The need for change
The Curriculum and Assessment Review (CAR), carried out in 2025, is a once in a generation opportunity to consider the effectiveness of the National Curriculum in England and Wales, from Key Stage 3 (KS3) to Key Stage 5 (KS5), with the previous one 15 years ago.
System wide changes need to be made across subjects and qualifications to develop a more relevant, inclusive and accessible educational experience for all.
End Sexism in Schools attended stakeholder events and submitted evidence to the CAR. We drew on our research into the English and History curricula, as well as research from other organisations such as Stemettes, to quantify the widespread invisibility of women across the academic curriculum.
This matters because pupils are only being taught about half the population – it is quite simply selective and inaccurate. It is not surprising. Schools are a microcosm of wider society; the knowledge deemed worthy of teaching in school is reflective of the values of the outside world, functioning as a means to perpetuate these values to future generations. We live in a patriarchal and sexist world where women are still widely treated as second-class citizens.
But it also matters because the invisibility of women in the everyday taught curriculum is a driver of the epidemic of sexism, misogyny and sexual violence in schools. Ofsted’s 2021 report on the issue found it to be endemic. In the UK, violence against women and girls at the hands of men has been acknowledged to be a national emergency.
Of all the things that can be controlled and changed, the invisibility of women is one of them – it is within our gift. For all these reasons, this is therefore urgent to address.
We have to start by changing this narrative in school.
Inclusion and diversity in the Curriculum Assessment Review
At first glance, the Curriculum and Assessment Review has acknowledged the curriculum lacks inclusivity when it comes to reflecting our contemporary society, and sees addressing this as a priority, stating:
Young people have told us that not seeing themselves in the curriculum, or encountering negative portrayals, can be disempowering and demotivating, a point supported by wider evidence. To foster engagement and support positive outcomes, it’s important that the curriculum covers a wide range of experiences and representation, as well as promoting our shared values, to build empathy and understanding of others. (CAR, p.33)
However, to our great disappointment, it is clear from the footnotes to this section of the report, and other footnotes throughout, that when diversity is mentioned, what the CAR means by diversity and students ‘seeing themselves’ is solely about ensuring racial diversity. As an intersectional organisation, we support this, but we do not support such a limited interpretation of what diversity means.
We are also disappointed to see that throughout the CAR, there are repeated assertions about the importance of ‘diversity’ and ‘representation’, yet without recommending specific changes or any means through which this can be quantified, measured or monitored with any consistency or accountability.
The current system, despite much teacher autonomy, results in a disproportionate focus on white males – its design enables this. There is a lack of any specified expectation, definition or requirement to be inclusive and inevitably there are therefore no performance measurements to quantify this. It has never even been on the agenda.
The Curriculum and Assessment Review makes no recommendations to change this with real actions. In fact it even recommends the status quo, for example in English GCSEs. This means in practice, nothing will meaningfully change as a result of the CAR when it comes to the representation of women in the curriculum or indeed diversity in racial representation. The status quo remains. This is simply not good enough.
English curriculum
The section of the Curriculum and Assessment Review devoted to the English curriculum acknowledges ‘greater representation within, and diversity of, GCSE texts would engage students more effectively. This approach has been found to support students’ engagement and outcomes, alongside empathy and understanding of others.’ (CAR, p.77)
ESIS welcomes this recognition of the current lack of diversity within the texts taught in schools, but believes it is meaningless in practice – words not deeds.
The Curriculum and Assessment Review recommends the government should:
ensure that students continue to study texts drawn from the recognised body of English literature (including the expectation of at least one play by Shakespeare, a selection of poetry, fiction or drama from the British Isles from 1914 onwards, and at least one 19th century novel), and that they also benefit from studying texts drawn from the full breadth of our literary heritage, including more diverse and representative texts. This should not increase the volume of content. (CAR, p.79)
This is in essence the current status quo. Maintaining the status quo of students being required to study a play by Shakespeare, a 19th century novel, and a text from the British Isles from 1914 onwards means that the KS4 curriculum will not change in any meaningful way as a result of the CAR.
