The Curriculum and Assessment Review (CAR) was first commissioned by the Government in July 2024. The review panel, convened and led by Professor Becky Francis, published their interim report in March 2025, and we were told that the final report would be published "in the autumn". As we headed towards the October half term holiday the publication date became "very soon". I was pretty convinced that it would come out on a Sunday in half term, based on past experiences with such things, but was proven wrong, and the review was published on Wednesday November 5th 2025.
Much has been made in the media of the significant changes and new additions to the curriculum proposed by the review. The recommendations for Languages could be said to be quite insignificant compared to the sometimes quite sweeping changes proposed for other subjects. I've read the review through a Languages lens (and through the eyes of a teacher of primary languages for 17 years) to see what the implications are for us as teachers of Languages, particularly in the primary sector.
Primary languages have a secure place in the curriculum
In the months leading up to the publication of the CAR I had received messages and had had discussions with professional colleagues about the potential fate of primary languages. It was rumoured that they would be scrapped.
I was very pleased and relieved to see, therefore, these words on page 24 of the review:
We strongly affirm the value of all the subjects in the national curriculum and basic curriculum. Each plays a vital role in equipping young people with the knowledge and skills they need to navigate the world, while engaging and contributing to our society and culture, and pursuing their individual aspirations. Whether academic, creative, vocational or physical, every subject contributes to a rich and balanced education. ..... The current subject architecture provides a strong foundation, introduces subjects to young people at the appropriate stage, and allows them to pursue their interests once they have experienced the full range of subjects.
In addition, on page 34 it says:
Subject-specific knowledge remains the best investment in preparing young people for these challenges and opportunities: Science and Maths will remain crucial, as will an understanding of communication and culture, through the humanities, languages, and the arts.
And on page 44:
We also seek to guarantee access to a broad and rich primary curriculum, including subjects such as Citizenship, Languages, and Music.
It goes on to say on page 30 that:
Access to the national curriculum should remain an expectation and an entitlement for all children and young people, including those in specialist and alternative provision.
I'm pleased to see that it is reinforcing the fact that all subjects on the national curriculum, Languages in Key Stage 2 in my case, should be taught to all children. So Language learning should happen regularly, and all children should be accessing it. The CAR stresses the importance (for example on pages 30 and 33) of inclusion and not limiting children's life chances by denying them the opportunity to access certain parts of the curriculum.
The Government, in its response to the CAR, agrees that Each subject in the national curriculum plays a vital role in a child's education. (page 8)
It's a little disappointing that Languages are still the only subject not taught in Key Stage 1 (see pages 18 and 19 of the review which shows the national curriculum overview). The argument has always been that starting at age 7 brings us in line with our European neighbours.
The Executive Summary of the review says:
The statutory guidance for the current national curriculum* says that it is 'just one element in the education of every child'; it was not intended to take up an entire school day. (page 9)
*Aims of the national curriculum, section 3.2
One of the difficulties facing Languages in Key Stage 2 is fitting it into the school week. The Language Trends reports each year ask how long lessons are in different schools. In many primary schools Languages lessons are 30, maybe 45, minutes long, but it is generally agreed that in order to make the "substantial progress in one language" required by the national curriculum lessons should be one hour a week.
I was unaware that the national curriculum should fit into the school week with room to spare, simply because all subjects are squeezed, and every available minute is used to fit all the subjects in. I don't know of any primary schools where time is left free during the school week for enrichment activities. We hear of schools where Languages can't be fitted into the curriculum on a regular basis. If more time is needed during the week for, say, English or maths, it is often Languages that are sacrificed.
Page 30 of the CAR says:
By ensuring that the volume of content in the national curriculum is appropriate for the teaching time that is available, we aim to give schools sufficient time to consolidate learning, as well as the space to provide the enrichment activities and life skills that prepare young people for life and work.
It will be very interesting to see, come the revised curriculum in 2028, how this will happen. In the Government response to the CAR, it says that Ofsted will consider how schools are meeting enrichment expectations when judging the personal development grade (page 11).
