I've searched for SEND, Inclusion, Inclusive, Needs and picked out the relevant paragraphs. I have omitted "local needs", though councils are definitely considering "local" as a criteria for improved outcomes for all learners. 

Taking things out of context is never a good idea, so please read this alongside the PDF https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/690b96bbc22e4ed8b051854d/Curriculum_and_Assessment_Review_final_report_-_Building_a_world-class_curriculum_for_all.pdf 

--- 

p9 The current system is not working well for all 

The socio-economic gap in relation to educational attainment remains stubbornly wide, and young people with special educational needs and disabilities (SEND) make less progress than their peers. Whilst the explanations for this often lie outside the curriculum and assessment, the Review has worked to ensure that the system reflects high expectations for all and properly supports all young people’s progress and achievement. 

Our recommendations aim to improve curriculum quality for all young people but will particularly benefit those for whom the system is currently not working well. We have also made recommendations to support better equity, access and inclusivity in subject areas where we have identified specific barriers to progress. In addition, we have sought to ensure that the curriculum and assessment are helpful to teachers in supporting progress, momentum and successful outcomes as learners move from one key stage to the next. 

We also highlight the roles other government agencies and bodies can play in exemplifying how to meet diverse needs in an inclusive mainstream school and in supporting good practice.

p10 Curriculum shape and challenges with specific subjects

We have also taken steps to ensure that the curriculum (and related material) is inclusive so that all young people can see themselves represented. This should also help them to broaden their horizons and better understand the perspectives of others.

P11 16-19 education

Furthermore, for young people who did not secure strong level 2 qualifications at school, including those who need to continue studying Maths and English, the quality of provision is uneven and many are not making progress. They include a disproportionate number of young people with SEND and those from socio-economically disadvantaged backgrounds. It is especially important that these challenges are resolved. We therefore recommend the development of a new third pathway at level 3 to sit alongside A Levels and T Levels.

P16 Methodology

Held issue-specific roundtables with employers, subject associations and awarding organisations; and oral evidence sessions to gather evidence from experts on key areas such as socio-economic disadvantage and SEND.

p20 The national curriculum for Key Stages 1 to 4

The current national curriculum framework makes it clear that, with effective planning for pupils with SEND, ‘in many cases such planning will mean that pupils will be able to study the full curriculum’. For some pupils, including in education settings such as special schools and alternative provision, the curriculum may need significant appropriate adaptation to meet individual needs. The Special Education Needs (SEN) Code of Practice also states that schools should set out ‘details of how the curriculum is adapted or made accessible for pupils with SEN’. Where pupils have Education, Health and Care Plans, these should also detail ‘any appropriate modifications to the application of the National Curriculum’.

p20 16-19 qualifications and programmes

16-19 study programmes are designed to be flexible and tailored to individual needs, abilities and career goals, with learners able to pursue various 16-19 qualifications at different levels, including A Levels, Applied General Qualifications (AGQs), T Levels, Tech Levels, Technical Certificates and other vocational qualifications.

p25ff ‘High standards’ must mean high standards for all

A world-leading education system must deliver excellence for all young people, irrespective of background. Our curriculum and assessment system is working well in many respects, but it is not delivering high standards for all, and some gaps are widening rather than narrowing. In particular, a stubborn attainment gap remains between those that are socio-economically disadvantaged and their peers (Figure 4), while children and young people with special educational needs and disabilities (SEND) make less progress in comparison to those without SEND. 

Pupils with SEND also make less progress between Key Stage 2 and Key Stage 4 compared with those without identified SEND, again widening the attainment gap that already existed at Key Stage 2. 43 These progress gaps are deeply concerning in a society that promotes equality of opportunity for all.

At Key Stage 4, rates of uptake differ across most non-core subjects, depending on factors such as protected characteristics, special educational needs and socio-economic status. For example, students from disadvantaged backgrounds or who have an identified SEND are much less likely to take a GCSE in a Modern Foreign Language compared with their peers, with 16 and 32 percentage point gaps respectively; and girls are much less likely to take Computer Science compared to boys, with boys being over three and a half times more likely to take the GCSE than girls. Evidence also shows that disadvantaged young people tend to have less access to a broad curriculum, in both primary and secondary.

Many explanations for the relative lack of progress for socio-economically disadvantaged children and young people and those with SEND lie beyond the curriculum. Most of the variation in outcomes stem from factors outside of school (for example, child poverty). Other sources of variation include educational factors such as pedagogy, school approaches and resources. 49 These factors are outside the scope of this Review. However, a well-structured and refreshed curriculum can still make a difference. When the curriculum is designed thoughtfully, it can reduce unnecessary inequities and barriers to learning, provide clarity and coherence for teachers, and better support young people with diverse needs

p28 A commitment to social justice

As set out in the Terms of Reference, the Review has a commitment to ‘Remediate existing blocks to progress and good outcomes, with an especial concern for equity and ensuring positive outcomes for children and young people who are from socio-economically disadvantaged backgrounds, have a special education need (SEN) or disability and/or are otherwise vulnerable’. We have applied a social justice lens to all aspects of our work, seeking to identify and remove barriers to progress within the curriculum and assessment system. In doing this we recognise that young people from both socio-economically disadvantaged backgrounds and those with SEND are not generalised groups. They contain individuals with a wide range of prior attainment and characteristics, strengths, interests, barriers to learning, and needs regarding the curriculum.

