Curriculum has dominated education conversations in recent years. With the curriculum and assessment review now published and a national curriculum rewrite coming, leaders face a familiar dilemma in 2026: what to do next, and when to move.

The next 12 months will not be about rewriting everything, but making sensible choices while we wait for clarity.

Below are five areas it would be wise to consider in the coming year.

1. Do not wait for the new national curriculum

Talk of reform often leads to delay. Schools can slip into thinking that major curriculum work should be paused until new documents arrive. That would mean several cohorts moving through key stages with a curriculum everyone already knows could improve.

The pragmatic approach is to focus on work that will not be wasted. That includes making the intent of each subject clearer, reducing duplication and overcrowding and improving sequencing so that core knowledge and concepts build steadily over time.

Even if some content expectations shift, pupils benefit from a curriculum that is better structured and easier to teach well.

The next 12 months should focus on refining what exists, not clearing the decks for a hypothetical future scheme.

2. Put oracy on the curriculum map, not just the assembly plan

There is growing pressure to take oracy seriously. The challenge is that it is often treated as a broad opportunity to “get pupils talking”, rather than a planned progression in speaking and listening across subjects.

Schools might start by identifying what kinds of talk matter most by the end of a key stage, and then looking at where those forms of talk already appear in current schemes. Science explanations, geographical decision making, historical argument and artistic critique look different and need different teaching.

The next step is to make progression explicit. If pupils repeat the same formats every year, they do not get better at talk. Thinking carefully about oracy now will make it easier to respond when expectations become part of statutory documentation.

3. Treat climate, environment and sustainability as curriculum questions

Climate change and sustainability are likely to be more prominent in a refreshed national curriculum.

The temptation is to bolt on extra lessons or isolated projects. A more thoughtful approach is to look across key stages and ask: where do pupils learn about environmental systems; where do they examine local examples; how often do they meet innovation, adaptation and real solutions rather than only problems?

There is also a staff development question. Teachers may need updated subject knowledge on climate science, environmental policy and sustainability. Subject associations, reputable charities and professional networks can support this, but leaders will need to be selective to avoid overload.

Pupils should finish a key stage with a coherent understanding of environmental issues, not a series of repeated headlines.

4. Rebalance assessment so it supports, rather than distorts, the curriculum

Any changes to qualifications will take time, but schools can prepare by streamlining internal assessment. Many departments still assess what is easiest to mark rather than what best reflects curriculum intent.

Useful questions include: do assessments sample the most important knowledge and concepts; do they balance low-stakes retrieval with extended work; and does the data teachers collect actually help them improve learning?

The aim is fewer, better assessments tied closely to curriculum priorities. A department that understands what it wants pupils to know and do by the end of a unit is already ahead of the curve when new specifications arrive.

5. Invest in subject leadership as the engine of change

Whatever shape the national curriculum rewrite takes, its success will depend on the expertise of subject leaders. They will need time to read, discuss and plan the implications of any reforms, well before documents become statutory. Departments that have a clear sense of their purpose and content will adjust more confidently when the new curriculum lands.

This is also a moment to rethink professional development. Rather than responding to a stream of one-off training sessions, schools might plan a CPD curriculum for teachers, building subject knowledge and pedagogical content knowledge over time. Where leaders draw on external support, they should ask how any offer aligns with existing work and how changes will be sustained once the consultant leaves.

Collaboration will matter. Multi-academy trusts, local networks and subject associations can create communities of practice that share ideas, materials and evaluation. This will help schools avoid working in isolation and repeating the same mistakes elsewhere.

The next 12 months will be a period of preparation. The national rewrite is on its way, but the details will take time to emerge. Schools that focus on refinement rather than reinvention will be better placed when new expectations arrive.

Concentrate on oracy, sustainability, assessment and subject leadership now, and curriculum reform in 2026 will feel less like an interruption and more like a continuation of thoughtful work already underway.

Mark Enser is a writer and works in school support. His latest book How Do They Do It? is out now

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