Professor Becky Francis’s curriculum and assessment review seems to have come up with a pretty good set of measures to me. It is evidence-informed, sensible and doesn’t overwhelm the sector with change for the sake of change - exactly what we expected.

However, the government’s response has unfortunately created muddle and frustration in equal measure.

What should have been a good day for education has ended up feeling like another kick in the teeth.

Accentuate the positives of the curriculum review

But before we get on to that, let’s reflect on the positives.

We’ve campaigned for years for the removal of the English Baccalaureate performance measure because it marginalises creative arts subjects and design and technology, and for reform of key stage 2 tests. Both of these things now look set to happen.

We recognise that the latter won’t go far enough for many people and there’s detail to be worked out over what Progress 8 looks like in the future because its composition is linked to the EBacc - but these are at least steps in the right direction.

We’re also pleased to see the review’s recommendation to reduce the excessive amount of time students spend sitting GCSE exams.

It simply isn’t necessary for young people to be taking more than 30 hours of papers in a period of six weeks, and it is something that has contributed to an upsurge in stress and anxiety.

We already knew about the plans for V levels as they form part of the post-16 White Paper announced a few weeks ago - but it is worth restating that this is also a welcome step as it recognises the need to maintain a vocational pathway in post-16 education.

Likewise, there is recognition that something needs to be done about the relentless grind of mandatory GCSE resits - although our feeling is that this is an area which will need more attention, as a new stepping stone qualification isn’t likely to actually achieve that objective.

We are also pleased about the emphasis on proposed maths and English tests in Year 8 being diagnostic rather than yet another accountability measure, and we agree with there being a common entitlement to triple science - although a little more about that in a moment.

Confusing and unclear

It brings us on to the government’s response. Confusingly, it has already made announcements on V levels, English and maths stepping stone qualifications and Year 8 reading tests before the outcome of the review was published.

When it announced Year 8 reading tests, it didn’t mention maths, but it did say the results will be shared with Ofsted, which is effectively an accountability measure.

All this seems like muddled communications. It would surely have been more logical to wait for the outcome of the review rather than haphazardly announce connected but slightly different policies before its publication.

In its response to the review, the government is enthusiastic about a triple science entitlement and making citizenship compulsory in primary schools - both of which are well-reasoned proposals - but it is silent on where the teachers and funding are going to come from to actually deliver either expectation.

And it has randomly announced “a new core enrichment entitlement for every pupil” without a word about how this will be resourced, either.

It then goes on, with grinding inevitability, to say that this entitlement will be policed by Ofsted.

Teacher realities

There is a stark backdrop to all of this.

The reality on the ground is one of teacher shortages in many subjects - with recruitment of physics postgraduates to teacher training courses being particularly dire - and a funding crisis in education which shows every sign of getting worse rather than better.

Only last week, the government submitted evidence to the School Teachers’ Review Body, which made it clear that it doesn’t intend to fully fund national teacher pay awards over the next three years. This will, of course, leave schools having to make up the shortfall.

The DfE’s evidence waffles on about delivering better value for every pound, but in reality, the only way to bridge the gap will be through cutting staff and provision.

It wasn’t the job of the curriculum and assessment review to make recommendations about the resources the education system needs, of course. That is a matter for the government.

But the fact is that providing children with a great curriculum doesn’t materialise out of thin air. It relies on having enough funding and teachers to deliver that curriculum.

It is particularly grating that the government is placing increasing reliance on Ofsted to deliver its agenda through the strong arm of accountability.

Doing more with less, again

It leaves the education workforce in an increasingly untenable position - caught between an increase in requirements that are enforced by the inspection system, while being starved of the resources to deliver those expectations.

The education secretary said in response to the curriculum and assessment review that “the path to our country’s renewal runs through our schools”. These are fine words, but she needs to back them up with the tangible support that our schools, colleges, leaders and teachers need.

The government cannot continue to ask them to do more with less. It is a recipe for policy failure and a broken workforce.

Pepe Di’Iasio is the general secretary of the Association of School and College Leaders

You can now get the UK’s most-trusted source of education news in a mobile app. Get Tes magazine on iOS and on Android