Throughout the Review, we have recognised the wider policy landscape and Government activity, considering our recommendations alongside the work of Dame Christine Lenehan, the DfE’s strategic adviser on SEND, Tom Rees, Chair of the Expert Advisory Group for Inclusion (EAG), and Professor Karen Guldberg, Chair of the Neurodivergence task and finish group.

Promoting social justice brings with it a variety of dilemmas. The Review has faced the challenge of balancing our unequivocal commitment to high aspirations for all, while simultaneously providing the necessary flexibility to address young people’s diverse needs. On many occasions, the Review Panel heard convincing evidence of issues about inclusivity, yet further consideration revealed that potential solutions risk greater harms and inequities than the existing problem. An example is aspects of assessment, where the negative consequences of marking out some young people as underachieving must be balanced with the requirement for formative analysis, which is crucial for supporting further progress for individuals and benchmarking standards. A further area where this dilemma presents itself is performance measures, where incentivising particular behaviours may be beneficial but also have unintended consequences. 

Nevertheless, we have sought to make recommendations in many areas that will improve progress for groups disadvantaged in the present system, and where improvements to curriculum and assessment may contribute to narrowing gaps. The remainder of this section outlines several overarching recommendations designed to benefit all young people, but which are likely to be most beneficial to young people struggling with or disaffected from their learning, among whom those from socio-economically disadvantaged backgrounds and those with SEND are overrepresented. We have also made recommendations relating to specific subject areas that aim to support social justice and inclusion. These are detailed in the subject sections

p29 A high-quality and inclusive curriculum for all

Although a well-designed curriculum is important for all young people, it is particularly beneficial for those with SEND and those from socio-economically disadvantaged backgrounds. They suffer disproportionately when the curriculum is poorly articulated, overloaded, badly organised or depends on experiences outside the classroom. By ensuring that the volume of content in the national curriculum is appropriate for the teaching time that is available, we aim to give schools sufficient time to consolidate learning, as well as the space to provide the enrichment activities and life skills that prepare young people for life and work. This is important for enabling an accessible and inclusive school curriculum, and also to support engagement, particularly for secondary students. Evidence shows that there is a substantial drop in pupil engagement and views on the value of education as they transition from primary education, especially for those from socio-economically disadvantaged backgrounds. In our chapter on curriculum principles, we therefore set out recommendations to improve the clarity, specificity and sequencing of the curriculum, ensuring space for mastery of core concepts (see curriculum principles). Of course, curriculum design is just one step in an inclusive learning experience. Adaptive teaching practices, teachers’ expertise, the engagement of parents and carers, the role of support staff and the classroom environment are examples of factors that also contribute to truly inclusive education.

Access to the national curriculum should remain an expectation and an entitlement for all children and young people, including those in specialist and alternative provision. However, the Review acknowledges the ongoing need for the national curriculum to be appropriately adapted (and in certain cases in specialist settings, disapplied) to meet the specific needs of young people. It is therefore important that specialist, alternative and other education settings retain their freedom to adapt the national curriculum as appropriate, and that they are supported to be appropriately ambitious for pupils in how they use these freedoms. Therefore, as well as providing principles to support the refreshed drafting of the national curriculum, we make recommendations to foreground the role of wider guidance and exemplification to support practitioners, across all settings, to adapt the national curriculum where required (see the national curriculum as a tool for teachers).

...

In addition, the assessment and qualification system must be inclusive and accessible so that all young people are able to demonstrate their learning. Our assessment recommendations emphasise the importance of embedding accessibility into the design of new specifications. This includes careful consideration of how subject content interacts with assessment methods, and the broader implications for teaching and learning for all groups of students, including pupils with SEND

p31 Smooth transitions that support progress

Many factors contribute to the large attainment gaps for young people from socioeconomically disadvantaged backgrounds and those with SEND. Two curriculum-related problems are the transition between primary and secondary school and insecure core knowledge and skills at this critical juncture.

