Just over a year ago, the Government launched a comprehensive Curriculum and Assessment Review (CAR). We wrote about it here. Yesterday, the review, led by Professor Becky Francis, and the government’s response to it, were both published, along with a flurry of reactions from charities and educational organisations.
The CAR explicitly acknowledges that too many learners with additional needs are left behind by a system that wasn’t designed with inclusion in mind. It calls for a curriculum that is coherent, well-sequenced and inclusive. The Government’s response largely accepted the recommendations.
If you want to find an overview of the whole Review, there are many news articles, including from CYP NOW, Schools Week, and Tes, whose article outlines 14 key points. We’re looking at points about SEND and about reactions from the education sector, which will tell you as much, perhaps, as the Review itself.
There is also a SEND précis from CAR panel member, Gary Aubin, on his SEND Matters blog. Gary, a leading SENCO, is the author of a recent book for parents and carers about SEND that, unfortunately, we have not yet had time to review. However, you can find it to read yourself here. By all accounts, it’s very good, so perhaps pop it on your Christmas list.
Gary has also kindly agreed to write a parent-focused blog for SNJ on the review as it applies to SEND, so look out for that when he has time to put fingers to keyboard.
How much about SEND is there in the CAR?
As every parent knows, you cannot isolate SEND from any aspect of education. Children with additional needs are still just children who need to access as much of the curriculum as possible, no matter their academic potential. Ministers have pledged “high standards for all” —and that must include pupils with additional needs, with teachers getting enhanced training in adaptive teaching and inclusive practice. The response also promises new “Curriculum in Practice” resources—case studies and adaptable teaching materials—to support schools in meeting diverse needs.
Social justice lens
The Curriculum and Assessment Review’s aim was to lift up every learner, and its report has a section entitled “A commitment to social justice”
“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”.
The (Labour) Government response, however, does not echo the words “social justice”. There’s no doubt it wants to boost the life chances of children from poorer backgrounds, but just don’t bring anything into it that sounds a bit lefty, okay?
Positive improvements for SEND teaching
On his own blog, Gary Aubin highlights recommendations for more diverse representation in the curriculum, something the Government’s response agreed with, in a blink-and-you-miss-it way. He says, “One of the things this can mean is positive representations of disabled people within the curriculum, removing deficit-led narratives and showcasing the achievements, contributions and therefore full potential of disabled people.”
The Government also agreed to include more focus on citizenship, spotting disinformation, and life skills, as part of a wider enrichment offer, “within and beyond” the curriculum. Being able to spot something that isn’t true, whether media or political lies, financial or dating scams, or fraud and phishing attempts, is vital for children with SEND. They are often more prone to being targeted online and less able to discern who they can trust. Having this content presented in class, where it can be discussed and exemplified, would help translate it to real-life situations.
The Government also agreed to set up a new “Oracy framework”, something that won praise from Speech and Language UK:
“It is high time schools took clear responsibility for helping children to talk and understand words. A new oracy framework is a smart move because speech, language and communication skills are the building blocks of all learning, especially reading, writing and maths.
Jane Harris, Chief Executive, Speech and Language UK
“But no amount of extra testing of children’s abilities in maths and English will help if schools aren’t able to spot children who struggle to talk and understand words. With a record one in five children struggling to with speech and language, schools desperately need government to give them the tools to track children’s speech and language progress, so they can deal with the root causes of these children struggling to read, write and do maths.
The charity also called for more use of communications tech such as AAC devices, and the roll-out of a free national tracking tool from Key Stage 1 to spot children struggling with talking and understanding words early.
The National Autistic Society also welcomed the Review’s calls for adaptation advice for children with SEND:
“ Making lessons, exams and schools more accessible so SEND children are better able to thrive is desperately needed and should be the priority of Government reforms. Our research showed only 39% of teachers surveyed had received more than half a day’s autism training. More needs to be done to support teachers to have autism-specific training and resources to understand autistic pupils and meet the needs of all learners in their classroom.”