Our research shows that only 5% of students studied a text by a female author as part of their study of GCSE English Literature in 2024 within this current syllabus, and nothing in these recommendations will change this statistic.
The Curriculum and Assessment Review report states the ‘Review Panel believes it to be crucial that all students, regardless of background, continue to study our rich literary heritage..this should include Shakespeare and classic novels’ (CAR, p.77) without pausing to interrogate what quantifies ‘our rich literary heritage’, who this ‘our’ is, whose ‘heritage’ this actually represents, and who decides what makes a text ‘classic’.
As many studies have shown, the English literary canon was created by educated, upper class white men in the early 20th century, and has always privileged male voices over female, white voices over those of colour, and privileged voices over those of the working class.
Any discussion of what constitutes ‘heritage’ and what constitutes ‘value’ must take into consideration the society in which those concepts have been formed and the people who have shaped the development of that society’s values. Using the word ‘our’ to describe a literary heritage that doesn’t and never has represented the majority of the UK population is therefore highly problematic.
Further to this, the work of nineteenth century female novelists has received less academic and critical attention throughout the 20th and 21st centuries, and many more works by female than male novelists from the period have been allowed to go out of print. This has resulted in a literary heritage that is biased towards male authors when we define a work as being ‘classic’ and so an education system that perpetuates this status quo. Therefore, enforcing the teaching of Shakespeare and nineteenth century novels effectively ensures that at least 50% of the curriculum a child is taught at KS4 will be white male-authored by default. Where exactly, then, are these ‘more diverse and representative texts’ going to be squeezed into the curriculum?
The Curriculum and Assessment Review seems to be intimating that the place for these diverse texts is in the teaching of ‘modern’ (post-1914) literature, an existing element of the GCSE English Literature syllabus. However, that option is already available to teachers but they rarely choose them. ESIS’ research shows that, despite an illusion of choice, with 21 possible texts available across the four examination boards offering the GCSE qualification, over 76% of all pupils are taught An Inspector Calls by J.B.Priestley (End Sexism in Schools, 2025).
This play has been on the KS4 syllabus in some form or another for the past 39 years, and has remained perennially popular. One examination board has already told us they won’t remove An Inspector Calls from the syllabus for fear of losing custom, as teachers are reluctant to change texts.
The Curriculum and Assessment Review acknowledges some of this in their report: ‘we have heard concern that, in practice, the texts selected often lack breadth and representation. Due to a lack of resource and capacity (and, for some, a relative lack of confidence in teaching new works), teachers often rely on texts that they have taught for a long time’ (CAR, p.77). Knowing that this is the case, how does the CAR committee think that diversity will be increased by maintaining the current system that allows teachers to opt out of teaching new and more diverse texts?
Both our reports into the teaching of English at KS3 and Key Stage 4 (KS4) evidence that even when teachers have a range of choices, the majority will revert to a limited pool of male authored texts with male protagonists. Relying, as the CAR does, on ‘teacher autonomy’ to ensure diversity is already proven to be an entirely ineffective method. Our research has repeatedly demonstrated that change will only happen if it is mandated.
ESIS maintains that diversity in the curriculum will never be achieved except through concrete actions. We are calling for:
- Removing the most popular and longstanding works from the GCSE English Literature syllabus – An Inspector Calls, A Christmas Carol, Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde – to force teachers to choose more diverse texts
- Mandating a total refresh of set text lists every five years to prevent certain texts from becoming dominant (as has been the case with An Inspector Calls)
- A mandatory equality quota for every examination board to ensure that female-authored texts and those with female protagonists are represented in equal proportion to those by and about men on set text lists
- A system of accountability requiring schools to select an equitable choice of set texts across the four elements of the GCSE English Literature curriculum, which can be inspected by examination boards on request. For example, schools might have to evidence they are teaching at least two texts by a female author, and at least one text by a writer of colour, ensuring that teachers have to make inclusive choices when deciding on their texts, while maintaining a degree of autonomy.