Strong teaching and a well-designed curriculum in the primary phase both play a vital role in establishing foundational knowledge in English and Maths. However, not all pupils complete Key Stage 2 with the secure foundations needed for confident progression. Students entering Key Stage 3 without these strong foundations often struggle to build momentum in their learning. Instead of progressing confidently, many begin to fall further behind. This highlights the need for coherence, responsiveness and effective support at the point of transition. Other factors in Key Stage 3 compound this, such as the challenge for pupils to adapt to a larger school community and multiple teachers, and the tendency for the strongest teachers to be deployed in Key Stage 4. Our recommendations to improve curriculum coherence, to make better use of data from Key Stage 2 assessments, and to transform the national curriculum into a digital tool that enables teachers to easily see links between phases and subject, should facilitate this more effective support across transitions. 

Securing level 2 in Maths and English by the age of 16 has a strong impact on young people’s life chances. Yet too many struggle to achieve this, especially those from socio-economically disadvantaged backgrounds or those with SEND. We believe that far more are capable of reaching level 2 in English and Maths than - despite 12 years of schooling - do currently. It is imperative that we narrow this gap. 

Therefore, in addition to making recommendations to improve the Maths and English curriculum, we recommend the development of a diagnostic (formative) test in Maths and English in Key Stage 3 (see curriculum recommendations by subject and Key Stage 3 assessment). Evidence shows that formative assessments are an effective tool in raising attainment. This would support teachers in identifying and addressing gaps in knowledge during Key Stage 3 at an earlier stage, ensuring more students are supported to progress successfully into Key Stage 4.

p32 High-quality pathways for all learners

Given the importance of level 3 learning and qualifications in shaping life chances and supporting our economy, and recognising the longstanding complexity and inconsistency in this area, we make recommendations to establish clear, high-quality pathways at level 3. We also recommend that the Government introduces a revised third pathway with a streamlined qualification offer at level 3, to sit alongside the academic and technical pathways. This pathway should provide an aspirational alternative to A Levels and T Levels and should be based on new vocational qualifications, which we recommend calling V Levels. This should also support the significant proportion of young people for whom these former routes are not suitable to pursue high-quality and rewarding level 3 study. This group disproportionately includes those from socio-economically disadvantaged backgrounds and those with SEND.57 

Our recommendations focused on level 2 pathways at 16-19 seek to support all young people to pursue high-quality routes into occupations or further study, reflecting the Review’s approach to improving social justice. Strengthened level 2 pathways will provide ambitious and clear opportunities for learners, especially benefitting those from socio-economically disadvantaged backgrounds and those with SEND. 

Finally, we make recommendations to support greater efficacy in the provision of Maths and English at 16-19 to help those young people who do not secure a level 2 qualification by 16 to achieve this at 16-19. This recommendation supports low prior attainers, among whom young people from socio-economically disadvantaged and those with SEND are over-represented (see 16-19 Maths and English).

p33 A curriculum that reflects our society

The national curriculum is for all our young people. Our diversity and commitment to equality of opportunity and fairness are some of this country’s greatest strengths. Throughout the Review we are seeking to deliver a curriculum that reflects the issues and diversities of our society, ensuring all children and young people are represented, whilst also exposing them to a wide range of perspectives that broaden their horizons.

Our recommendations seek to ensure that all young people feel included in and engaged by the national curriculum.

The national curriculum already offers teachers scope to create inclusive learning experiences by weaving together topics and themes and drawing on case studies and exemplars. Often what is needed is greater exemplification and access to high-quality resources that support this work - including local exemplification that brings the curriculum to life. However, we have heard compelling arguments, some directly from young people in our roundtables, that the curriculum needs to reflect society, support equality of opportunity, and challenge discrimination. 

Young people have told us that not seeing themselves in the curriculum, or encountering negative portrayals, can be disempowering and demotivating, a point supported by wider evidence. To foster engagement and support positive outcomes, it’s important that the curriculum covers a wide range of experiences and representation, as well as promoting our shared values, to build empathy and understanding of others.

Representation must go hand in hand with broadening horizons; it should not mean limiting children and young people to narrow frames of reference based on their background. Inclusion is also fostered through shared experiences, creating connections and opportunities to explore a wide range of viewpoints. As such, mutual access to core knowledge, and curriculum coherence, efficacy and breadth for all children should remain central as we work to ensure the curriculum is more broadly representative. With this in mind, we make an overarching recommendation that the curriculum reforms should be guided by the principle that they reflect the diversity of our society and the contributions that have shaped it (see a curriculum for all).

p42 Oracy

Our review of the evidence has highlighted the need for further support and guidance for oracy and spoken language interventions. In 2024, over a fifth of children did not meet the expected standards in all the early learning goals in communication and language in their Early Years Foundation Stage profile, while those eligible for free school meals (FSM) and those with SEN were less likely than their peers to meet the same standards.

...

