Purpose before terminology: curriculum reflections for English leaders

At the BESA Curriculum Conference in March, we were honoured to be part of a panel exploring how curriculum and assessment might better support long‑term learning and consistency for all pupils. The panel brought together perspectives from maths, science and English and despite our different disciplines, the conversation kept returning to one fundamental question: what kind of curriculum truly serves pupils in real classrooms, not just on paper?

From an English perspective, this feels increasingly clear. A curriculum grounded in purpose, coherence and meaningful application is far more powerful for pupils than one focused on surface compliance, terminology recall and coverage.

This blog shares reflection prompts emerging from that wider panel conversation. They are not definitive answers but professional considerations for schools as they review curriculum intent, sequencing and assessment in English. At the end of the blog, you’ll find a set of question prompts for subject leaders to consider ahead of the release of the draft curriculum in the summer term.

Curriculum purpose: grammar for meaning, not labels

Panel discussion question 1: How could the refined curriculum develop a stronger focus on using and applying grammar rather than on identifying theoretical constructs by name?

One of the sharpest tensions in the current English curriculum is the emphasis placed on identifying grammati

cal constructs by name rather than using them effectively as writers. Too often, pupils can label features accurately yet struggle to shape meaning, control sentences or write with confidence. This is not because grammar lacks value but because it has become detached from communication.

The CAR highlights a growing dissonance between the highly specified curriculum at KS1 and KS2 and the far less defined expectations at KS3 and KS4. In classrooms, this often results in brittle knowledge: learned but not internalised or transferable. Pupils arrive in secondary schools knowing terms but not necessarily knowing how to write. If pupils can identify grammatical features but cannot use them to write clearly and confidently, what are we asking them to prioritise as writers?

A curriculum refined around purpose begins with a simple put powerful shift: grammar taught to improve writing, not to be named for its own sake. This changes the questions we ask.  Are pupils making deliberate choices as writers? Do they understand how grammatical decisions influence tone, clarity and precision? Are they writing with a real audience and purpose in mind?

Approaching grammar in this way provides a strong foundation for meaningful change for pupils. Rather than teaching grammatical concepts as labels to be identified, pupils need opportunities to explore how grammatical choices work within their own writing. Through real writing tasks such as informing, describing and narrating, pupils begin to see how tense, sentence structure and word choice shape meaning and support the reader. The focus shifts away from naming features and towards understanding their impact, helping pupils to write with greater clarity, confidence and control.

Importantly, the Curriculum and Assessment Review recognises the value of curriculum space beyond minimum national requirements, not to reduce consistency but to allow schools to design meaningful, locally relevant opportunities for writing. This flexibility enables teachers to root grammar teaching in real experiences, contexts and audiences that matter to pupils. Writing for a real purpose matters.

This reinforces the importance of strong foundations in KS1 and KS2. A refined curriculum should prioritise coherent sentences, simple narratives and clear non‑fiction that make sense to a reader. Communication must take precedence over the inclusion of features for assessment compliance. To achieve this, grammar should be taught through writing, not alongside it. Model texts, guided writing and structured opportunities for editing and revision allow pupils to apply grammatical knowledge in context. These processes build independence, control and an understanding of impact, rather than reducing grammar to a checklist exercise.

It is this focus on meaningful application that raises important questions about content balance and sequencing. When abstract grammatical concepts are introduced too early, pupils are unable to use them purposefully. Without time to secure clarity, accuracy and coherence, complexity is layered onto fragile foundations. As the Curriculum and Assessment Review makes clear, ‘Curriculum content should be coherently sequenced, building logically from prior learning so that pupils are prepared effectively for what comes next’ (Department for Education, 2025). Resequencing content with this in mind would create the space pupils need to develop secure understanding before moving on.

A national curriculum that sets high‑value grammatical expectations without over‑prescribing terminology creates room for innovation while maintaining consistency. Most importantly, it supports the development of confident writers who understand not just what language is but how and why it works.

Mastery and depth: securing foundations

Panel discussion question 2: The CAR review shares evidence that supports the need to build secure foundations and mastery of key subject concepts to raise standards and enable the development of expertise but in some subjects, the current construction and balance of content appear to be inhibiting this. What are your thoughts regarding the current content in English inhibiting mastery and depth of understanding?

The CAR places renewed emphasis on mastery, depth and secure foundations. These are best understood as stages in a learning journey.

Foundations come first: Pupils need secure command of sentence construction, reading fluency, oracy, handwriting, application of phonics and confidence with basic conventions before learning can move forward. Without these in place, progress remains fragile.
Depth follows once knowledge is stable: At this stage, pupils can make connections, revisit ideas and understand why particular choices work, moving beyond surface understanding.

Mastery develops over time: When pupils can apply what they have learned flexibly and confidently across different context and are able to adapt their knowledge rather than simply repeating it, they are demonstrating mastery.

