Two major reports have shaken up the education debate in 2025. The National Education Union’s Are You on Slide 8 Yet? (Traianou, Pearce, Stevenson & Brady, 2025) documents the lived experiences of teachers on the frontline of standardisation. Meanwhile, the government’s Curriculum and Assessment Review: Interim Report (Francis, 2025) acknowledges deep systemic problems while hinting at reform.
These reports arrive against the backdrop of rising child poverty, a brutal cost-of-living crisis, the long shadow of Covid, stagnant teacher pay, and escalating burnout. Add to that the pressures of AI, authoritarian disciplinary regimes in many academies, and a narrowing of curriculum vision, and it is clear why both reports matter now more than ever.
Here are five big wake-up calls — and why policymakers must listen.
1. Education is not working for the children who need it most
The government’s review concedes that “the socio-economic gap for educational attainment remains stubbornly large, and young people with SEND make less progress than their peers” (Francis, 2025: 6). This is not a small issue; it is an indictment of a system that should serve all children. The NEU report echoes this failure, showing that scripted curricula “did not sufficiently engage or challenge students and did not work for children with special educational needs and disabilities” (Traianou et al., 2025: 3).
These findings can’t be separated from the wider social context. The UK is now experiencing record levels of child poverty, with families pushed to the brink by rising housing costs and food insecurity. Teachers are seeing the consequences daily: hungry children unable to concentrate, pupils missing lessons due to illness or anxiety, and a widening attainment gap post-Covid. Standardised curricula, imposed from above, only widen this divide. They treat every pupil as if they have the same opportunities, ignoring the profound inequalities shaping their lives.
The wake-up call: a fair curriculum must be rooted in social justice. Otherwise, it simply reproduces inequality.
2. Death by PowerPoint?
The NEU reports that over a third of primary teachers now have “little or no influence on lesson content” (Traianou et al., 2025: 2). Teachers describe a “reduced sense of professional autonomy” (p. 2), where they are little more than delivery agents for PowerPoint slides. One teacher memorably called it “death by PowerPoint” (Traianou et al., 2025: 1).
Meanwhile, the government itself admits that the current balance of content “may reduce teachers’ professional capacity to consolidate, tailor, adapt or extend material for their pupils” (Francis, 2025: 6). But this isn’t just about pedagogy — it’s about politics. Many academy chains now enforce authoritarian regimes of silence, “walks of shame” in corridors, and scripted behaviour policies. These practices reflect what sociologists identify as a wider trend: the rise of right-wing authoritarianism in education.
Against a backdrop of frozen pay, escalating workload, and post-Covid burnout, teachers are leaving the profession in droves. A curriculum that denies them agency compounds the crisis.
The wake-up call: teacher professionalism must be restored. Without it, retention will collapse further.
3. Standardisation has not fixed workload — it has fuelled burnout
The NEU found that scripted curricula were no silver bullet in terms of reducing teacher workload: “there were no significant differences between the workload perceptions of non-standardised curriculum users and standardised curriculum users” (Traianou et al., 2025: 3). Teachers described hours lost to “interpreting and adapting generic materials to meet the needs of their pupils” (p. 3).
The government review, too, acknowledges staff exhaustion, pledging that reforms must not “place undue burdens on education staff” (Francis, 2025: 8). Yet the reality is stark: teachers are now doing more with less, their real wages cut by over 10% in a decade, while they juggle pandemic catch-up pressures, complex safeguarding needs, and an exam-driven system that prioritises accountability over creativity.
The wake-up call: workload and burnout cannot be solved with centralised schemes of work. What teachers need are smaller class sizes, better pay, and real time for collaborative planning.
4. Curriculum reform must be research-rich, not driven by politics
The NEU is explicit: “policy on something as fundamental as the national curriculum should not be based on the selective use of favoured research findings” (Traianou et al., 2025: 5). It argues for an independent body to oversee curriculum, with “broader representation from subject associations, university researchers and teachers’ organisations” (p. 5).
The government review makes a similar point, promising to “strike a balance between the key themes identified through our engagement with stakeholders and the wider research and statistical evidence” (Francis, 2025: 8). But history tells us that governments often cherry-pick research to fit ideology, from phonics battles to EBacc targets.
In the age of AI and rampant misinformation, education policy must model intellectual integrity. Teachers, researchers, and communities should shape curricula collectively, not ministers chasing headlines, taking a ‘research-rich’ approach, using research judiciously to inform their practice, critiquing it constantly and experimenting with what works for them.
The wake-up call: dialogue, research-rich conversations, not ideology, must guide reform.
5. The curriculum must prepare young people for an uncertain world
The government review sets out its ambition to equip children for “a rapidly changing and AI-enabled world,” highlighting the need for “media literacy, critical thinking, and digital skills” (Francis, 2025: 7). The NEU, however, insists that only empowered teachers — “curriculum makers” able to “use and adapt resources flexibly” — can meet this challenge (Traianou et al., 2025: 4).
The stakes are high. We live in a world reshaped by pandemic disruption, climate crisis, and authoritarian politics. Pupils are bombarded with digital content, from AI chatbots to TikTok, with little help navigating truth from manipulation. Meanwhile, economic inequality is growing sharper by the year.
A curriculum that relies on “death by PowerPoint” cannot prepare children for this reality. What is needed is a living, breathing curriculum: one that fosters resilience, creativity, critical thinking and democratic values.
The wake-up call: the curriculum must equip young people not only to survive in an AI future, but to build a fairer society.
Conclusion: Time for Courage
Both reports, in different ways, sound the alarm. The government acknowledges systemic failure. The NEU documents the lived exhaustion of teachers. Together, they make clear that tinkering at the edges is not enough.
At Goldsmiths, we are pioneering approaches that put teacher professionalism, equity, and creativity at the centre of curriculum design. The alternative is a hollow system where PowerPoints replace passion, and where the poorest children fall further behind.
It is time for courage: for policymakers to trust teachers, for schools to resist authoritarianism, and for a new curriculum that speaks to the world our children are actually living in.
References
Francis, B. (2025) Curriculum and Assessment Review: Interim Report. Department for Education, March. Available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/curriculum-and-assessment-review-interim-report
Traianou, A., Pearce, S., Stevenson, H. & Brady, J. (2025) Are You on Slide 8 Yet? The Impact of Standardised Curricula on Teacher Professionalism. National Education Union, March. Available at: https://neu.org.uk/research