Through the Call for Evidence and our wider engagement with the education sector, stakeholders told us that the guidance for schools on spoken language is limited in its scope and specificity. As a result, teaching and spoken language interventions are implemented inconsistently. In addition, the Review Panel received feedback that there is a lack of clear progression for spoken language across both primary and secondary education, with little support or guidance to define progression. This is also emphasised in the Oracy Commission’s 2024 report. In summary, the evidence suggests that the current emphasis on spoken language in the curriculum aims is not always reflected in classroom practice, nor is it meeting the needs of all children and young people.

p48 Curriculum depth and mastery of core concepts

Mastery of core concepts is necessary for children and young people to develop a deep understanding of subject disciplines. Knowledge is cumulative and, with a strong knowledge base (and deliberate revisiting of prior knowledge), they can build new knowledge in their long-term memory more easily. An absence of this can inhibit them from securing the necessary depth of knowledge to make progress in their learning, particularly for some with special educational needs and disabilities (SEND). We are not advocating unnecessary repetition, which can reduce engagement. Rather, the curriculum should ensure that children and young people have sufficient space to secure, deepen and extend their foundational knowledge and skills, building on prior learning.

p50 Professional autonomy

Ensuring the profession has the space to develop the curriculum is essential to enable the stretch and/or support learners need, enabling inclusive and adaptive teaching to happen for individual children and young people. This is particularly important in the context of greater numbers of them being identified as having SEND. To that end, the national curriculum should be teachable within the time available and should not be so specific that it restricts teachers’ autonomy (see the national curriculum as a tool for teachers).

p51 A curriculum for all

While the national curriculum already offers flexibility for teachers to integrate inclusive and diverse learning experiences, we heard that more needs to be done to ensure that all young people feel represented, to deliver on the equalities duties to support equality of opportunity, and to challenge discrimination. Responses to our Call for Evidence identified opportunities to broaden representation in relation to protected characteristics and socio-economic background across many subjects. In Art and Design, research shows that works by minority ethnic artists are rarely used, despite the subject’s potential to reflect Britain’s cultural diversity and contributions to the discipline. In English, while the curriculum allows for a range of texts, we heard that in practice selections often lack breadth, shaped by limited availability of resources and a tendency to rely on well-established works. Likewise, we heard that in Drama and Dance, work is needed to broaden the range of creators, performers, styles and genres studied. In History, teachers called for clearer guidance to help them reflect the subject’s inherent diversity without replacing core content. In Music, stakeholders noted that terminology and assessment criteria can limit the inclusion of diverse genres and styles. We recommend updating subject content and Programmes of Study to reflect a broader range of perspectives and experiences, while retaining foundational disciplinary knowledge. Core knowledge and key works that shape a subject must remain central. However, we are clear that diverse contributions to subject disciplines enable a complete, broad and balanced curriculum. This is sometimes more appropriately achieved through teacher selection of content than centralised prescription in the national curriculum and should be supported by high-quality exemplification resources (for example, from Oak National Academy and other providers) and a wider selection of inclusive materials from publishers and exam boards.

Curriculum principle:

• The national curriculum is for all our children and young people. As such, it should reflect our diverse society and the contributions of people of all backgrounds to our knowledge and culture. 

We recommend that the Government: 

• Reviews and updates all Programmes of Study - and, where appropriate, the corresponding GCSE Subject Content - to include stronger representation of the diversity that makes up our modern society, allowing more children to see themselves in the curriculum.

p52 The national curriculum as a tool for teachers

The curriculum principles already outlined support curriculum design that is inclusive for the majority of students. Access to the national curriculum should remain an expectation for all children and young people and is important for ensuring a broad and balanced education for all, supporting their engagement and wider opportunities. Adaptive teaching plays an important role in supporting inclusion, and in the majority of cases these pupils will be able to study the full national curriculum. There is, however, also a need for clear advice on effective approaches to adapting the curriculum, both to enable young people to access the full curriculum, and to ensure a rich offer and good progress for those who are unable to access it in full. This must support teachers and school leaders to adapt their curriculum for children and young people with SEND, taking into account their varied, multi-faceted needs. Such guidance should be non-statutory. 

Bodies such as Oak National Academy may be able to support teachers in this area by providing teachers with resources, progression scaffolds and exemplification of good practice. 

We recommend that the Government: 

• Develops a programme of work to provide evidence-led guidance on curriculum and pedagogical adaptation (as well as exemplification) for children and young people with SEND, including those in specialist provision, who experience various barriers to accessing the curriculum.

p69 Design and Technology, including Cooking and Nutrition

Stakeholders also suggested that social responsibility and inclusive design should be more explicitly embedded.

p70 Recommendations

We recommend that the Government: 

• Refines the D&T curriculum and GCSE subject content to:
  • Embed the teaching of social responsibility and inclusive design explicitly within the curriculum, as appropriate to the key stage, throughout the design process

p83 Geography

We recommend that the Government:

• Makes minor refinements to the Geography Programmes of Study and GCSE subject content to respond to the issues identified, including by:
  • Refining content to support progression better to further study, deepen children and young people’s understanding of key geographical concepts, make content more relevant and inclusive, and remove unnecessary repetition across topics.
  • Clarifying and reinforcing requirements for fieldwork to demonstrate its role more effectively in supporting content and the developing of disciplinary knowledge, ensuring changes remain proportionate and inclusive.

