Curriculum and Assessment Review

Lord Watson of Invergowrie Excerpts

Thursday 26th March 2026 Grand Committee

[Lord Watson of Invergowrie (Lab)]

My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Freyberg, on securing this important if brief debate. There was much to welcome in both the Curriculum and Assessment Review and the Government’s response to it. Like the noble Lord, I welcome the end of the damaging EBacc obsession from the now noble Lord, Lord Gove, which will pave the way to a broader curriculum with stronger access to music, art, sport, drama and vocational subjects. I was not aware of the point that the noble Lord raised about the threat to language learning; I note that and will take it up in future. It was also pleasing to see the report’s emphasis on oracy and, even more, the Government’s recognition of oracy as a foundational skill alongside reading, writing and maths.

The review said that it is important to ensure that assessments test what pupils should be learning, not just what is easy to measure. It then went on to say:

“We consider that the Key Stage 2 assessments are generally performing well”.


That view is not widely shared by educators at primary level, and I and others regret that the Government did not counter it in their response. Many primary school teachers, school leaders and parents had hoped that the Government would take account of the evidence on the harmful effects of the statutory primary assessment system, including year 6 SATs, year 1 phonics checks and year 4 times tables checks. A system that places data collection and whole-school accountability ahead of prioritising the love of learning and children’s well-being has inevitable consequences. Teaching to the test and a narrow curriculum mean that, for many children, year 6 is spent cramming for the end-of-year exams, focusing on maths, English and little else. Research from the UCL Institute of Education indicates that this is particularly common in areas of high disadvantage.

Research has shown that three-quarters of parents think that SATs harm their children’s mental health, as the stress and anxiety of GCSE-style exams at the age of 10 or 11 take their toll. The review claimed that it would emphasise inclusion, belonging and a curriculum that values every child for who they are. Instead, the review recommended that more children spend more time preparing for government tests, including children with SEND. Some 76% of children with SEND do not reach the expected standard in SATs, while 91% of children with EHCPs do not reach that expected standard. For many of these children, preparing for SATs is the start of school avoidance, which often carries over to secondary school.

The call for meaningful reform of primary assessment from school leaders, teachers, parents and children will not go away, because the problems with SATs persist. Head teachers will continue to struggle to recruit and retain year 6 teachers, and too many parents will continue to see damage to the mental health of their 10 and 11 year-olds. There is still time for the Government to listen to those who know children and their education best, and I hope that discussions to that effect can take place in the near future.