New Education Reforms: Progress or More Pressure on Schools?
Education reform always sounds hopeful on paper. The harder question is what happens on Monday morning, when schools are already managing stretched budgets, staff workload, attendance concerns, SEND pressures and rising expectations from every direction.
The latest proposals discussed by the Education Secretary at the CST Conference raise some important possibilities. Giving oracy the same status as reading and writing. Creating new vocational GCSEs and clearer practical pathways. Increasing attention on technical skills, SEND support, persistent absence and the role of AI in education.
Taken together, these ideas point to a wider view of what education should do. Not every child shines through essays, exams and silent written work. Some pupils show their strengths through speaking, building, designing, caring, leading, solving practical problems or understanding people. For many young people, especially those with SEND, that broader recognition could matter enormously.
Yet schools have heard ambitious promises before. A reform can be well-intentioned and still become another layer of pressure if it arrives without funding, training, planning time and proper support.
So are these proposals a positive step forward, or more change for schools to manage? The honest answer is that they could be either. The difference will come down to implementation.
A broader definition of success is long overdue
One of the strongest ideas in the proposals is the move towards recognising different kinds of achievement.
For a long time, the school system has treated academic attainment as the main measure of success. Reading, writing, maths and exam performance matter. They open doors. No serious reform should pretend otherwise.
But academic results are not the whole story.
A young person might struggle to write a long essay but be brilliant at explaining an idea aloud. Another might find traditional exams overwhelming but excel in design, construction, catering, health and social care, digital production or practical problem-solving. A pupil with communication differences may need a different route into confidence, not a lower ceiling placed above them.
When schools value only one narrow profile of achievement, some pupils learn early that they are “not academic”, “not capable” or “not suited” to education. Those labels can stick. They can shape attendance, behaviour, confidence and future choices.
A broader curriculum can challenge that.
It can show pupils that intelligence has many forms:
verbal reasoning and expression
technical skill
creativity
teamwork
practical judgement
care and empathy
persistence
problem-solving
confidence in real-world settings
This matters for SEND learners, but not only for SEND learners. Many pupils benefit when school feels less like a sorting machine and more like a place where strengths can be found, named and developed.
The key word is genuine. A broader definition of success only helps if every pathway carries real value. If vocational and practical routes are treated as the softer option, the reform will fail the young people it claims to support.
Oracy deserves its place, but it must be handled carefully
Giving oracy equal status to reading and writing could be one of the most meaningful changes on the table.
Speaking and listening are not extra skills. They sit at the centre of learning, relationships and employability. Pupils need to ask questions, explain their thinking, disagree respectfully, tell stories, advocate for themselves, listen to instructions, work with others and manage conversations in unfamiliar settings.
For some children, these skills develop quickly. For others, they need explicit teaching, repeated practice and patient support.
That is where oracy can become powerful.
If done well, oracy can help pupils:
build confidence
organise thoughts before writing
develop vocabulary
practise social communication
prepare for interviews, work experience and adulthood
take part more fully in classroom life
For young people with SEND, oracy must be understood broadly. Communication does not look the same for every pupil. Some pupils use spoken language fluently. Some use short phrases, communication aids, signing, visuals, gestures or supported conversation. Some need extra processing time. Some find speaking in front of a group distressing.
A strong oracy curriculum should not mean forcing every child into the same model of public speaking. It should mean teaching communication in a way that respects how pupils communicate.
That might include:
structured paired talk before whole-class discussion
sentence stems and visual prompts
small-group rehearsal
alternative ways to contribute
careful use of assistive technology
explicit teaching of listening and turn-taking
opportunities to practise self-advocacy
The risk is that oracy becomes another thing to assess in a narrow way. If schools are pushed to measure it through speeches, presentations and performances, some pupils will be placed at a disadvantage from the start.
The opportunity is better than that. Oracy could help schools value communication as part of learning, wellbeing and independence.
Vocational GCSEs could open doors if they are respected
New vocational GCSEs and pathways alongside traditional academic routes could offer a much-needed shift.
For years, vocational education has often carried mixed status. Many schools, parents and pupils know that practical routes can lead to skilled, secure and rewarding careers. Yet the wider system has sometimes treated them as less prestigious than academic options.
That attitude causes real harm.
It can make pupils feel that moving towards a practical pathway is a sign of failure, rather than a positive choice. It can also limit the country’s ability to develop the technical skills needed in areas such as construction, engineering, digital technology, health, social care, hospitality, green industries and the creative sector.
A stronger vocational offer at GCSE level could help pupils connect school learning with real futures. It could also support pupils who are more motivated when they can see the purpose of what they are learning.
For example, a pupil who disengages from abstract written tasks may become far more focused when learning is linked to:
planning a product
repairing a mechanism
preparing food safely
coding a simple tool
designing a garden space
caring for children or adults
managing a practical project
understanding a workplace problem
This does not mean lowering expectations. Good vocational education is demanding. It requires knowledge, precision, discipline, communication and reflection. It should stretch pupils, not simply keep them busy.