 

p102 Physical Education (PE), including Dance

The Review acknowledges the importance of striking a balance between competition and inclusive participation. However, we believe that England’s distinctive approach to competitive sport in schools should be recognised and celebrated. Sport is part of our national identity and our strong tradition in competitive sports can foster mastery, confidence, and motivation across a variety of backgrounds. It is crucial that all young people, regardless of background, are supported to access competitive sport and have the chance to realise their talents at the highest level. 

Nevertheless, PE must serve broader purposes. It should engage and motivate all young people. We therefore recommend that the defined purpose of compulsory PE is broadened slightly to reflect the role it plays in pupils’ holistic development, while preserving the role of competitive sports and emphasising the subject’s physical, social, cognitive, and emotional benefits. 

In addition to recommending that the DfE refreshes the purpose statement for PE, we also consider there is value in updating the subject aims for each key stage. Feedback to the Call for Evidence suggests that the current aims are brief and lack clarity, posing challenges for non-specialist PE teachers in planning and teaching high-quality lessons to meet diverse needs and achieve broader educational outcomes.

P103 PE 

Finally, we have heard problems relating to equity of access in GCSE PE and that students with special educational needs (SEN) are under-represented in the take-up of PE qualifications. In 2024/25, just 6% of students with an identified SEN entered GCSE PE compared with 12% of students with no identified SEN.290 We heard arguments from sector stakeholders that the current GCSE PE activity list undermines the inclusivity of the qualification.291 It comprises 58 activities, including 33 team activities and 25 individual activities. Currently, of these 58 activities, only eight are ‘specialist’292 (six team activities, including blind cricket, and two individual activities, namely boccia and polybat).

While any of the listed activities may be adapted or adjusted to meet the needs of disabled students, the absence of a wider range of specialist activities could still be restricting opportunities. We believe that the PE activity list should be reviewed. Caution must be exercised when undertaking this review to ensure that any changes can be assessed effectively within the existing framework.

p104 Recommendations

We recommend that the Government:

• Reviews the current GCSE PE activity list to consider ways in which it could be made more inclusive for all students, especially for students with SEND.

p107 Dance

We recommend that the Government:

• Reviews the subject content, balance of assessment and assessment methods of GCSE Dance so that the qualification is inclusive, representative and better suited to the discipline.

p112 Science

The Review has heard concerns that a lack of representation of the diversity of scientists and their work can have a negative impact on pupils’ engagement and reinforce the perception that Science, and scientific careers, are not for them. The Review considers that the Science curriculum must be firmly grounded in scientific knowledge and concepts, rather than focusing on individuals. Nevertheless, we want to ensure the curriculum empowers teachers to illustrate the Science curriculum with inclusive examples of individuals working in and contributing to science, so that all pupils feel engaged by Science; in turn supporting their futures as informed citizens and securing the pipeline for the economically important Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics (STEM) workforce. Resources from Oak National Academy and other organisations should be used to support this.

p121 Accountability and performance measures

In this section, we also consider the inclusivity of performance measures, being especially mindful of the increasing number of students with SEND in the education system.

p125ff Inclusivity within performance measures

Supporting the needs and abilities of all children and young people with special educational needs and disabilities (SEND) must be underpinned by an accountability system that captures and celebrates the progress of all of them and so incentivises schools to provide an inclusive curriculum. 

We have heard that the pressure exerted by accountability and performance measures for schools to perform well in standardised assessments can act as a disincentive for them to admit or retain pupils with SEND, or can lead them to narrow the range of qualification pathways they offer, ultimately preventing access to subjects that may allow them to achieve and thrive. 

While we believe that Progress 8 is working well and should remain unchanged, we are aware of some criticisms that the measure is not fully inclusive. The only contextualisation within Progress 8 is prior attainment; other factors beyond a school’s control are not taken into account, such as the proportion of students receiving free school meals or the proportion with SEND. Initiatives introduced by previous Governments that took account of such factors include the Contextual Value Added (CVA) measure and Performance Scales (P Scales). CVA was withdrawn in 2010/11 and P Scales underwent a phased removal from 2018/19 onwards (and was replaced by pre-key stage standards and the engagement model).

The other options that we considered were:

...

