Narrowing of curriculum can be avoided, IPPR argues
A think tank is calling for both an overhaul of key stage 2 (KS2) SATs in the short term, and for the assessments to be replaced by a system of random sampling across year groups in the longer term. In their report What Comes Next: A fairer approach to primary assessment, the Institute for Public Policy Research (IPPR) argue that KS2 SATs place pressure on schools that narrows the curriculum and fuels teacher stress, in ways that unfairly affect disadvantaged children.
The report notes that DfE data shows that the disadvantage gap – the difference in attainment between disadvantaged children and their peers taking KS2 SATs – has reached its highest level since the pandemic. New IPPR analysis finds that in 2026, just 4 per cent of disadvantaged pupils met the higher standard in reading, writing and maths (combined), while 11 per cent of other pupils met the higher standard. The researchers also found that the content of the KS2 assessments routinely assumes cultural experience and background knowledge that pupils do not equally have. For example, in previous years tests have included writing tasks which refer to skiing or foreign travel. The IPPR are calling on the Department for Education (DfE) to establish an independent ‘statutory accessibility and bias audit’ for all KS2 assessments, which would review papers for aspects such as cultural bias, linguistic complexity and accessibility for pupils with additional needs.
The report also argues that judging primary schools against a single national benchmark creates perverse incentives and a narrowing of the curriculum that significantly affects disadvantaged pupils. Their previous polling shows that 93 per cent of teachers felt that preparation for SATs has an impact on the breadth of curriculum in primary schools, with 77 per cent reporting more time being spent on tested subjects when preparing for SATs. The report calls for an end to the publication of school-level KS2 results, which would also end the publication of school-level league tables. It also recommends using rolling averages (e.g. three or five year averages) of attainment data from the DfE and Ofsted for internal monitoring and inspection. The authors’ also want the DfE to introduce a competency framework for pupil results in place of scaled scores, and remove the Spelling, Punctuation and Grammar (SPaG) test from the assessments.
The IPPR say they would like to see all of the above recommendations in place for the 2027/28 academic year, but in the longer term the report calls for a move away from the current system of KS2 assessment entirely. It proposes moving to a random sampling model that would assess children from years 3 to 6. Under the proposal, the DfE would issue assessments to a sample of around a quarter of schools each year, testing a broad range of pupil knowledge in different subjects across the whole of KS2. The researchers argue this approach would disincentivise schools from narrowing the curriculum, as they would not be able to predict the content of assessments. The data from assessments could be used to identify national, regional and local trends, as well as monitor cohort trends for specific groups of pupils (e.g. those in receipt of free school meals), the report suggests.
Conor Carleton, children and young people policy consultant at IPPR and one of the report’s authors, said: ‘Too often the primary assessment system encourages a narrower curriculum and intensifies pressure on teachers, and ends up reflecting children’s circumstances rather than their potential. We need to see urgent change. This doesn’t mean abandoning standards or accountability, but it does mean redesigning the system so that it supports schools, teachers, and pupils to succeed.’
Tiffnie Harris, primary and data specialist at the ASCL union, commented: ‘We welcome this report and recommendations. There are significant issues with key stage 2 tests both in terms of the pressure they place on pupils and the disproportionate way in which they are used to judge the performance of schools. Modern technology provides the opportunity to develop a more adaptive and humane style of testing than the current one-size-fits-all approach.’
A spokesperson for More Than A Score, a campaign to reduce primary assessments, said: ‘The report from IPPR is an important and timely intervention in the debate on primary assessment. Their recommendations are considered, pragmatic and fair. Most importantly, they would make primary school – and Year 6 in particular – a broader and more rewarding experience for our young learners.’