The allocation of little time to Languages (less than 30 minutes a week in Key Stage 2 and lesson than two hours a week in secondary) is reported as a challenge for language teaching (page 88), despite evidence showing that more time is needed to make significant progress.
The CAR has a focus on oracy, which it says incorporates speaking, listening and communication (page 42). Amongst its recommendations are introducing an oracy framework to support practice and to complement the existing frameworks for Reading and Writing.
This clearly has significant overlap with our work in Languages, so hopefully speaking, listening and communication in a language other than English will feature in the new framework.
The Government has agreed, in its response to the CAR, to create the oracy framework, to support primary schools to ensure that their pupils become confident, fluent speakers and listeners by the end of key stage 2. I'm sure that this would translate well into Languages as well.
The CAR acknowledges that:
... many of the foundation subjects in the national curriculum lack detail, which means that teachers are unclear about what is sufficient in terms of depth or breadth. This lack of clarity also leads to inconsistent coverage of content across schools, making it challenging to ensure knowledge is built coherently and sequentially across the key stages. (page 44)
This has certainly been the case with Key Stage 2 Languages since their introduction as a compulsory subject in 2014. The Programme of Study is vague and doesn't make clear exactly what the "substantial progress in one language" should look like. It has therefore been interpreted differently by different providers, schools and teachers.
On page 49 it clarifies that:
...greater specificity should not mean greater volume of content and should not unnecessarily impede schools' or teachers' autonomy. Foundation subjects' Programmes of Study should be drafted with a minimalist approach to added detail, carefully balanced with the need to ensure the greater specificity which aids conceptual mastery, continuity and coherence.
One concern with having a list of specified content is that certain schools might see it as something they don't have to teach regularly in all four years of Key Stage 2, building up and embedding the language over a longer period of time. Rather they may decide to teach it in one block, for example in Year 6 after SATs, a pattern that has been seen in the past with the current curriculum. While time allocations will still not be applied, it will have to be made clear that Languages lessons should take place regularly over four years, just like all the other Foundation subjects.
There is also the possibility that, presented with a list of specified content, certain schools or teachers may just teach the list. To clarify this issue the CAR says, on page 51:
The national curriculum in intended as a baseline rather than imposing limits, and it is the expertise of our teachers that brings it to life in the classroom.
It also states the following curriculum principle:
The refreshed national curriculum should ensure the professional autonomy of teachers is maintained, making sure that greater specificity does not substantially restrict teachers' flexibility to choose lesson content and how to teach it. (page 51)
In the Languages-specific section, on page 90, the CAR says that it agrees that:
a minimum core content for French, German and Spanish would provide greater clarity and consistency, especially for non-specialist teachers. Covering commonly occurring phonics, vocabulary and grammar, this should align closely with the content and teaching approaches at secondary and thus build more securely the foundations of knowledge for success at Key Stage 4 and beyond more securely. This should support a smoother transition into Key Stage 3. .... With a shared understanding of what constitutes 'substantial progress' in a language, secondary schools would be better equipped to build on students' prior learning. (page 90)
The creation of a list of minimum core content was a recommendation of the 2019 White Paper, and something that has been agreed for some time would facilitate better outcomes for primary Languages. It is pleasing to see, therefore, the following recommendation of the CAR:
We recommend that the Government updates the Key Stage 2 Languages Programme of Study to include a clearly defined minimum core content for French, German and Spanish to standardise expectations about what 'substantial progress in one language' looks like. (page 91)
Page 45 of the CAR talks about the transition between Key Stage 2 and Key Stage 3, the move from primary school to secondary school at age 11, from a general point of view. Those of us who teach Languages in either primary or secondary schools are well aware of the problems of transition. There is little communication between the two sectors and more often than not children start the language again from scratch in Year 7, regardless of whether or not the primary schools have passed on information about the Key Stage 2 language learning. Speaking personally, I always send information about my Year 6s to the secondary schools that they are transferring to. I usually receive few replies or acknowledgements from the secondary schools. Language learning is only compulsory in England from age 7 to age 14, so it is crucial that we make these few years count, and effective transition is vital for this. However I have certainly been talking about and advising on transition for nearly 20 years, and we are no further forward. In fact I would say that we have taken a backward step.