A new, flexible measure: others have suggested introducing an alternative progress measure, such as Progress 6 (measuring progress for fewer subjects) which adjusts how attainment is measured so that students with SEND can contribute more positively to a school’s Progress 8 score. However, such alternatives risk compromising breadth of subject choice for those with SEND (potentially consigning some students to the study of just English, Maths, Science and one other subject), and we have therefore rejected such options.

p127 Recommendations

We recommend that the Government:

• Continues to develop initiatives related to similar schools, with a particular emphasis on supporting inclusive approaches within accountability measures.

p129 Primary assessment

We consider that the Key Stage 2 assessments are generally performing well, but the Review Panel sees scope to improve some of them. We are convinced it is essential that all pupils benefit from knowledge of multiplication tables, and that fluency is important in mathematical understanding. However, we have heard that some pupils with SEND have specific needs (such as processing difficulties) which makes the MTC inaccessible. As with our recommendation on the PSC, we encourage the STA to investigate if access arrangements can be refined for pupils with these specific needs so that schools can identify knowledge gaps in multiplication tables and offer relevant support.

p131 Recommendations

Key Stage 1 We recommend that the Government: 

...

 • Ensures that the STA works with DfE to explore approaches for assessing progress for the small minority of pupils with certain SEND needs that make the Phonics Screening Check inaccessible. This assessment should be administered in the school setting.

Key Stage 2 We recommend that the Government: 

• Ensures that the STA works with DfE to explore if access arrangements can be refined for pupils with certain SEND that make the Multiplication Tables Check inaccessible. This assessment should continue to be administered in a school setting.

p136 (KS4) Method of assessment

On-screen assessment methods are used in limited parts of the assessment system. Calls for greater integration of technology in assessment was a theme in responses to our Call for Evidence. There may be benefits from wider integration in the future, including improving the accessibility of exams for students with SEND, the potential for adaptive testing and the opportunity to validly assess a broader set of knowledge and skills. We recognise that evidence of the potential for wider implementation, including adaptive testing, is still limited and that wider implementation would have considerable delivery implications for schools and colleges. In addition, evidence of the impact of school closures in the pandemic, where students had to learn remotely, highlighted stark disparities in their access to IT at home. The Review Panel is therefore mindful of the potential equity risks of moving to a digital system if some students are more familiar with technology than others. We welcome the ongoing work being conducted by the DfE and Ofqual to explore and innovate with digital assessment while balancing these considerations, and we encourage them to consider opportunities to improve accessibility for students with SEND.

p137 Accessibility of assessment for students with SEND

Awarding organisations design and develop assessments that are as accessible as possible, in line with their requirement to have due regard to equalities legislation, including the Equality Act 2010. As the regulator for awarding organisations, Ofqual publishes requirements regarding this duty.  Where accessibility requirements cannot be fully met through assessment design alone, disabled students are legally entitled to reasonable adjustments (a form of access arrangement). Reasonable adjustments are intended to support them to demonstrate their knowledge and skills at the level required by the qualification. Another type of access arrangement is a special consideration, for which students who are not disabled can also apply, for example, in the case of injury or temporary illness. 

A common theme from Call for Evidence responses was concern about the accessibility of assessments for students with SEND. Many concerns stem from the subject content, including the volume of memorising required. Given the interdependency between subject content and assessment design it is important that accessibility is considered and built in from the outset. We also recognise that different organisations hold different responsibilities in relation to the accessibility of qualifications and their assessments. Ofqual, the DfE and awarding organisations should continue to work collaboratively when developing updated specifications for GCSEs. This joint approach should ensure that qualifications are as accessible as possible and that the relevant organisations have a holistic view of the interaction between subject content, assessment, and the impact on teaching and learning.

P138 Recommendations Key Stage 3

We recommend that the Government:

• Introduces diagnostic assessment for key components of Maths and English to be taken during Year 8 to support teachers to address students’ needs and ensure that they are well prepared to progress into Key Stage 4.

p139 (KS4) Recommendations 

Method of assessment

• Ensures that the DfE and Ofqual continue to work together to explore potential for innovation in on-screen assessment in GCSE, AS and A Level qualifications, particularly where this could further support accessibility for students with SEND and where this could reduce exam volume in the future. We recommend they continue to review the evidence and carefully consider risks and benefits.

• Accessibility for students with SEND 

  We recommend that the Government: 

  • Ensures that Ofqual, awarding organisations and the DfE work together to consider how awarding organisations can build accessibility into the design of new specifications for GCSEs, AS and A Levels.

p142 Existing level 3 pathways: the case for a third pathway

We have heard clearly that moving the level 3 system towards two main pathways (academic and technical) does not serve all sectors and occupations well and may disadvantage some learners. Currently, 25% of 16-year-olds studying at level 3 take programmes that do not contain either an A Level or a T Level.  We know that the characteristics of these learners are different from those taking A Levels and T Levels. A higher proportion of them have special educational needs (SEN) (10% compared to 6% for A Levels and 9% for T Levels), a higher proportion come from disadvantaged backgrounds (24% compared to 14% for A Levels and 23% for T Levels) and a lower proportion have achieved Maths and English GCSE grade 4 by the end of Key Stage 4 (79% compared to 97% for A Levels and 92% for T Levels)

p144 Size of qualifications

We heard that small qualifications (fewer than 360 GLH) offer providers flexibility in tailoring study programmes to learners’ needs and aspirations. For example, we heard positive examples of small vocational qualifications being combined, including with A Levels or with continued study of level 2 Maths and/or English, where necessary, to form a coherent level 3 study programme. The option to combine multiple small qualifications can be beneficial. However, we also heard that, in practice, many providers discourage such study programmes because of the risk of incoherence and lack of clear progression destinations.

