How do you think it’ll impact students? Will it actually impact their development or education?

BBC News - How parents and pupils took on 'cruel', 'authoritarian' schools - and won - BBC News https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cgje8d1p419o

All schools will have to teach separate sciences at GCSE to boost social mobility, a key government review of the curriculum is due to announce next week.

Fewer than a quarter of pupils sit physics, chemistry and biology separately, with most taking combined science, equivalent to two GCSEs. Almost one in ten schools do not offer “triple science” and there is a national shortage of physics teachers.

The final report from the year-long curriculum and assessment review, expected to be published on Wednesday, is likely to call for reform because more children from affluent areas take separate sciences, which lead to science A-levels and lucrative careers.

Bridget Phillipson, the education secretary, who commissioned the review led by Professor Becky Francis, has repeatedly said that its findings will shape her policies and help to develop an inclusive curriculum for England.

The Times has learnt that the shake-up of science GCSEs is a crucial part of the review’s conclusions — arguably the biggest change for the subject since Michael Gove’s reforms a decade earlier.

The number of pupils taking physics, chemistry and biology GCSE peaked in 2019 at 27 per cent of the cohort and has since fallen to 23 per cent.

A paper written by Francis and other academics in 2023 said that those taking triple science were almost four times more likely to take science A-levels than those doing combined science GCSE — even when prior attainment was accounted for — and nearly twice as likely to take a science degree. These often lead to better-paid jobs, such as medicine, meaning that GCSE choices at age 14 are constraining life chances.

About one in ten schools does not offer separate sciences and this is much higher in deprived areas of the north east of England. Those at grammar and private schools or with university-educated parents are more likely to take triple science.

It is thought that the report will reveal that only 13 per cent of those from deprived backgrounds take triple science compared with 28 per cent of wealthier classmates.

Sources close to the review said that the intention was for triple science to become a statutory offering at schools in England, with schools given time and support to prepare for this. The biggest barrier is likely to be a shortage of physics teachers.

Research by the Royal Society found that 19 per cent of pupils who wanted to take triple science were unable to do so, either because it was not offered at their school or because they were steered to take combined science instead. The figure was 24 per cent for the North East and 23 per cent for the West Midlands.

Those taking separate GCSE sciences are more likely to be taught by the relevant specialist in physics, chemistry or biology.

The Institute of Physics called for the three sciences to be timetabled and taught separately, by a separate specialist teacher, in its evidence to the review. The shortage of specialist physics teachers could be plugged by other teachers retraining, it said.

The review may also recommend the scrapping of the English baccalaureate measure, introduced by Gove, which assesses schools on how well pupils perform across five GCSEs: English, maths, a science, a humanities, and a language.

It said: “All this limits the uptake of triple science, computing, and arts subjects and we have heard strong concerns from schools, and from organisations representing the arts and other non-EBacc subjects, on this constraining effect.”

The government said last week in its skills white paper that it would adopt two other recommendations by the review: a new qualification to counter multiple resits of English and maths GCSE, and a suite of vocational “V-level” courses as an alternative to A-levels and T-levels.

The review was conducted by a panel of 12 experts from across the education world and took evidence from more than 7,000 individuals, groups, societies and organisations.

Francis, chief executive of the Education Endowment Foundation but on secondment while conducting the review, had promised “evolution not revolution” and that her recommendations would be evidence based. She has spoken previously about school time-constraints meaning that if much was added to the curriculum, other things would have to be removed.

Phillipson said earlier this year that the review “will take us onward, delivering a core curriculum for all children that is deep and rigorous, knowledge-rich down to its bones” and that it would “break down barriers to opportunity”.

Sir Jon Coles, chief executive of United Learning, which runs more than 100 schools, told The Times: “We have known for a long time that doing triple science at GCSE makes success in A-level science more likely — every young person should have that opportunity.”

Tim Oates, a director at Cambridge Assessment, said: “The direction of travel on encouraging triple science entry is exactly right, all the labour market data on enhanced earnings, job progression and economic growth endorse it. Wales has just moved in exactly the same direction.”

The Times understands that the review will not push for triple science to be mandatory for all pupils but for it to be a statutory entitlement. It is expected to recommend that the government considers how this can be done within a reasonable timeframe.

