Flawed Report – Flawed Understanding – Disapointing
By Aaron Connor – Teacher of Computing
Published: November 2025
The government’s new Curriculum and Assessment Review: Building a World-Class Curriculum for All claims to set a vision for the future of education in England. But for Computing teachers, it reads like a document written about our subject by people who still don’t really understand it. Behind the polished rhetoric lies a troubling truth: the report confuses “Computing” with “Computer Science” and risks undoing a decade of progress in digital education.
Computing Isn’t Just Coding
In 2014, the national curriculum established Computing as a discipline built on three interlinked pillars:
- Computer Science – understanding how computers and networks work.
- Information Technology – applying systems and data to solve problems.
- Digital Literacy – using technology critically, creatively and safely.
This balance was deliberate: Computing was never meant to be only about code. It was about equipping every young person to think, create and participate in a digital society. Yet the 2025 review collapses all three pillars into one, reverting to a narrow, technical view of the subject. The word “Computing” is scattered across the report, but the understanding behind it is shallow.
Rebranding Without Rethinking
The review proposes replacing GCSE Computer Science with a broader “GCSE in Computing.” On the surface, that sounds progressive. In practice, it risks being little more than a rebranding exercise. The draft specification language still centres on algorithms, logic and syntax—without meaningful inclusion of digital creativity, data literacy or user-centred design.
Once again, the conversation is about exams, not understanding. A truly inclusive Computing GCSE would empower students to design apps, analyse data, and explore AI ethics—not simply reproduce code in a high-pressure paper test. Without that shift, this change will do nothing to widen participation or close the gender gap that has plagued the subject for a decade.
Digital Skills Without Digital Pedagogy
The review speaks often of “digital skills” but never of digital pedagogy. There is no reference to computational thinking, decomposition, abstraction or debugging—the intellectual heart of the subject. There is no discussion of how learners move from concrete examples to abstract concepts, or how creativity and collaboration make programming meaningful. This is what happens when policy is written without classroom expertise: it describes outcomes but ignores how learning actually happens.
A Missed Opportunity on AI and Inclusion
Artificial Intelligence receives a few cautious paragraphs, framed as something to be “incorporated” into Computer Science. But AI is not just another topic to squeeze into a syllabus—it’s a cultural and ethical shift that should reshape how we teach data, creativity and critical thinking across every subject. The review fails to see that Computing education should prepare students not only to use technology but to question it.
The same superficiality applies to inclusion. The report recognises that only around ten percent of schools teach Computing to all pupils at Key Stage 4, and that girls remain underrepresented by three to one in GCSE entries. Yet it offers no concrete plan for teacher recruitment, CPD, or curriculum redesign to address those problems. It diagnoses inequality, then shrugs.
Policy Written in the Past Tense
Computing moves fast; policy doesn’t. A “world-class” curriculum should evolve with industry and research, building bridges between computing education, creative industries and real-world technology. Instead, this review feels frozen in the early 2010s—still obsessed with syntax over systems thinking, control structures over creativity.
By treating Computing as an academic curiosity rather than a living literacy, the report risks alienating another generation of students who could have been digital creators, innovators and problem-solvers. It forgets that Computing is not just a subject—it’s the language of the modern world.
What a Real Vision Would Look Like
- A clear definition of Computing as Computer Science + IT + Digital Literacy.
- Practical pathways that balance theory with creativity and real-world relevance.
- Investment in teacher training, confidence and up-to-date CPD.
- Integration of Computing concepts across the wider curriculum—from data ethics in Citizenship to algorithmic music composition in Music.
- Assessment models that value design, reflection and innovation, not just code recall.
That’s how you build a curriculum fit for the century we’re actually living in.
Final Thought
The Curriculum and Assessment Review uses the right words—breadth, balance, inclusion—but its understanding of Computing remains outdated. If we continue to define the subject through policy written by people outside it, we will keep making the same mistake: reducing a dynamic, creative discipline to a narrow test of logic.
Computing education doesn’t need another rebrand. It needs respect, resources and representation from people who actually teach it.
About the Author
Aaron Connor is a Computer Science educator and creator of the Teacher of Computing YouTube channel and podcast. He writes about computing education, curriculum design and digital pedagogy.
Tags: computing education, curriculum review, computer science, digital literacy, AI in schools, education policy