The Review heard mixed evidence on medium-size qualifications (between 361 and 720 GLH). Medium qualifications are either ‘nested’ as part of an overall large qualification (where learners study a core medium qualification which they can top up by completing additional units) or are standalone qualifications. In 2023/24, 61,000 16-year-olds were enrolled on medium qualifications. Students taking medium qualifications are less likely to have achieved full level 2 and less likely to have achieved level 2 in both English and Maths compared to students taking large qualifications, but there is relatively little difference between medium and large applied qualifications in the proportions of students eligible for FSM or SEND.

The Review heard positive examples of ‘nested’ medium qualifications. Providers gave examples of where medium qualifications have facilitated a pathway for some young people to build up to a large qualification, whilst also ensuring that those unable to do so leave with a recognisable qualification which has been banked. Anecdotally, we heard that this may include learners with SEND or those from socio-economically disadvantaged backgrounds. The above data somewhat supports this, but the Review did not hear clear-enough evidence on the demographics of the cohort of learners taking these qualifications to judge fully whether they act as a pathway to widen participation.

p148 (Level 1) Recommendations

Considers learners who have SEND or face other barriers to education to ensure that V Levels are inclusive by design.

p153 Level 2

The 16 to 19-year-old learners studying at level 2 have different characteristics from their level 3 peers and are more likely to face additional barriers:

• 28% of level 2 learners have SEN (compared with 8% of level 3 learners)

Given the diverse needs and aspirations of the cohort, including the need for continued study of Maths and English, it is important that level 2 pathways are tailored to individual learners’ progression aims. High-quality qualifications with a clear purpose are a vital element of level 2 study programmes, providing the foundation for progression and helping to engage and motivate learners in their desired subject or vocational area.

p155 (Level 2) Recommendations

Providing good Information, Advice and Guidance and diagnostic activities at the start of the programme should ensure that learners are enrolled on the right level 2 pathway to meet their needs. For learners with SEND and other barriers, this may be additional support to the offer available for all learners. These pathways must be deliverable for providers; therefore, there may be aspects across both programmes that can be combined as part of a flexible approach. We also expect that learners would be able to move between the two pathways where needed.

p155 (Occupational pathway) Design

• This pathway should be a two-year pathway to give sufficient opportunity for the content to align with occupational standards and, where needed, with any specific requirements for a ‘licence to practise’ to allow smooth entry to work. We anticipate that some learners may leave the programme after one year to progress to an apprenticeship or other work-based training, to move from this pathway to the ‘pathway to level 3’, or to enter level 3 study directly. Learners with SEND or other barriers to learning may need to take the programme over a longer period of time and the DfE should explore with providers how this could be delivered.

p156 (Pathway to level 3) Design 

This pathway should be a one-year study programme. However, as with the occupational pathway, learners with SEND or other barriers to learning may need to take the programme over a longer period of time.

p157 Level 1 and entry level

A relatively small proportion of the overall 16-year-old cohort studies at level 1 (3%) and entry level (1%), but it is a highly diverse cohort. Learners have a wide range of needs, aims and motivations. Learners with identified SEND or those eligible for free school meals are over-represented and only around 9% of the cohort at level 1 and entry level have achieved both GCSE Maths and English by age 16. Learners studying at level 1 and entry level are also much less likely to be in sustained employment or education after 16-19 study compared with their peers who study at higher levels.

In planning study programmes at level 1 and entry level, providers are encouraged to identify learners’ needs and progression ambitions to plan provision and appropriate support. Providers told us that level 1 and entry level study programmes are most effective when they are tailored to the needs of individual learners, giving them the opportunity to engage in their learning and make progress

...

The Review has not identified specific issues with the range of provision at level 1 and entry level, but we heard through the Call for Evidence and our engagement with 16-19 providers that there is no ‘one size fits all’ at level 1 and entry level. The range of purposes of study and needs of the cohort require a more nuanced approach.