I found the following very interesting:
Stakeholders frequently report that secondary schools tend to plan their Key Stage 3 curriculum backwards from GCSE requirements rather than forward from Key Stage 2 learning, resulting in repetition and leading to disengagement, especially among higher-attaining students. (page 45)
This certainly sheds a light on the problems that we face with Languages. A more prescribed content for Key Stage 2 will hopefully go a long way to helping secondary schools to look at their Year 7 curriculum, taking into account prior learning in Key Stage 2 and not assuming that Year 7s are beginner learners. The CAR has recommended that the EBacc is discontinued, which has caused concern amongst the secondary Languages community. Learners have been encouraged to take a language for GCSE in order to improve their school's EBacc figures. In the future, effective transition will contribute to not switching off learners who are bored by repeating Key Stage 2 learning and don't see themselves learning anything new.
Transition is at the centre of the second of the primary languages specific recommendations:
We recommend that the Government should explore the potential benefits of a coordinated approach in their local areas to the main language taught from Key Stage 2 through to Key Stage 4, taking account of their local context and priorities. The Government should look to encourage this activity where appropriate. (page 91)
I fear, with the system that we have of local authority maintained schools and many separate multi-academy trusts, that the system may be too disjointed to support this.
As an afterthought, I think that the opportunity could have been taken here to rename the subject so that it is the same in both primary and secondary (it's currently Foreign Languages in Key Stage 2 and Modern Foreign Languages in Key Stage 3) and so that we can dispense with the word 'foreign' and its negative connotations. Having the same name across the key stages would go a little way to unifying the two sectors.
Another theme of the CAR is making horizontal links across subjects to highlight where content in one area relies on content in another (page 49). In order to achieve and facilitate this, the review recommends that:
[The Government] develops the national curriculum as a digital product that can support teachers to navigate content easily and to see and make connections across key stages and disciplines. (page 52)
This could potentially be very useful for Languages. Stakeholders in other subjects would finally be able to see in black and white how many different areas and themes language teaching addresses. The digitalised curriculum has been agreed by the Government in their response.
The Government, in its response to the CAR, has agreed to refresh the programmes of study for each curriculum subject in line with the Review's recommendations. It agrees with the two recommendations which refer directly to primary Languages (page 33).
They have also added two further intentions for Languages that were not part of the CAR. The first is:
We will explore the feasibility of developing a new qualification which enables all pupils to have their achievements acknowledged when they are ready rather than at fixed points. We will learn from models such as the Languages Ladder .... We will optimise the use of technology to minimise teacher workload and make assessment more engaging for pupils. We are working closely with stakeholders to establish the viability of such a qualification, making sure it meets the needs of schools and pupils, before making any decision on whether to introduce it. (page 33)
So this sounds like predominantly an assessment for the end of Key Stage 3 (age 14). It does not make clear if the end of Key Stage 2 will be included. This could work well for children who do a different language in secondary school to the one they did in primary. In my opinion the Government will have to ensure that the qualification has real currency in young people's future workplaces and that they are understood by employers.
The second is:
We will explore how AI and education technology (edtech) can support stronger outcomes in language education, including exploring how these tools can help deliver consistent curriculum content and support more coherent language provision across key stages, as well as reduce teacher workload.
The new and revised curriculum will be published in 2027 for first teaching in 2028.
The Government will continue to invest in the NCLE and its online portal but hasn't made clear if the remit of NCLE will therefore reach down into Key Stage 2.
We will wait to see who will be asked to lead on the renovation of the programme of study and the creation of the list of minimum core content. NCLE, in their reaction to the CAR for Languages, says:
We are looking forward to working with the Department for Education to redefine the core language learning in primary schools
I hope that this isn't a done deal, and that other teachers, organisations and stakeholders will be able to have some input as well.