History curriculum
The section of the Curriculum and Assessment Review devoted to the History curriculum does not mention the lack of women in the current KS3 (pre-GCSE) and GCSE curriculum at all.
ESIS history research evidences that 59% of KS3 lessons do not reference women and 78% of GCSE specification content mentions no female figures for students to study. We are disappointed that this glaring male bias in the teaching of History has been ignored completely by the CAR panel.
Though the Curriculum Assessment Review states ‘we have heard that many teachers would welcome clearer guidance and more examples to help them capitalise on existing flexibility, particularly when representing a wider range of perspectives in British history’ (CAR, p.85), it does not quantify what these ‘wider range of perspectives’ might be or how they might be incorporated meaningfully into the curriculum. The recommendation that the government ‘support the wider teaching of History’s inherent diversity, including through the analysis of a wide range of sources’ (CAR, p.86) is again, vague and unmeasurable, and does not quantify what exactly is meant by diversity.
The use of the catch-all term ‘diverse’ when it comes to history is unhelpful, especially when further references in the appendix to the Curriculum Assessment Review document reference only race and LGBTQ+ communities as examples of diverse groups.
In order for the History curriculum to be truly representative of everyone in Britain’s history, what we mean by diversity needs to be codified and made measurable so that teachers are given clear guidelines to follow and resources to use. As with English, ESIS research into the History curriculum demonstrates that even when teachers have autonomy, the majority revert to tried and tested content that excludes women and other traditionally marginalised groups. As such, change has to be mandated in order to be achieved.
Our research shows that the History curriculum lacks diversity because of inherent structural issues that place history in the context of male political milestones. This patriarchal view of history, that privileges war and politics, and structures periods of time solely through these lenses, means that women’s stories and contributions are left on the sidelines, and those of people of colour and other marginalised groups are told in narratives of victimhood rather than agency.
The Curriculum and Assessment Review has, as with English, completely failed to recognise that when the ‘powerful knowledge’ on which our curriculum is based was created by men to tell male stories, much deeper work has to be done to dismantle these ways of thinking and organising the past in order to truly incorporate diversity.
By advocating for more non-statutory examples of people schools might like to teach and making vague assertions about using ‘diverse sources’, the CAR is merely doing the academic equivalent of rearranging the deckchairs on the Titanic. It simply is not good enough.
History is well placed to tackle violence against women in schools within its curriculum as it requires students to look critically and empathetically at different people and perspectives throughout the past.
It also enables students to learn about and recognise the achievements made by both individuals and groups over time. By excluding the experiences and achievements of women from the History classroom, we not only prevent them from seeing women as equal to men in terms of the significant contributions they have made over time to the creation of contemporary society, but we also teach a false narrative that women have made very little meaningful impact on the world.
ESIS are calling for:
- Explicit inclusion of women, including named characters, in history programmes of study and examination specifications, and making the teaching of these women mandatory
- Reform of periodisation biases on male political milestones within the curriculum to allow for space to teach women’s roles in history as well as those of other marginalised groups
- Mandatory teaching of bias when it comes to approaching history, with new ways of thinking about including women e.g. through types of sources, ‘reading against the grain’ and analytical questioning to reveal the ‘invisible women’ of the past, being part of the skills required to be taught at KS3 and KS4
- Monitoring and accountability for gender representation in history programmes of study, with schools required to demonstrate they are including women in every element of their curriculum.
Overall, the Curriculum and Assessment Review talks about the importance of students having access to ‘powerful knowledge’ without recognising that much of this ‘knowledge’ taught in our classrooms is inaccurate and incomplete due to its exclusion of women. Recommending – as the CAR does – that this is a curriculum worth perpetuating is dangerous and places further barriers in the way of enabling schools to meaningfully tackle the epidemic of misogyny and sexism among young men.