The biggest challenge will be parity of esteem. In plain terms, will these qualifications be valued equally?
That will depend on several things:
whether universities, colleges and employers understand them
whether schools can offer them without reducing access to academic subjects
whether pupils receive high-quality careers guidance
whether the qualifications are rigorous and well-designed
whether families see them as valid routes, not fallback options
If vocational pathways become a place where schools send pupils who are struggling, the reform will reinforce old divisions. If they become high-quality routes with real progression, they could make education feel more relevant for many young people.
SEND support must be more than a line in the speech
The emphasis on supporting SEND learners is welcome. It is also where many people will be most cautious.
Schools already work with pupils who have a wide range of needs. These include autism, ADHD, dyslexia, dyspraxia, speech and language needs, sensory processing differences, social, emotional and mental health needs, physical disabilities and complex learning profiles. Many pupils have overlapping needs. Some have formal diagnoses or Education, Health and Care Plans. Others are waiting for assessment or support.
The pressure on the system is widely felt. Families often describe long waits, confusing processes and battles to secure help. Teachers and support staff often describe wanting to do more, but not having enough time, training or specialist input.
So when reform promises better support for SEND learners, the next question has to be practical.
What will change in the classroom?
A policy commitment becomes meaningful when it leads to:
smaller barriers to accessing help
more specialist staff and training
better speech and language support
improved mental health provision
accessible curriculum materials
stronger partnership with families
more realistic expectations around behaviour and attendance
better transitions between primary, secondary, college and training
It also means designing reform from the start with SEND in mind.
Too often, education policy is built around a “typical” learner, then adapted later for pupils with additional needs. That approach creates avoidable barriers. If oracy, vocational GCSEs, AI use and curriculum changes are planned with accessibility built in, they will work better for everyone.
For example, a practical qualification should not assume every pupil can process verbal instructions quickly in a busy room. An oracy assessment should not assume confidence in whole-class speech. AI tools should not replace human support or create new barriers for pupils who need carefully guided learning.
SEND inclusion is not only about access. It is about dignity. Pupils should not feel like afterthoughts in a system that claims to serve them.
Persistent absence will not be solved by curriculum change alone
The proposals also place emphasis on tackling persistent absence. That focus makes sense. If pupils are not in school regularly, they miss learning, relationships, routines and support.
But absence is rarely a simple behaviour issue.
Some pupils miss school because of anxiety, unmet SEND needs, bullying, family stress, illness, transport problems, caring responsibilities or a long history of feeling unsuccessful in the classroom. Some have experienced repeated exclusions, reduced timetables or part-time arrangements that make returning full-time harder.
Curriculum reform may help some pupils re-engage, especially if school feels more relevant, practical and respectful of different strengths. A young person who sees no future in school may attend more willingly if they can connect learning to a skill, trade, creative interest or career path.
But curriculum reform alone will not fix persistent absence.
Schools need capacity to understand the reasons behind absence. They need time to build trust with families. They need mental health support, SEND expertise, flexible reintegration plans and strong pastoral systems. They also need enough staff to notice early warning signs before absence becomes entrenched.
There is a danger in treating attendance as a number to improve rather than a message to understand. The number matters, but it points to something deeper.
If a child avoids school because the environment overwhelms them, simply pushing harder will not solve the problem. If a teenager has stopped attending because they feel they have already failed, a new pathway might help, but only if someone supports them to believe it is still open to them.
A serious absence strategy must ask:
What is the pupil experiencing?
What barriers are making attendance difficult?
What support has already been tried?
What would make returning feel possible?
How can the school and family work together without blame?
That kind of work takes time, skill and patience. It cannot be delivered through slogans.
AI brings promise, but schools need clear boundaries
The recognition of AI in education is necessary. Schools cannot ignore it. Pupils are already growing up with tools that can generate text, summarise information, create images, translate language, solve problems and imitate human conversation.
AI could bring real benefits. Used carefully, it may help teachers create resources, adapt reading levels, generate practice questions, support planning or reduce some repetitive tasks. For pupils, it may offer extra explanation, help with revision or support with organisation.
For some SEND learners, AI tools could be useful when paired with human judgement. They might help with speech-to-text, text-to-speech, planning, vocabulary development or breaking tasks into steps.
But AI also raises serious concerns.
Schools need guidance on:
accuracy and misinformation
plagiarism and assessment
data privacy
safeguarding
bias
over-reliance on generated answers
unequal access at home
the role of teacher judgement
AI should not become a cheap substitute for specialist support. It should not be used to mask cuts, reduce human relationships or push pupils through generic learning pathways.
Education is deeply human. A tool might generate a worksheet, but it cannot know a child in the way a skilled teacher or support assistant can. It cannot read the hesitation in a pupil’s voice, notice their anxiety before a transition, understand the family context or rebuild trust after a difficult term.
