Show the Working

Reform school assessment and curriculum

Green · what the evidence says

An independent, source-checked look at Green’s policy “Reform school assessment and curriculum” — what it would actually do across the things that affect your life. Every claim below quotes the source behind it. How this works.

Education & opportunity — Helps

moderate · moderate confidence

This policy would broaden what schools teach and how they assess it, giving arts, vocational, outdoor, and environmental subjects more space alongside traditional exams. The biggest risk is that ending high-stakes testing could reduce accountability and that some reforms — like the Natural History GCSE — may be hard to deliver without adequate teacher training and resources.

The evidence

Biggest unknown: Whether reducing or ending high-stakes formal testing improves or harms attainment and accountability — credible evidence points both ways, and the net effect on standards depends heavily on what replaces those assessments.

Our reading: The policy packages several distinct reforms. On arts and vocational parity, the evidence base is relatively strong: a 42% fall in arts GCSE/A-level entries since 2010, linked explicitly to the EBacc measure the policy targets, is a measurable harm the reform directly addresses. Arts education is also linked — albeit by advocacy-leaning sources — to attainment improvements and narrowing the gap for poorer pupils. The equity dimension matters: working-class students are already under-represented in the creative economy, and broadening access to arts and vocational pathways could modestly improve opportunity for disadvantaged groups. On outdoor learning and climate education, the evidence is largely from sector bodies but consistently positive on child development and wellbeing, and the green skills gap is a documented structural issue. On ending high-stakes testing, the evidence genuinely splits: stress harms are measurable and widely cited, teacher assessments are shown to be comparably reliable, but Jerrim's comparative research finds no wellbeing difference and identifies accountability risks. This is the weakest and most contested plank, though even here the balance of cited evidence leans toward stress reduction benefits, with the accountability risk as a real but unresolved caveat. The Natural History GCSE is welcomed but delivery risks around teacher capacity and cost are explicitly flagged. Overall, the direction of the package is positive for O7 — it expands curriculum breadth, addresses a documented attainment-gap driver (arts exclusion), and responds to skills-economy mismatches. The magnitude is moderate rather than major because implementation risks are real, the testing reform is contested, and most effects are indirect and long-term in nature.