National Autistic Society
Evidence-based adaptive teaching
The Review is strong on calls for adaptive teaching—differentiating the curriculum for children who need it, and wants guidance to be created to support it. The focus is on ensuring adaptations are evidence-based, something the government has accepted for core and ongoing teacher training.
However, it’s important to note that this adaptation guidance will not be statutory, so my concern is that, given the number of things teachers already (and will) have to manage, finding and implementing evidence-based adaptations may not be a priority. And, if next year’s SEND changes limit EHCPs in mainstream, adaptation is all many children with SEND can hope for.
I do think there is scope for adaptation guidance to be part of an updated SEND Code of Practice, which is currently light on this–and that would make it statutory.
“The government has set out a broadly sensible direction of travel in its response to the Curriculum and Assessment review. We are particularly pleased to see a greater focus on speaking, listening and oracy and reforms to accountability measures for secondary schools that will offer a better balance between academic and creative subjects and better choice for students.
Natalie Perera, CEO, the Education Policy Institute
“Enrichment activities provide longer-lasting benefits to young people through the development of soft skills, improved health, cognitive development, and through establishing new friendships. The government will need to set out how disadvantaged young people are fully able to access such activities, as they often have both direct and indirect costs to parents….
“While there are aspects of today’s announcements that will benefit children with special educational needs, the government will need to be even more ambitious in its forthcoming white paper if it is to deliver a system that works for all.”
Key Content
What does it mean for children in special schools?
Not all schools have to follow the NC, although the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill is currently legislating to ensure academies must join maintained state schools in teaching the new national curriculum. Special schools, on the other hand, will not be forced to follow it.
If your child is in a special school, Gary Aubin says the National Curriculum will not be mandatory: “We know that skilled teachers bring the National Curriculum to life for the pupils in front of them. However, we have heard from teachers about the challenges in doing so for some pupils with SEND. We are therefore not looking to change the autonomy of specialist, AP and other settings to appropriately adapt the National Curriculum, and in certain cases in specialist settings, to disapply it.”
Dissent and “disappointment”
Not everyone is so happy, however. Campaign group More Than A Score, which campaigns for fair primary education said it was “very disappointed” that the review, “ignored the views of primary heads, teachers and parents. Rather than reducing the burden, they want more children to spend more time preparing for government exams, including children with SEND.” Read their statement here.
The NEU teaching union gave their response on X, pointing out that you can’t fix opportunity while “children grow up in poverty and 86% of schools face real-terms cuts by 2025/26. No curriculum reform can overcome that.”
Natspec, which represents specialist colleges gave a more positive reception. It said
“It is also good to see a clear acknowledgement that while the current system may have been working well for many young people, it has created unhelpful barriers for a significant minority – many of whom eventually make their way into the FE sector. We welcome the fact that the majority of the reforms recommended are focused on improving the system for this disadvantaged minority, including those with special educational needs and disabilities (SEND).
Natspec
Lib Dem MP, Clare Young, asked the Education Secretary in the Commons how the government can ensure the national curriculum can be “delivered flexibly to those with SEND, including those unable to access a traditional classroom setting.”
Bridget Philipson replied they’d be setting that out in the Schools’ White Paper–so expect to see lots of government comments based on her response until then:
Sounds expensive…
This review changes nothing for our campaign to retain the rights of children and young people with SEND. If anything, it makes it more important. A new curriculum and all it entails will be very expensive. Teachers will have to change a lot of what they deliver and how they do it–and that’s going to be very challenging. Although lots of resources are planned to help, such as the DfE-backed online Oak Academy, adaptations will still have to be individualised.
Before it starts to move ahead with its vision, the Government must sort out existing funding and staffing issues in schools, which aren’t going to magically disappear. That includes the woefully inadequate schools’ delegated SEND budget. If there isn’t enough money for SEND children without EHCPs now, imagine what it’s going to be like with schools needing to do more adaptation. Ambition alone cannot compensate for insufficient funding, staffing or on-hand expert input from too few specialists.
