AQA response - Department for Education Key stage 4 performance measures and targeted RISE extension government consultation 2026 - Question 11-14

Oct 20, 2026

Uploaded by Hazel

AQA response to the Department for Education consultation on 2026 Key Stage 4 performance measures, specifically revisions to the Progress 8 model and related breadth-slot proposals. The response supports retaining the headline measures and argues the reform improves breadth and flexibility. It welcomes Religious Studies and creative subjects within breadth slots while warning that modern foreign languages may see declining uptake. It opposes adding a fourth science category, supports limiting technical awards to two across slots, and raises methodological reporting expectations for researchers.

LanguageEnglish

CategoryExam

FormatPDF

Pages7

Reading Time18 min

AccessFree to download

Question 11

Balance between breadth and flexibility in Progress 8

Question 12

Fourth category (science) for breadth slots 5 and 6

Question 13

Technical awards in breadth and choice slots (maximum two)

Question 14

Minor methodological adjustment

AQA response Department for Education Key stage 4 performance measures and targeted RISE extension government consultation 2026 May 2026 Question 11: How far do you agree that these changes to the Progress 8 model strike a better balance between breadth and flexibility compared with the current P8? AQA supports the decision to retain the three familiar headline measures of Progress 8, Attainment 8 and the percentage of students achieving grade 5 or above in English and maths. Together these provide a clear picture of student achievement. They are widely understood by school leaders and wider stakeholders and maintain transparency across the system. We agree that the proposed changes to the Progress 8 model strike a better balance between breadth and flexibility than the current structure. The existing EBacc measures have constrained student choice, and the proposed model is likely to give schools more freedom to design pathways that match learners’aspirations and maintain breadth across the curriculum. We welcome the inclusion of Religious Studies in the humanities slot as this creates greater subject parity and reflects the diverse ways learners engage with humanities education. We also welcome the proposal to allow creative subjects to contribute within the breadth slots. This is an important step in rebalancing the accountability system and acknowledging the educational and cultural value of the arts. However, we are concerned about the status of modern foreign languages (MFL) under the proposed model. With MFL positioned as just one option within a broader set of three breadth slots there is a high risk that uptake will decline. Reducing its prominence in performance measures may inadvertently weaken an area where uptake is already fragile. We suggest that any impact of these changes on MFL uptake be considered alongside the introduction of a Stepped Language qualification, progress on MFL teacher recruitment and retention and any other substantive policy changes aimed at strengthening language provision in England. Overall, we agree that the proposed changes represent a meaningful improvement in balancing ambition, breadth and choice. We encourage continued monitoring of subject uptake, particularly in MFL to ensure that the reformed model supports a genuinely broad and ambitious curriculum for all students. Question 12: What are your views on the inclusion of a fourth category (science) for breadth slots 5 and 6? [Do not support inclusion of a fourth category]. AQA does not support adding a science category to the breadth slots alongside languages, humanities and creative subjects. While optional science specialism is a potential benefit of a fourth category, we believe it would lead to more risks than benefits within the current KS4 structure. Students who wish to pursue greater depth of study in science already have established pathways; attainment and progress of students who study more than 2 science qualifications are already be recognised via the ‘science’ and ‘choice’ slots, giving a maximum of 4 out of 8 slots available to science (i.e. triple science + computer science), with the additional option of Design and Technology counting within a breadth slot. We would be concerned that introducing science into the breadth category could undermine the intention of promoting wider curriculum breadth. Performance measures can have significant, sometimes unintended, consequences for school timetabling and subject availability. In smaller centres especially, this additional category could lead to the narrowing of options in languages, humanities and creative subjects, reducing the genuine breadth of opportunity that the proposed updates to performance measures are designed to support. Question 13: Do you agree that Progress 8 should allow technical awards in the breadth and choiceslots, with a maximum of two across all slots? [Agree]. AQA agrees that allowing technical awards within the brea

FAQs

What does AQA support regarding the Progress 8 headline measures?

AQA supports retaining the three familiar headline measures: Progress 8, Attainment 8, and the percentage of students achieving grade 5 or above in English and maths, citing clarity, transparency, and system-wide understanding.

Why does AQA oppose adding a fourth science category to breadth slots 5 and 6?

AQA believes a science category would create more risks than benefits, potentially undermining wider curriculum breadth and affecting subject availability—especially in smaller centres—by narrowing options in languages, humanities, and creative subjects.

What position does AQA take on allowing technical awards in breadth and choice slots?

AQA agrees technical awards should be allowed and supports capping them at a maximum of two across all slots, while noting trade-offs for centres that may have limited staffing and timetabling flexibility.

Oct 20, 2026

Uploaded by Hazel