There is much in the Curriculum and Assessment Review which the Historical Association welcomes. However, we are concerned about possible unintentional consequences that could affect young people’s access to good quality history.

We welcome the commitment to a broad and balanced education up to the age of 16 including arts, humanities and creative subjects. Introducing pathways for more enrichment could widen young people’s interests and career opportunities. 

However, the removal of the EBacc measure, coupled with the Government’s proposed changes to Progress 8, puts the humanities in direct competition with each other and with the arts.

This could be more limiting to pupil choice and could lead to some pupils taking no humanities subjects, subsequently limiting future career choices. The fall in the number of pupils taking GCSE history will inevitably have consequences for A-level and universities.

It is heartening to see that the importance of local history is recognised in both the Review and in the Government’s response and that there is agreement on the developing and strengthening of disciplinary understanding and critical thinking. We welcome the Review’s understanding of how history can help develop media and digital literacy skills.

It is disappointing to see that an understanding of climate and environment is not embedded through more curriculum subjects including history. Surely this issue should be taught in its entirety; to exclude the historical dimension appears to be a missed opportunity.

We welcome the recommendation for a light touch review of Key Stages 1 to 3 with emphasis on strong substantive and disciplinary knowledge. We support the recommendation for a curriculum that reflects the innate diversity of British history, including British Black and Asian history. It is good to see that this extends beyond Key Stage 3; it is significant in indicating the importance of teaching a broad history that reflects modern Britain. We are, nonetheless, concerned that proposed changes across the curriculum and increased testing could lead to less time for history.

The Review and the Government’s response (linked below) seem to fall short of a much-needed full review of GCSE subject content and assessment. We are seeking clarification.

Finally, it is welcome to see the Review and the Response acknowledge that non-examined assessment (NEA) should continue to be used at A-level if it is the only valid form of assessing this content and hope to continue this discussion regarding the skills of A-level history.

We look forward to hearing more of the details over the next few weeks and to seeing what the next steps will look like.