The challenge is that the current English curriculum often works against this progression. When too much content is introduced too early, coverage begins to replace competence and learning moves on before it has time to stabilise.

This prompts key considerations for leaders:

• Which elements of English are truly foundational?
• Are pupils revisiting and applying learning frequently enough for it to move into long‑term memory?
• Where does sequencing support depth and where might it undermine it?

Many pupils move through KS1 and KS2 without fully securing essentials such as sentence construction, cohesion and fluent reading. When these foundations remain fragile, later

learning cannot be built reliably, weakening both progress and confidence over time. This makes effective sequencing critical. New learning needs to build logically on what pupils already know with deliberate opportunities for practice and application. Vertical coherence supports progression across key stages while horizontal coherence ensures literacy is used meaningfully to support learning across subjects.

Mastery, however, is not achieved through sequencing alone. It also requires time. Modelling, repetition, guided practice and revising are not optional extras; they are fundamental to developing automaticity and independence. Skills such as handwriting make this particularly clear. Pupils need fluency in transcription before they can successfully manage increasing demands at sentence level. This fluency develops through consistent modelling, repetition and guided practice. Without these, cognitive load increases, sentence construction becomes harder and learning becomes fragile.

For pupils with SEND or those who experience language disadvantage, these challenges are often amplified. When pace is too fast or content too dense, there is limited time for adaptive teaching, revisiting or consolidation and mastery can quickly slip out of reach. The Curriculum and Assessment Review recognises this risk explicitly, noting that ‘Curriculum overload can inhibit mastery, particularly for disadvantaged pupils and those with SEND’ (Department for Education, 2025).

A curriculum that genuinely values mastery must therefore be streamlined, thoughtfully sequenced and designed with time in mind. Only then can all pupils be supported to build secure foundations and apply their learning with confidence.

Assessment and accountability: measuring what matters

Panel discussion question 3: The CAR suggests amending the current KS2 test to retain some elements but include new tasks to assess writing composition. What would be the benefit of retaining some elements of the GPS text whilst including new tasks to support assessment of writing?

Assessment inevitably shapes both curriculum design and classroom practice so any change to the KS2 Grammar, Punctuation and Spelling (GPS) test requires careful consideration. The CAR’s proposal rightly invites us to reflect not just on how pupils are assessed but on what we truly value in writing.

At The Literacy Company, we are clear that technical accuracy matters. Secure sentence construction, appropriate punctuation, understanding what a sentence needs to make sense and the ability to link sentences coherently are all essential foundations for successful writing. Grammar, punctuation and spelling provide the structures that enable pupils to communicate meaning clearly and confidently.

However, when assessment prioritises the recall of grammatical terminology over application, there is a risk that curriculum priorities become distorted. Pupils may demonstrate knowledge of labels while still struggling to construct sentences, sustain cohesion or structure a piece of writing. This can disadvantage pupils who understand how language works but find terminology recall particularly challenging.

A more balanced assessment model would retain selected, targeted GPS elements that diagnose pupils’ understanding of sentence‑level accuracy and control while also introducing tasks that assess application in context. This approach allows us to ask more meaningful questions:

• Can pupils construct and punctuate sentences that make sense?
• Can they link ideas and sustain coherence across a piece?
• Can they apply grammatical knowledge to communicate meaning effectively?

Including composition alongside streamlined technical elements offers a richer and more valid picture of pupils’ writing at the end of KS2. It preserves the diagnostic value of GPS assessment, reduces high‑stakes pressure linked solely to terminology and provides more useful information to support transition into KS3.

Crucially, this does not require increased workload. Retaining familiar assessment structures offers reliability and manageability while composition adds depth and relevance. Together, these approaches align closely with a refreshed curriculum that values mastery, coherence and purposeful application and that recognises writing as a complex, integrated act rather than a list of features to identify.

Looking ahead

Across English, clarity matters. When curriculum design secures strong foundations, prioritises purposeful learning and aligns assessment with genuine application, pupils are far better equipped to communicate, think and participate with confidence. A curriculum shaped by meaning rather than compliance allows pupils not only to meet expectations but to understand why language works and how to use it effectively.

This was a shared view across the panel’s discussions in maths, science and English. The curriculum that truly serves pupils is one that works in real classrooms: securing foundations before complexity, prioritising application over performance and giving pupils the time and support they need to use what they learn with confidence.

The conversations arising from the Curriculum and Assessment Review remind us that these are not questions for policy alone. As we move towards the release of the draft curriculum in the summer term, they become shared considerations for school leaders, curriculum designers and classroom teachers alike. National direction may provide the framework but it is the day‑to‑day curriculum decisions made in classrooms that determine whether pupils develop secure foundations, deep understanding and long‑term confidence as readers and writers.

Now is a valuable moment to reflect, refine and re‑focus. Thoughtful curriculum choices will make the greatest difference for pupils both now and in the years to come.

Download the reflection tool below to consider your English curriculum prior to the draft curriculum being released at some point in the summer term.