The best use of AI will be modest and carefully supervised. It should support teachers and pupils, not replace expertise.
The implementation question is the whole question
Many people will support the direction of these proposals while still worrying about the reality for schools.
That is not cynicism. It is experience.
Schools have managed repeated changes over many years. New curriculum expectations. New accountability measures. New assessment arrangements. New safeguarding pressures. New behaviour guidance. New attendance responsibilities. More complex SEND needs. Greater mental health concerns. Recruitment and retention problems. Budget pressures.
Even a good reform can become harmful if introduced badly.
For these proposals to work, schools will need more than ambition. They will need:
proper funding
time for training
clear guidance
realistic timelines
subject resources
specialist SEND input
careers education support
assessment models that make sense
collaboration with colleges, employers and local authorities
space to adapt the approach to local communities
The workload question cannot be treated as an afterthought.
If oracy is given equal status with reading and writing, teachers need training in how to teach and assess it fairly. If vocational GCSEs are introduced, schools need staff with the right expertise, equipment, facilities and links to further education or employers. If AI is brought into everyday learning, staff need time to understand risks and agree safe practice. If SEND support is strengthened, inclusion teams need capacity, not just extra expectations.
Policy often talks about what schools should do. The missing part is often what schools need in order to do it well.
Complexity could become a barrier for families and pupils
Another concern is system complexity.
More routes can be helpful if they create real choice. They can also become confusing if pupils and families do not understand what each pathway means.
At Key Stage 4, choices already carry pressure. Pupils may be asked to think about GCSE options before they fully understand their strengths, interests or future plans. Families may not know how different qualifications link to college, apprenticeships, A levels, T levels, employment or university.
If new vocational GCSEs are added, guidance must be clear and accessible.
Families will need plain information about:
what each qualification involves
how it is assessed
what progression routes it supports
whether it keeps future choices open
how it is viewed by colleges and employers
what support is available for pupils with SEND
Young people also need time to explore options before choosing. A pupil cannot make a meaningful choice between academic and vocational routes if they have only experienced one narrow style of learning.
Careers education should start early enough to help pupils understand the range of working lives that exist. That does not mean pressuring children to pick a career too soon. It means giving them language, examples and experiences that help them connect school to life beyond school.
Without good guidance, reform may benefit the pupils with the most informed adults around them, while others are left to navigate a more complicated system alone.
What would meaningful reform look like?
A positive version of these reforms would feel different in the daily life of a school.
It would not be limited to new qualification titles or updated curriculum documents. It would show up in classrooms, corridors, option evenings, pastoral meetings and conversations with families.
Meaningful reform might look like this:
Oracy is taught, not assumed
Pupils learn how to explain, question, listen and contribute in ways that suit their communication needs.
SEND support is built in early
Accessibility shapes curriculum design from the start, rather than being added later.
AI is used with care
Technology supports learning and workload, while adults keep responsibility for judgement and safeguarding.
Vocational learning has real status
Practical pathways are rigorous, well-resourced and clearly linked to future opportunities.
Attendance work is relational
Schools look beyond the number and respond to the reasons a pupil is struggling to attend.
Schools are given time
Staff receive training, resources and realistic timelines before expectations rise.
The strongest test is simple. Ask whether the reform improves the experience of a pupil who currently feels school is not built for them.
Does it help them communicate? Does it help them feel capable? Does it give them a route into success? Does it reduce barriers? Does it support the adults around them to respond better?
If the answer is yes, the reform has promise.
If the answer is mainly that schools have more forms to complete, more data to submit and more outcomes to prove, then the system will have missed the point.
A cautious welcome is the right response
There is plenty to welcome in these proposals.
The focus on oracy recognises that communication is central to learning and life. The emphasis on vocational and technical pathways challenges the idea that success must look the same for every child. The attention to SEND and persistent absence acknowledges some of the most urgent issues facing schools. The mention of AI shows that education policy cannot pretend technology is somewhere outside the classroom.
These are positive signs.
Still, good ideas do not implement themselves. Schools cannot absorb endless change through goodwill alone. Teachers, support staff and leaders need the resources to turn policy into practice. Families need clear information. Pupils need routes that feel credible, not tokenistic. SEND learners need support that is real, timely and designed around their needs.
The most encouraging part of the discussion is the recognition that children do not fit one mould. That recognition matters. Many young people have spent too long being measured mainly by what they find hardest, rather than by what they could become with the right opportunities.
The next step is making sure the reform does not simply rename the pressure.
A better education system should value reading, writing and speaking. It should respect academic, vocational and practical talent. It should prepare young people for the world they are entering. It should give SEND learners more than warm words. It should help schools include, not just instruct.
Progress will not be judged by the speech that announced the change. It will be judged by whether pupils, families and schools feel the difference.
That is the real question now. Not whether the proposals sound promising, because many of them do. The question is whether the system will give schools what they need to make that promise real.
Comments