Culham St Gabriel’s Trust supports a strong science curriculum and high expectations for every pupil. Scientific literacy is essential to the future of our society and economy, and there is no question that science should continue to occupy a central place within secondary education.
However, we do not support the proposal to allow additional science qualifications to count within the breadth element of Progress 8 (slots 5 and 6). At a time when curriculum breadth is already under pressure, this change risks further narrowing what young people are able to study-particularly in schools serving disadvantaged communities-and undermining subjects that play a vital role in pupils’ ethical, civic and social development.
The consultation itself acknowledges the central risk: that increasing specialisation may weaken incentives for pupils to study a broad curriculum across humanities, creative subjects and languages. That risk is not theoretical. It is foreseeable, well‑evidenced, and rooted in recent experience of how accountability measures shape curriculum decisions in schools.
A re‑weighting towards STEM-not a widening of choice
Science already enjoys protected space within the proposed Progress 8 model. Allowing science to count again within the breadth element does not increase pupil choice; instead, it re‑weights accountability value further towards STEM subjects. In practice, this creates a structural advantage for triple science without expanding the number of curriculum slots available to pupils. Schools responding to accountability pressure-often under conditions of constrained budgets and staffing-are likely to prioritise subjects that maximise performance measures, even where this reduces curriculum breadth. The result is not greater choice, but a narrowing of opportunity, particularly for pupils whose schools are least able to absorb the risks of falling outside dominant accountability incentives.
Learning from past mistakes: the fragility of Religious Studies
Religious Studies provides a clear example of what happens when accountability frameworks fail to protect curriculum breadth. Following its exclusion from the EBacc humanities pillar, RS experienced a decline in GCSE entries. Teachers and leaders consistently linked this decline to accountability incentives rather than pupil interest or educational value.
Although RS remains a statutory subject, provision at Key Stage 4 has become increasingly fragile. Entry patterns show that RS is now more likely to be taken in schools with a religious character, raising serious equity concerns. Without sufficient protection, RS risks becoming marginalised outside the faith sector-limiting access to academically rigorous engagement with religion, belief and worldviews for many pupils. Reintroducing similar incentive structures through Progress 8 risks repeating these mistakes, at a time when the system should be learning from them.
An uneven landscape: RE provision at Key Stage 4
The wider context matters. Current RE and RS provision at Key Stage 4 is highly inconsistent, with significant numbers of schools reporting little or no timetabled RE. This is despite the subject’s statutory status and its recognised contribution to pupils’ personal development, community and social cohesion. Against this backdrop, proposals that make it easier for schools under pressure to trade away curriculum breadth are difficult to justify. Accountability frameworks should support schools to meet statutory and educational obligations, not place them in tension with one another.
Impact on pupils, equity and learning
Triple science is disproportionately taken by pupils with higher prior attainment and is commonly offered as a selective pathway rather than a universal entitlement. If accountability incentives draw these pupils away from RS and other humanities, cohorts will become smaller and less representative. This matters for learning. Diverse classrooms underpin rich discussion, analytical depth and inclusive achievement. Narrowing cohorts risks weakening attainment and limiting pupils’ exposure to different perspectives-precisely at a time when schools are expected to nurture critical, reflective and well-informed citizens for the future. There is also a strong intersection with disadvantage. Pupils from lower‑income backgrounds are less likely to attend schools offering a broad range of GCSE options. Where accountability measures reward narrowing, these pupils are the most likely to lose out, through no fault of their own. Pupils with SEND may also be affected. Humanities subjects, including RS, often provide alternative avenues for engagement and success for pupils whose strengths are not best expressed through a narrow pathway. Over‑emphasising a limited set of subjects risks reducing these opportunities.
Workforce impact and wellbeing
Curriculum instability has consequences for staff too. For RE teachers, who already work within a fragile subject infrastructure, the risks are acute. Reduced curriculum time can mean combined roles, teaching across multiple key stages, diminished leadership opportunities and job insecurity. These conditions exacerbate existing recruitment and retention challenges and undermine professional identity and wellbeing. A culture in which subjects outside STEM require constant justification also places an emotional burden on staff, particularly subject leaders tasked with defending curriculum space against changing performance priorities.
Policy alignment and civic responsibilities
Schools have a legal duty to provide a broad and balanced curriculum. Religious Education remains compulsory. Accountability measures should reinforce-not weaken-schools’ ability to meet these obligations. The proposed changes also sit uneasily with current national policy direction. The Curriculum and Assessment Review has explicitly recognised that RE’s importance is not reflected in its current status and has proposed bringing it into the National Curriculum in order to prevent further decline and improve access.
There is also a wider civic question. Education is not only about economic productivity; it is about preparing young people for life in a plural, democratic society. RE supports understanding of religion and belief, ethical reflection, respectful disagreement and social cohesion. These qualities are not optional extras. The government itself highlights this in its recent ‘Protecting what matters’ community cohesion action plan. Accountability frameworks should align with these ambitions, not undermine them.
A constructive way forward
There is an alternative. If Progress 8 is to support genuine breadth, then breadth slots should remain focused on humanities, creative subjects and languages, with science remaining within the science slots.
There is also an opportunity to strengthen statutory RE through proportionate recognition of GCSE short courses. Short courses represent half the content of a full GCSE while retaining GCSE‑level demand. Allowing one short course to count proportionately -or two to count as one slot- would support breadth, reduce perverse incentives, and preserve academic rigour.
Finally, accountability reforms should be tested not only for technical validity, but for cumulative impact-on curriculum entitlement, equity, staff wellbeing and statutory compliance.
For these reasons, Culham St Gabriel’s Trust believes science should not be added to the Progress 8 (slots 5 and 6) breadth category.
Curriculum breadth should be the cornerstone of our education system taking seriously the academic, civic, spiritual, moral, social and cultural responsibilities to every young person.
Details of the consultation can be found here: https://consult.education.gov.uk/school-accountability/key-stage-4-performance-measures-and-targeted-rise/
This article refers to data found in these report/papers:
About
Dr Kathryn Wright is CEO of Culham St Gabriel's Trust