product of reforms in the Victorian era. There was a need for workers who could read instructions, follow orders, and perform repetitive tasks with efficiency, so schools were designed to create uniformity among students. The same curriculum was taught to everyone, much like a factory that produces standardised goods, and the emphasis was on discipline, punctuality, and obedience; traits desirable in factory workers. Today, we have a standardised curriculum and strict behaviour policies, and we quantify success via examinations that serve as gatekeepers to higher education and certain career paths.
In 1951, O Levels (now GCSEs) were created as part of a broader effort to modernise and make the UK education system more accessible and inclusive. Replacing the School Certificate, O Levels introduced a greater focus on coursework and broader assessment methods beyond just end-of-year exams. Yet they differentiated students even more rigidly than the School Certificate and timed exams were still the primary measure of success.
Our last government introduced more exams and de-emphasised the role of coursework in the name of ‘academic rigour.’ This Curriculum and Assessment Review is an opportunity for the new government to reverse the damaging Conservative reforms that disadvantage any student who doesn’t work well under timed conditions, but they aren’t seizing it.
Too Many Still Left Behind
Bridget Phillipson promises to ‘breathe new life into our outdated curriculum and assessment system,’ but this is at odds with the fundamentally conservative nature of the proposed reforms. In her letter to the Chief Executive Officer of the Education Endowment Foundation, she stresses that we should maintain ‘what’s working well with curriculum and assessment, including qualification pathways, without seeking to fix things that are not broken.’ The qualification pathways epitomise what’s not working well. The review nobly states a commitment that ‘no child or young person is left behind’ but the current examination system inevitably leaves behind over 30 per cent of students who don’t pass their Maths and English GCSEs, cutting them off from crucial opportunities for further education and future employment. The review emphasises maintaining ‘the important role of examinations’ without critically evaluating their utility in line with stated aims, particularly breaking down barriers to opportunity.
The Review looks at barriers to attainment, especially for ‘those who are socioeconomically disadvantaged, or with special educational needs or disabilities.’ Yet in refusing to acknowledge that the system is failing, they won’t be able to provide better support to those students who struggle the most. A key problem is the outdated teaching methods that dominate classrooms today which the Review doesn’t address. Students are required to sit still and write for extended periods, and the emphasis is on rote memorisation, standardisation and formal assessments, leading to rigid, passive learning structures. For various reasons, these methods are inherently mismatched with the needs of many learners — particularly those who are socioeconomically disadvantaged or have SEND.
For the former, factors such as lack of early childhood education, limited access to learning resources, and home environments not conducive to traditional study habits exacerbate the struggles students face in a rigid classroom setting. Meanwhile, for students with conditions like ADHD, autism, or dyslexia, traditional learning environments feel not just challenging but alienating, and these students are often disciplined for behaviours that reflect their learning needs.
The punitive nature of the education system is a barrier to attainment, and this isn’t addressed in the review. Students are punished for ‘misbehaving,’ which usually means a lapse in concentration, distracting others or an inability to conform to standard classroom expectations. Having worked as a teaching assistant, I have observed firsthand how punishment for ‘misbehaving’ reinforces a cycle of disengagement, shame, and underachievement — particularly for students with SEND. Rather than tackling the underlying issue (why a student struggles to concentrate or why they act out), the system enforces compliance through sanctions like detention or exclusion, further alienating students from the learning process.
This punitive approach clearly isn’t working, with school exclusions having increased by 44 per cent between 2021/22 and 2022/23. What’s more, SEN students are up to five times more likely to face exclusion than neurotypical students.
Volume Over Quality
The Review advocates for legislative changes to ensure that all state schools are required to teach the national curriculum, but there is little mention of the problems with the content of the curriculum, particularly its volume. The emphasis is on making the curriculum ‘rich and broad,’ but the significant issue of student and teacher disengagement is not addressed. The curriculum often includes an overwhelming amount of material, much of which feels irrelevant or disconnected from students’ lived experiences. As a result, teachers struggle to translate this content into lessons that genuinely excite or inspire their students, stifling creativity in teaching. The focus on broadness, while well-intentioned, has led to an overburdened system, where both teachers and students are pressured to cover vast amounts of information without the time or space for deeper, more meaningful exploration. When I was a TA in a secondary school, I noticed that students, more often than not, were bored and disengaged in lessons, and retention was low. Students also loathed exams and their mental health suffered from the endless emphasis on timed assessments, which they felt stifled their potential.
Overall, more holistic metrics for success beyond exam grades are needed, such as emotional intelligence, problem-solving and creativity, because those students who struggle to attain in a traditional sense often excel in these areas. Perhaps the solution lies not in investigating ‘barriers’ to attainment but in changing the definition of attainment. This involves an overhaul of the whole qualification system rather than ‘continuing to recognise the progressive benefits of public examinations.’
Without a full overhaul of pedagogy — a paradigm shift in how teaching and learning are approached — socioeconomically disadvantaged students and those with SEND will continue to encounter the same barriers because they are being asked to adapt to a system designed for a narrow group of learners. The methods of instruction, assessment, and discipline will remain misaligned with their needs, perpetuating attainment gaps despite well-intentioned reforms.
Without rethinking how students are taught, particularly those who don’t fit the traditional mould, any new support measures will only scratch the surface of the problem.
DISCLAIMER: The articles on our website are not endorsed by, or the opinions of Shout Out UK (SOUK), but exclusively the views of the author.
link