Equity

Steps in Evolution?

The work of Becky Francis and her team should be commended. It is no small feat to be able to manage a volume of feedback and try to create something new. The Final Report of the Curriculum and Assessment Review is comprehensive. This analysis intends only to consider the evolution of diversity in the curriculum in the Final Report. 

So what does the Final Report tell us? 

The recommendations made about diversity in the curriculum emphasise that the National Curriculum should be for all young people, reflecting the diversity of society and ensuring all children feel included and represented.

A key recommendation is 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 modern society, allowing more children to see themselves in the curriculum.

Specific subject recommendations intended to support diversity and representation include:

• History Programmes of Study should be adjusted to support the wider teaching of the subject’s inherent diversity, which involves analysing a wide range of sources and incorporating local history where appropriate. This enriches the curriculum by introducing a broader mix of perspectives and connections.
• English Literature GCSE subject content should be reviewed to ensure students study texts drawn from the full breadth of our literary heritage, including more diverse and representative texts.
• Design and Technology (D&T) curriculum and GCSE content should explicitly embed the teaching of social responsibility and inclusive design throughout the design process.
• Geography Programmes of Study should undergo minor refinements to make content more relevant and inclusive.
• Music Programmes of Study for Key Stages 1 to 3 should be revised to ensure a curriculum pathway that allows a range of genres and repertoires to be covered.

The curriculum principles guiding the reforms assert that diverse contributions to subject disciplines enable a complete, broad, and balanced curriculum, and that efforts should support equal opportunities and challenge discrimination.

However, the recommendations aimed at increasing diversity in the curriculum might be considered problematic due to several inherent tensions, dependencies on factors outside the Review’s remit, and practical limitations on implementation.

Tension with Retaining Core Knowledge and Content 

The Review emphasised that while the curriculum must reflect the diversity of society, this ambition is balanced by the need to ensure mutual access to core knowledge.

• The curriculum principle states that core knowledge and key works that shape a subject must remain central. This focus can limit the extent to which new, diverse content is introduced or prioritized over established material – and also brings into question the definition of ‘established’.
• In History, teachers requested clearer guidance to reflect diversity without replacing core content. The suggested solution relies on updating the aims and refreshing the non-statutory examples to introduce a broader mix of perspectives, but not replacing existing essential topics. There are profound questions as to how we define ‘core’ content as this has been largely defined by colonial standards.

Dependence on Teacher Autonomy and External Resources 

Implementing diverse curricula largely depends on the capacity and choices of individual schools and teachers, which can lead to inconsistent application.

• Diverse representation is sometimes judged as being more appropriately achieved through teacher selection of content rather than centralized prescription in the national curriculum.
• For these localised choices to work, they require support from high-quality exemplification resources (like those produced by Oak National Academy) and a wider selection of inclusive materials from publishers and exam boards.
• In English Literature, while the curriculum allows for a range of texts, current practice often lacks breadth and diversity due to the limited availability of resources and a tendency for teachers to rely on well-established works.

Failure to Address Systemic and Financial Barriers 

The recommendations primarily address curriculum content but cannot resolve major underlying issues related to funding, infrastructure, and socio-economic disadvantage.

• In Design and Technology (D&T), implementing elements like inclusive design faces significant barriers extending beyond the curriculum, such as a lack of specialist staff, lack of infrastructure, and the cost of delivery.
• In Music, attainment gaps are substantial, with Music identified as having the highest disadvantage attainment gap of any subject at GCSE. This disparity is driven by the fact that success relies heavily on the ability to read music, which is often developed through additional, out-of-classroom instrumental tuition that benefits higher-income households. The recommendation is only to explore ways to better optimise the investment in music education, rather than guaranteeing equitable, mandatory in-school tuition needed to close this gap.
• The review also warned that substantial curriculum changes intended to promote inclusion must remain cognisant of the potential negative impact on the workload of education staff and the overall stability of the system.
• The report makes no explicit reference to systemic racism (although this is not a surprise).

Philosophical Conflict 

The review panel acknowledged that promoting social justice involves dilemmas, as sometimes potential solutions designed to improve inclusivity may risk greater harm and inequities than the problem they seek to solve. Furthermore, efforts to reflect diversity must be careful not to limit children to “narrow frames of reference based on their background”, which as a phrase presents problematic interpretations. 

Implications of the November 2025 Final Report

The November 2025 Final Report retains the principle that the national curriculum must reflect the diversity of modern Britain, but makes clear that representation is a requirement of entitlement, not an optional enhancement.

This reframing is significant. It shifts the locus of responsibility beyond schools to the national “knowledge supply chain”: publishers, resource platforms, awarding bodies and subject associations. The Review therefore acknowledges that representational breadth is structurally mediated. 

The reframing does not take away responsibility for individual schools and teachers to ensure that a diverse curriculum is taught. 

We must remember that Becky Francis’ report, as thorough as it is in some ways, remains a recommendation to the DfE, and that the DfE can choose to reject recommendations as they see fit. The true test of listening is how much is heard – and it is clear that teachers and students alike have expressed their desire for meaningful representation in the curriculum. It remains to be seen, as always.

Written collaboratively by Belonging Effect Associates Bennie Kara and Krys McInnis