Beyond the core: Redefining curriculum to foster holistic student development

AIMEE WILLIAMS, DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, THREE SPIRES TRUST, UK

As the future of education hangs in the balance, our trust’s principals gathered with a shared sense of responsibility to respond to Becky Francis’s ‘call for evidence’ on 25 September 2024 (DfEDepartment for Education - a ministerial department responsible for children’s services and education in England, 2024). This was more than just a conversation; it was a call to action! Through vibrant discussions, we drew upon the diverse expertise of leaders across our academies, united by a common vision: to ‘reimagine education’ for the benefit of every student.

A call for change

Reflecting on our discussions, it became evident that this report serves as a passionate synthesis of our collective insights into the limitations of the current curriculum, particularly as it relates to what we believe to be the constrictive English Baccalaureate (EBacc) framework and GCSE model. As a consequence, a more equitable and holistic approach to education is not merely desirable but essential, especially for those often relegated to the so-called ‘forgotten third’ (ASCL, 2019). In 2015, the government introduced the compulsory EBacc with the intention of ‘improving the prospects of students’, particularly those from disadvantaged backgrounds, by providing them with a core academic curriculum that would ‘preserve their options in subsequent education’ (Long and Danechi, 2019). However, the impact appears to have been ‘limited’; notably, in 2023, only 35.8 per cent of students pursued university education (Bolton, 2024). This raises the question: is the EBacc currently achieving the outcomes that it originally intended and what are the unintended consequences?

By addressing these pressing issues, we believe that now, more than ever, there is an opportunity to spark meaningful change that empowers our students, nurtures their potential and fosters an environment where they can truly thrive. Here are our five recommendations:

Recommendation 1: Transition from the current bell-curve distribution to a criteria-referenced approach where all students can be successful

The UK’s GCSE framework is fundamentally anchored in a bell-curve distribution model, where success is relative; not all students can achieve passing marks even if they meet established academic criteria (Sherrington, 2017a). Unsurprisingly, schools who sit in the so-called middle range of grades 3–5 (C/D/borderline) are more likely to receive ‘requires improvement’ (RI) judgments from OfstedThe Office for Standards in Education, Children’s Services and Skills – a non-ministerial department responsible for inspecting and regulating services that care for children and young people, and services providing education and skills. Such ‘random forces’ can ‘make or break life chances’ (Sherrington, 2017b), as assessment outcomes often reflect socio-economic contexts rather than accurately capturing the school’s true potential (Sherrington, 2017b). This tendency for Ofsted to grade community and not school underscores a critical social mobility flaw; it entrenches inequality by penalising schools in disadvantaged areas, limiting opportunities for learners who are already systemically disadvantaged.

The principle cited by Sherrington (2017a) – that for each student who passes, another must fail – is flawed, reducing individuals to mere statistics and prioritising competitive standards over human potential and holistic development.

We are preoccupied with rigid pass/fail benchmarks that overlook nuanced cognitive development. The Edge Foundation (2018) observed that ‘a third purpose… is that high-quality vocational education can and should help make learning more real, relevant, and engaging’ (p. 11). A shift toward unitised assessments – similar to models used in music exams – would provide a more adaptive, growth-oriented approach, allowing students to be assessed on a series of meaningful milestones rather than a single, overarching standard. Each unit of achievement would mark discernible progress, moving beyond the restrictive binary of success or failure and fostering a more comprehensive view of student development. This approach is reminiscent of the Curriculum 2000 modular model for GCSEs and A-levels, which allowed for a more flexible and progressive assessment structure (Hodgson and Spours, 2005). Is there an argument for returning to modular assessment?

To foster environments where all students can thrive, especially those marginalised by an outdated zero-sum approach, it is imperative to reconceptualise our assessment methods and embrace broader, more equitable frameworks. Tim Brighouse’s proposals for transformation, cited by Mick Waters (2024), align with our trust’s vision for ‘reimagining’ what ‘education’ can look like. Establishing clear national standards is crucial and will ensure that those students who meet these standards, year on year, are rewarded. This, in turn, will help to define statutory purposes for schooling in England, providing a stable framework that transcends shifting political agendas, allowing schools to focus on delivering consistent, high-quality education over time.

Recommendation 2: Broaden curricular options beyond the EBacc to incorporate the arts

The EBacc epitomises a constricted educational framework that limits both pedagogical approaches and student experiences. Rooted in traditional methodologies, the EBacc emphasises core academic subjects – namely, English, mathematics, the sciences, a modern foreign language and either history or geography – frequently at the expense of more comprehensive and inclusive educational experiences. While this narrow model may advance specific academic standards, it neglects the diverse needs and interests of students, ultimately curtailing their ‘levels of educational engagement and motivation’ (Lloyd and Matthews, 2022).

A significant limitation of the EBacc framework is its endorsement of ‘narrow’ teaching methodologies, fostering a rigid pedagogical environment characterised by textbook-based instruction, standardised curricula and a predominant focus on high-stakes assessments (House of Lords, 2023). Although such an approach may prioritise quantifiable academic outputs, it overlooks essential dimensions of learning that promote creativity, critical thinking and emotional resilience. In this context, Ken Robinson’s 2006 argument about the universal hierarchy of subjects becomes particularly relevant. He highlighted how education systems globally prioritise mathematics, English and science, while relegating the arts to a lower status. The systemic undervaluation of subjects such as dance, which Robinson contends should be given as much instructional time as mathematics, illustrates how the EBacc’s focus on core subjects further marginalises the creative disciplines. Essentially, our education system has educated creativity out of our students; over time, they become less inclined to take risks or experiment and more conditioned to seek a single, elusive ‘correct answer’ (Robinson, 2006).

