NATRE response to Progress 8 consultation

The National Association of Teachers of Religious Education does not support adding a fourth science category to breadth slots 5 and 6. The consultation itself recognises the core risk: while this could increase specialisation, it may weaken incentives to study a broad curriculum across humanities, creative subjects and languages. That risk is well founded. Science already has two protected slots, while the current breadth requirement provides a necessary counterbalance, explicitly including Religious Studies within humanities. Adding science to breadth would shift the model back towards STEM concentration, rather than the balanced curriculum the consultation aims to promote.

This is particularly significant for Religious Studies, which is still recovering from distorted incentives following its exclusion from the EBacc humanities pillar. Ofsted reported that entries for GCSE Religious Studies (short and full course combined) fell by around 40% between 2009 and 2019, with many teachers attributing this decline to its exclusion from the EBacc. Currently 40% of schools without a religious character do not enter a single pupil for GCSE full course or even, the one hour a week short course. For schools with a religious character only 3% do not enter.

Research by David Lundie (2018) further found that pupils in schools with a religious character are 4.75 times more likely to be entered for GCSE RS than those in non-faith schools. Without strengthened incentives, RS risks becoming confined largely to schools with a religious character.

This makes it critical not to recreate the same incentive structure, particularly when the Curriculum and Assessment Review has acknowledged that RE’s importance is not reflected in its current status and has proposed bringing it into the national curriculum to improve access and prevent further decline.

Earlier post-Francis Progress 8 models were more defensible because they separated a strong science core from a distinct breadth requirement covering humanities, creative subjects and languages. This created a genuine incentive for breadth. By contrast, adding science to breadth would allow up to three of the weighted slots to be filled by science, with an even greater share of the overall measure occupied by STEM when maths and subjects such as computer science are included.

Although the proposal does not increase the number of slots, it significantly increases the share of accountability value allocated to science. With two dedicated science slots and the option to fill breadth slots with science, triple science gains a structural advantage. This reduces competition for option slots and reallocates value toward science without expanding genuine pupil choice.

Current school practice does not justify this change. whilst 9% of schools do not offer triple science – this pales into insignificance against the 34% of schools not offering RS. Whilst Triple science is typically offered as a selective pathway alongside combined science, often within existing option structures and sometimes without occupying an option block. An additional science could occupy the choice box. The proposal is therefore a disproportionate response to government aims to strengthen triple science but highly consequential in reducing space for humanities subjects such as Religious Studies.

This would directly affect RS cohorts. Pupils taking triple science are often higher prior attainers; if accountability incentives steer them away from RS, cohorts will become smaller and less representative. This risks artificially depressing attainment and weakening classroom dialogue and learning.

The proposal also raises statutory concerns. Maintained schools are required under the Education Act 2002 to provide a broad and balanced curriculum, a duty mirrored in academies. Religious Education remains compulsory at Key Stage 4, making further marginalisation difficult to reconcile with these obligations.

More fundamentally, the proposal assumes, without evidence, that expanding triple science is inherently beneficial. This is contestable. The requirement for a broad and balanced curriculum exists precisely because no single pathway can meet the full intellectual, cultural, ethical and civic aims of education. Over-weighting science risks narrowing access to humanities, including Religious Studies, which develop understanding of belief, values, ethics, identity and social cohesion. These are foundational to a plural, democratic society and to many areas of the modern economy. Presenting triple science as the implicitly preferred route risks reinforcing the false notion that humanities are secondary, when, in reality, economic success and social resilience depend on a balanced mix of scientific and humanistic knowledge.

There is also a wider policy tension. Government cohesion strategies emphasise education’s role in promoting social understanding, including through Religious Education. A Progress 8 model that further weakens incentives for RS runs counter to this aim.

Finally, the consultation overlooks an important opportunity regarding short courses. Ofqual recognises that the GCSE RS short course is equivalent to half a GCSE; half the content but at GCSE standard. If the government is serious about restoring breadth and meeting statutory RE requirements, it should consider allowing one short course to count proportionately, or two short courses to count as one slot where they deliver valuable civic and statutory learning.

For these reasons, science should not be added to the breadth category. The earlier model better preserved the distinction between a strong academic core and genuine breadth. If Progress 8 is to support a broad and balanced curriculum, breadth slots should remain focused on humanities, creative subjects and languages, alongside proportionate recognition for short courses—particularly in subjects such as Religious Studies, which carry clear statutory, civic and societal value.