We are not making specific recommendations about level 1 and entry level, but we encourage the Government to ensure progression pathways through these levels are clear and coherent, including alignment with the recommendations for level 2 pathways outlined above. We are particularly mindful of the needs of learners who may not be progressing to higher levels of study, including learners working to build core personal, social and employability skills to support success in employment and independent living. We encourage the Government to ensure PSE qualifications are high quality and lead to positive outcomes, supporting learners to engage in their education and make progress as they prepare for life and work.

p160 16-19 Maths and English

The characteristics of these learners also show significant differences. Of the 2018/19 cohort:

• 15% of learners with SEN went on to achieve level 2 by age 19 compared with 34% of learners with no identified SEN

p165 Non-qualification activity within 16-19 study programmes

The broad range of activities partly reflects national variations in learners’ needs, as well as individual providers’ resources, capacities, and local contexts. The DfE’s expectations in its guidance are deliberately broad, allowing for a range of interpretation. However, we have heard from providers that, whilst a degree of flexibility is beneficial to accommodate local contexts, the current level of ambiguity is unhelpful. A lack of clarity has led to significant variation in interpretation and implementation of the guidance, with inconsistency in the types of activities and variation in the quality of students’ experiences.

Through our engagement, we heard calls for clearer guidance to promote more effective practice in delivering high-quality enrichment, employment, and pastoral support. We heard many examples of best practice that should be encouraged, including:

...

Strong relationships and information-sharing between schools and 16-19 providers so that the latter have a good understanding of learners’ social and personal development needs and can plan accordingly to adjust support.

p176 Oral evidence sessions

SEND Tuesday 3 December 2024

p181 Curriculum Principles recommendations

We recommend that the Government:

• Develops a programme of work to provide evidence-led guidance on curriculum and pedagogical adaptation (as well as exemplification) for children and young people with SEND, including those in specialist provision, who experience various barriers to accessing the curriculum.

p182 Design and Technology (D&T) recommendations

We recommend that the Government:

Refines the D&T curriculum and GCSE subject content to:

• Embed the teaching of social responsibility and inclusive design explicitly within the curriculum, as appropriate to the key stage, throughout the design process.

p183 Cooking and Nutrition recommendations

We recommend that the Government:

• Reviews the level 3 vocational options for food science to determine the best means of ensuring that the needs of learners are met and that there is a strong ‘pipeline’ into higher education and careers.

p184 Geography recommendations

We recommend that the Government: 

Makes minor refinements to the Geography Programmes of Study and GCSE subject content to respond to the issues identified, including by: 

• Refining content to support progression better to further study, deepen children and young people’s understanding of key geographical concepts, make 185 content more relevant and inclusive, and remove unnecessary repetition across topics.
• Clarifying and reinforcing requirements for fieldwork to demonstrate its role more effectively in supporting content and the developing of disciplinary knowledge, ensuring changes remain proportionate and inclusive.

p188 Physical Education (PE) recommendations

We recommend that the Government:

• Redrafts the purpose of study for PE, retaining the importance of competitive sports, but clarifying the significance of providing all pupils with opportunities to learn in a physical environment and emphasising its physical, social, cognitive and emotional benefits that complement and enhance overall academic performance and general wellbeing.
• Reviews the current GCSE PE activity list to consider ways in which it could be made more inclusive for all students, especially for students with SEND.

p188 Dance recommendations

We recommend that the Government:

• Reviews the subject content, balance of assessment and assessment methods of GCSE Dance so that the qualification is inclusive, representative and better suited to the discipline.

p191 Accountability, performance measures and assessment

We recommend that the Government:

• Continues to develop initiatives related to similar schools, with a particular emphasis on supporting inclusive approaches within accountability measures.

p191 Primary assessment recommendations

Key Stage 1

We recommend that the Government:

• Ensures that the STA works with DfE to explore approaches for assessing progress for the small minority of pupils with certain SEND needs that make the Phonics Screening Check inaccessible. This assessment should be administered in the school setting.

p191 Key Stage 2

We recommend that the Government:

Ensures that the STA works with DfE to explore if access arrangements can be refined for pupils with certain SEND that make the Multiplication Tables Check inaccessible. This assessment should continue to be administered in a school setting.

p192 Secondary assessment recommendations

Key Stage 3 

We recommend that the Government: • Introduces diagnostic assessment for key components of Maths and English to be taken during Year 8 to support teachers to address students’ needs and ensure that they are well prepared to progress into Key Stage 4.

p193 Key Stage 4

We recommend that the Government:

Ensures that the DfE and Ofqual continue to work together to explore potential for innovation in on-screen assessment in GCSE, AS and A Level qualifications, particularly where this could further support accessibility for students with SEND and where this could reduce exam volume in the future. We recommend they continue to review the evidence and carefully consider risks and benefits.

p193 Accessibility for students with SEND 

We recommend that the Government: 

• Ensures that Ofqual, awarding organisations and the DfE work together to consider how awarding organisations can build accessibility into the design of new specifications for GCSEs, AS and A Levels.

p194 V Levels recommendations

We recommend that the Government: 

• Considers learners who have SEND or face other barriers to education to ensure that the qualifications are inclusive by design.