Recommendation 3: Prioritise hands-on experiences such as field trips, workshops and project-based learning

As we examine the constraints of the EBacc framework, it becomes clear that the sheer volume of content and the limited time available in the curriculum leave little room for experiential learning. The pressure to cover a vast amount of material means that opportunities for hands-on, immersive learning are often sidelined. For instance, Year 7 students in one of our secondary academies in Kidsgrove will study Shakespeare and the Globe Theatre but may never have the chance to visit the iconic venue, missing an immersive experience that could deepen their understanding and appreciation of the plays. They won’t experience the distinct smell of the theatre, feel the energy of a live performance or imagine what it was like to be a groundling, standing close to the action, or a lord or lady, taking in the performance from the upper galleries. This first-hand encounter with the Globe’s rich atmosphere and history would bring the plays to life in a way that a textbook simply can’t match. Such a deficiency in enrichment opportunities can hinder students’ capacity to relate theoretical knowledge to practical application, depriving them of a well-rounded education. This discrepancy becomes even more apparent when we examine the gap between what the education system provides and what employers need and expect. Opportunities to develop skills such as ‘collaboration, creativity and problem solving’ have been ‘squeezed out of the 11–16 phase’ to focus on a ‘knowledge-rich’ curriculum (House of Lords, 2023, p. 3).

To promote genuine student flourishing, it is imperative to reconsider the foundational assumptions underpinning the experiential learning and innovative practices. As highlighted in the Pearson ‘School report’ (2024, p. 42), ‘Many schools are striving to address and alleviate increasing concerns around students’ unique needs’, signalling a recognition of the value for a holistic approach. At another of our academies, St Regis, bushcraft is integrated weekly into the Year 7 curriculum – not as a token initiative but as a purposeful effort to encourage creativity and exploration through project-based learning. It provides students with the opportunity to take risks, develop new skills and foster a growth mindsetThe theory, popularised by Carol Dweck, that students’ beliefs about their intelligence can affect motivation and achievement; those with a growth mindset believe that their intelligence can be developed.

Recommendation 4: Reinstate elements of continuous coursework to measure diverse skills such as research, critical thinking and problem-solving

The removal of coursework opportunities – historically a means of personalised, continuous assessment, which also fostered broader skill development, such as research, prediction, comparison and summarisation – has only further diminished experiential learning in the curriculum. Under the current EBacc system, students are compelled to participate in high-stakes examinations, typically administered at predetermined times that align with institutional requirements, rather than with individual learning rhythms or wellbeing. The rigidity of this framework effectively overlooks the unique circumstances of each student, many of whom may face anxiety, external pressures or varying levels of preparedness at the designated testing moments. This disconnection creates an environment where students are evaluated not only on their knowledge and abilities but also on their performance under pressure, an inherently flawed metric for assessing true academic potential. Imagine what students could achieve if they had the time and space to be genuinely creative. Just observe young children at play; they naturally explore, innovate and problem-solve when given the freedom to do so.

The profound implications of this zero-sum assessment environment are especially evident among vulnerable student populations, who often face compounded stressors and lack access to adequate resources. The prevailing framework creates a dichotomy between academic success and emotional wellbeing, where students are often forced to prioritise exam performance over their mental health. As an increasing number of students experience mental health challenges (NHS England, 2023), the current assessment paradigm risks perpetuating a cycle of disadvantage and undermining students’ overall flourishing.

Recommendation 5: Allow students to take exams when ready, promoting individualised pacing and a growth mindset

In contemporary educational discourse, the necessity of uniform assessment timing emerges as a critical issue, particularly when considering the current landscape of mental health and wellbeing among students. The imposition of rigid evaluation schedules, as exemplified by the EBacc framework, raises significant ethical and pedagogical questions regarding the appropriateness of a ‘one-size-fits-all’ approach to examinations. This approach undermines individual student needs and inadvertently exacerbates the stress and anxiety that many students experience, especially in light of growing mental health concerns in educational contexts. The Pearson report (2024, p. 20) emphasises ‘[p]upil mental health and wellbeing’ as a pressing issue, noting that 34 per cent of students are experiencing mental health challenges, which highlights the urgent need to address these factors in assessment considerations.

To ensure that assessments serve as equitable measures of learning, rather than stress-inducing hurdles, we must advocate for a paradigm shift in examination timing and structure. Moving towards an approach that permits students to take assessments when they feel adequately prepared, rather than adhering to a predetermined schedule, can significantly alleviate anxiety and empower students to engage meaningfully with their learning. This change aligns with our trust’s commitment to nurturing well-rounded, resilient learners who can thrive in diverse environments. By adopting more flexible assessment frameworks, we can create spaces where students feel supported, confident and capable of demonstrating their knowledge without the constraints imposed by rigid scheduling.

Reimagining assessments for a holistic future

The reflections and insights that we have gathered throughout this article reflect not only a critique of the current assessment landscape but also a passionate plea for transformative change. As we confront the limitations of the existing GCSE model and the constraints of the EBacc framework, it becomes increasingly clear that the educational landscape must evolve to foster an inclusive, equitable and holistic approach to learning. Our trust stands at the forefront of this movement, advocating for a reconceptualisation of assessments that prioritises individual student needs, creativity and experiential learning.