And it may hit staffing numbers and EHCP numbers: If I were a teacher in my 50s, I’d be wondering if learning a whole new curriculum was what I really wanted to do, unless it came with more money in my pay packet. If I had a child currently struggling and without any statutory support, I might start thinking it’s time to investigate EHCPs, so when the other shoe of the Schools White Paper drops, my child isn’t forgotten in the chaos of bringing in a new system.
A curriculum that is truly “for all” will depend not only on what is taught, but on the systems and safeguards that guarantee every learner, whatever their needs, can access and benefit from it.
Final words
The Government’s response will be examined by The Education Select Committee. Its Chair, Helen Hayes MP welcomed the publication, but sounded notes of caution:
“The Review’s recommendations represent important reforms of the current curriculum and assessment framework, and in responding to the Review it is vital that the Government sets out how teachers, school leaders and support staff will be provided with the resources they need to implement the reforms in full, along with clear timescales for implementation.
“I welcome the proposed changes to the curriculum which are designed to ensure access to a greater breadth of subjects including within science and the arts, and that children and young people leave school with the skills they need to succeed in the modern world, particularly the focus on citizenship, digital and media literacy, climate science, oracy and enrichment.
“The Government is working to deliver education reform through a range of different mechanisms and timescales, with the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill and Further Education and Skills White Paper already published, a new Ofsted framework about to be implemented and the Schools White Paper and SEND reform yet to come. It is important that the Government establishes a clear overall vision for education and that all of the different components of reform, including the Curriculum and Assessment Review work coherently together.
“I am concerned that in a number of areas, the Government’s approach differs from Professor Francis’s independent, evidence-based recommendations, and it is important that they set out why this is the case and their own evidence that they have relied on in reaching a different conclusion.
“Finally, although the Curriculum and Assessment Review argues persuasively for additional maths and English assessments in Year 8 (Key Stage 3), the thought of sitting more tests will likely cause anxiety for some children and parents. The Government must demonstrate clearly how this would be an inclusive, diagnostic test that would purely be used by schools to identify children who could benefit from extra support – not another method of scrutinising school staff or pupils, of which there are already many.
“My committee looks forward to undertaking detailed scrutiny of the Review and the Government’s response in due course.”
Helen Hayes MP, Chair, Education Committee
The revised national curriculum will be published in 2027, with first teaching expected from September 2028.
What kind of government is “bold” enough to scrap statutory EHCPs from vulnerable children?May 16, 2025
The SEND reforms in the Schools White Paper reveal rights given, and rights stripped awayFebruary 24, 2026
Don’t miss a thing!
Don’t miss any posts from SNJ – simply add your email address below. You must click the link in the confirmation email you’ll receive to activate your free subscription.
You can also keep up with us by following our
Want more? Be an SNJ regular donor!
SNJ is a non-profit and everyone who writes here does so voluntarily. We need your support to help us with costs by donating once or as a regular patron. Find out more here
She is a rare disease & chronic pain patient advocate with Ehlers Danlos syndrome.
- The Unacceptable Truth: 20 SEND legal rights at risk from the Government’s SEND reforms - September 9, 2026
- Dear Secretary of State for Education, Lucy Powell: an Open Letter from Special Needs Jungle and SEND legal charity SOS!SEN - August 4, 2026
- Research: Disabled young people define inclusive education as “learning in the place that’s right for them” - July 30, 2026
Please share this article!
Discover more from Special Needs Jungle
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Curious that the exclusion of children from participation in learning extends well beyond SEN as the 2010 Equality Act and 2018 UK or International Accessibility Regulations continue to be expediently ignored in secondary education !?
No wonder the school to prison pipe-line increasingly obvious in the 21st Digital Century as 30% or more leaving education as functionally and digitally illiterate as they arrived.