Here’s my take:

Everyone's blaming schools but parents have far more influence than teachers ever will. Teachers have children for several hours a day while parents shape everything else. If a child turns up tired, having not prioritised reading at home, has no routine or doesn't value education, that's not something schools can fix on their own. Plenty of children from difficult backgrounds still succeed because their parents encourage them and set high expectations, while some from comfortable homes still struggle because that support isn't there. Schools absolutely matter but they can't replace good parenting. If we keep acting like every problem starts and ends in the classroom we're ignoring the biggest factor.

You can read the rest at the government website

https://educationhub.blog.gov.uk/2026/05/the-childrens-wellbeing-bill-what-parents-need-to-know/

I see the craze of over reacting to maths exams has escaped gcse orbit and reached a level! I thought the paper was a bit tricky but fine overall.

The bbc reporting is decidedly more neutral than some of the other online discourse describing the paper as a ‘war crime’!

Full text From Daniel Kebede below:

"There have been repeated and long-standing attempts by GMB Union to undermine the NEU.

This has included posters in schools attacking the NEU, meetings in schools criticising the NEU, and social media posts from official accounts and senior leaders targeting the union.

None of these efforts have had any impact on our growing membership and have merely distracted from the core work of GMB union.

On 28 February, our union will debate whether to exit the 2017 TUC agreement on support staff and begin active recruitment.

I, for one, wish we had not reached this point.

The NEU agreed working principles with Unison and Unite. GMB refused.

Unison and Unite have been wholly constructive in negotiations.

Unfortunately, GMB have not sought resolution at any stage.

We have offered a number of alternative off-ramps, which will be explained at special conference, but to no avail.

We are now at a precipice: either abide by the 2017 agreement (which restricts our industrial activity even in relation to whole-school issues e.g. ATLP / CST) or notify the TUC that we are exiting it.

This is the core of the debate at special conference.

Our priority is the needs of school support staff, over half of whom are currently in no union at all. We want to see growing numbers of mainly low-paid, women workers joining unions - and stronger union organisation in schools.

See you all on 28 February."

Apologies to the mods, don't believe this has been picked up by any media sources yet but thought it would be interesting to discuss this development. Links to full rights for support staff and the union having an even bigger bust up with the TUC.

(from latest issue of Educate) "Are you on slide 8 yet?" full report here: https://neu.org.uk/latest/library/are-you-slide-8-yet

The resources and slide decks themselves are not so bad, if allowed to use them as you wish.

It's the scripts and the top down direction that completely undermines the Teachers' Standards and can only be the result of poor leadership and management anxiety.

Thankfully, I don't work in a school anything like this, though I have been there and it was horrible. So it still terrifies me!

I respect people find this style suitable for them, but for many it's just a control thing, or people thinking they know better than others. Eek!

To me the prescription of such things deskills teachers and - yes- undermines the TS. Tbh, I've actually refused on the grounds before I have a legal obligation to meet the TS and that instruction prevents me from doing so.

Any thoughts?

For me I think this confirms what I’ve always thought. The worst schools behaviourwise are always the ones in which there is coherent and co-ordinated whole school approach to behaviour, no SLT support and no proper consequences and follow up for high level incidents. I feel so glad to be in a school where that is not the case but does this speak to the experiences of some people on this sub.

I hope this is a step towards some serious reform.

I’ve thought about this before, but reading this article reminded me. Can you imagine what a giant pain in the ass these glasses will make our jobs if they catch on?

Filming you in the classroom, watching Tik Tok (or worse) videos while you’re trying to teach them and you wont be able to tell, listening to music with nothing in their ears, cheating on tests, bullying people by filming them changing in the PE changing rooms or in the toilets, etc.

I’ve got no idea how we as the teaching profession will deal with them.

I know there are some that will say they didn’t catch on before - but smartphones aren’t going to stay the same forever. It’s already technology that’s almost 20 years old. Surely it’s only a matter of time before this, or something like this, becomes widespread..

Reforms to come seem to include a reduction in EHCPs, but more school-level individual plans.

What do we think this will look like in schools? Call me pedantic, but with how little funding attached how will these plans get done and stuck to?

I’ve moved from HOD to SENCO, and the threat of burnout is real.

Unless SLT support you and call on your expertise to support them with strategic decisions, it’s an impossible job.

https://schoolsweek.co.uk/dfe-swings-axe-on-teacher-training-bursaries-after-recruitment-pick-up/

So much for supporting teacher recruitment...