Entitlement to Separate Sciences at GCSE

Lots of the stakeholders we talked to in the run up to the CAR being released raised unequal access to separate GCSEs in Biology, Chemistry and Physics as an issue, especially as students living in deprived areas are more likely to attend schools not offering Separate Sciences. Given that only a tiny proportion of Combined Science students go on to do science A Levels, lack of access to Separate Sciences is perceived as a blocker to continued science study (though the causality here is much debated!). There was intense speculation as to whether the answer was Separate Sciences for all or Combined Sciences for all.

The CAR report has recommended a different approach:  introducing “a student entitlement to Triple Science so that any student who wants to study it can do so”. This keeps both pathways, but puts a requirement on schools to offer Separate Sciences to all students. The government has accepted this recommendation and will be moving ahead with it – though gradually.

The timeline for this becoming a statutory requirement is unclear. The CAR report says that it should happen “eventually” and that schools will be supported through this “gradual change”. However, it seems likely that parental and student pressure to offer Separate Sciences as an option sooner rather than later could mean that schools start to expand provision at the earliest opportunity.

The biggest challenge is, of course, likely to be the lack of specialist teachers to deliver the additional lesson time, especially for Physics. While there was a 36% increase in recruitment of physicists into ITT in 2025 vs 2024, this still only hit 77% of the target. The government has promised continued investment in the Subject Knowledge for Physics Teaching (SKPT) programme offered by STEM Learning, but more may be needed to fill this significant gap.

Accountability measures

A key headline from the review was the immediate end of the EBacc. Schools will no longer be measured on how many students gain this combination of ‘gold standard’ GCSEs. The impact of this on Science is likely to be minor, given that it remains a compulsory subject at level 2 and the pathways are unchanged.

Progress 8 stays, but in a revised form. 

Instead of falling into the three EBacc slots, the government proposes that Science will now have two dedicated slots, giving it the same weight as Maths and English. These two slots can be filled with the best two grades from Combined Science, Biology, Chemistry, Physics or Computer Science/Computing.

This is likely to boost the importance of Science by putting an onus on students achieving at least two strong science grades to fill these slots.

A third science grade can also count in slots 7 or 8 of the breadth bucket.

The government will consult on whether there should also be a science category to draw from in slots 5 and 6. If approved, it would be possible for a candidate taking Separate Sciences plus Computer Science to count all those grades. It could also free up slots 7 and 8 to include other science quals.

All in all, the changes to Progress 8 are likely to slightly increase the importance of science within the curriculum.

Content

In terms of content, the Curriculum and Assessment Review proposes moving forward in two phases:

1. Refining and re-sequencing the Science curriculum from KS1 to KS4, stripping out unnecessary detail and outdated content. This sounds likely to follow a mastery-like approach focusing on development of key concepts, while retaining a knowledge-rich ethos.
2. Adding in new content that enhances students' engagement, understanding and progression. The biggest proposed change is to how Climate Science is addressed, but Space is also mentioned as possibly coming back into Combined Science.

The result will be a new National Curriculum published ‘Spring’ 2027 for first teaching in September 2028. It’s likely that a draft will be put out to consultation at some point in mid-2026, so it won’t be too long before we can see the proposed shape of the new curriculum.

The report does acknowledge the overwhelming feedback that the curriculum is overburdened with content, citing a TeacherTapp survey in which 80% of respondents wanted content reduction. Pearson saw similar results in our School Report research, where 81% of Science respondents thought the curriculum had too much content. Hopefully, the content stripped out of the Science curriculum will outweigh any additions, resulting in a meaningful overall reduction in content. However, getting consensus on content removal is notoriously tricky!

The nature of the additional Climate Science content is also unclear. While the CAR report calls for students to learn about “the scientific causes of, consequences of, and potential solutions to climate change,” the DfE response sticks  to just the causes. This  may suggest where the emphasis will be placed for Science, with the consequences and solutions possibly sitting somewhere else in the curriculum. Not covering the potential solutions to climate change within Science could limit opportunities to touch on exciting new technologies and link the content to green jobs. It will be interesting to see whether some climate solutions make it into the draft content.

Assessment

Assessment was not touched upon in the Science-specific sections of the CAR report or DfE response, but some insights can be drawn from the cross-subject recommendations.

Firstly, there is a goal to reduce the time that students spend doing GCSE exams. The CAR report recommends a reduction of “at least 10%”, while the DfE suggested 2.5-3hrs overall. This might result in 20 minutes less exam time per GCSE. This is likely to be achieved through adjustments to assessment design. If combined with a meaningful reduction in content, a larger reduction in exam duration may be achievable.

Secondly, the report reaffirmed that exams should remain as the main form of assessment. Non-examined assessments “should be used only when it is the only valid way to assess essential elements of a subject”. There is no indication that practical or investigative elements of GCSE Science would fall within this category, so it seems most likely (though not certain) that GCSE Science will remain 100% exam-assessed.

Practicals

The CAR reported that many respondents had brought up the importance of practical Science and noted the decline in hands-on practical work and increased use of videos, especially since the pandemic.

While the report emphasised that practical work should be taught through “high-quality teacher demonstration and hands on work by pupils”, there were no recommendations aimed at boosting the importance of practicals or increasing the amount of practical work students experience. The only recommendation was that practicals be more explicitly linked to a purpose in the new Programme of Study, ensuring that practical time is well spent. This may impact the required practicals at GCSE, but more details are needed before any consequences become clear.

However, if there is a meaningful reduction in content, it is possible that schools will find time for more practicals. Limited specialist teachers, technicians and budgets may continue to be challenges to address. 

Other possible changes

There were a number of other takeaways for Science

• The government intends to review which formulae and equations students will be expected to memorise, and which can be provided in the exam.
• Media literacy will be tackled in the Science curriculum, as well as in several other subjects, to help students identify misinformation online, and understand how to evaluate scientific claims.
• On diversity, the curriculum will allow for more illustration of the content through diverse individuals and scientific perspectives. However, the CAR acknowledges that the science curriculum should not be about individuals and points towards teaching resources as the primary means of making science learning more inclusive.
• Ofqual is encouraged to continue to consider innovation in assessment. A recent consultation launched by Ofqual suggests ruling out on-screen assessment for large entry subjects like GCSE Science, at least for now, but with a new consultation underway it remains to be seen whether onscreen assessment for science might become an option sooner rather than later.

Curriculum reform doesn’t come round very often, and opens up new opportunities to make tangible improvements for learners. While many things, such as the basic assessment model, look likely to remain the same, the Curriculum and Assessment Review opens the door to meaningful changes to content and accountability measures that will benefit students and the place of science teaching. The move to make Separate Sciences an entitlement can only be a good thing in terms of improving equity and supporting student choice, and our goal is to work with all parties to create qualifications and solutions for delivery that make this change as manageable and positive as possible for all. 

At Pearson, we’re looking forward to working closely with the DfE, Ofqual, trusts, schools, teachers and students to make sure the maximum benefits can be derived from these proposals, setting up learners for a successful future. This marks the beginning of a long journey, but by working together, we can achieve the best outcome for students. 

Alice Landragan, Head of Science, Pearson