The education sector, as it so often does, is holding its breath.

We are awaiting the outcome of the eagerly anticipated curriculum and assessment review, led by Professor Becky Francis. When the report lands, it will, of course, spark a torrent of debate and discussion.

But, in my 20th year as a head and CEO, I wonder how we in the teaching profession can ourselves play a more empowered role in shaping the practice in our schools. How might we get to a place where it would not matter so much what the review says?

Curriculum and assessment review

A familiar pattern has emerged in English education policy: a major report is released, and the initial reaction is to treat it as a new benchmark, a fresh set of criteria to be immediately adopted, or a stick with which to measure all existing practice.

However, as a leader who has spent her career advocating for a more expansive, thoughtful approach to education, I know there are many things that policy from Whitehall cannot successfully mandate.

A high-quality, broad and inclusive education is not a piece of government IP to be downloaded and implemented wholesale; it is an act of deep, localised professional judgement, rooted in the context of the community you serve.

School-based decisions

At Big Education, our vision is built on the principle of educating the whole child across the ‘head’ (rigorous academic knowledge), the ‘heart’ (character, wellbeing and values) and the ‘hand’ (creativity, problem-solving and making a difference).

This framework is not prescriptive; it is a philosophy. The way a small primary school in Southwark educates the ‘hand’ will look fundamentally different to the approach of a large secondary academy in Manchester. That is not a failure of alignment; it is a triumph of professional autonomy and responsiveness.

The Francis review offers us a unique opportunity - not to conform to new centralised thinking, but to use its intellectual weight as permission to refine, deepen and be more ambitious with our own curricula.

It should empower us to step off the policy pendulum - which has historically swung wildly between seemingly irreconcilable positions - and instead build an integrated, sophisticated model defined by joyful rigour.

The Ofsted effect

The greatest disservice we could do to the review’s potentially developmental thinking is to immediately seek to homogenise our diverse approaches under its banner.

I know exactly why so many school leaders will read this and hesitate. The reason is simple and pervasive, and sits at the heart of our system: accountability.

For too long, the fear of an adverse inspection judgement has been allowed to trump genuine pedagogical conviction.

Leaders rightly worry that deviating from the reductive, narrow narrative of “high standards” - which often translates purely to scores in a handful of tests - will be viewed as an unacceptable risk.

We operate under the shadow of a high-stakes - and often, frankly, punitive - inspection culture that seems engineered to reward compliance and punish innovation.

Curriculum choices

In this climate, the instinct is to wait for the Francis review to arrive, hoping it will set new, officially “acceptable” boundaries.

But the Francis review and the accountability system arrive as separate documents. Whatever the direction of travel coming from the report, it remains odd that Ofsted has proceeded with a new framework ahead of the publication.

And even if it were coordinated, the fear of going one’s own way is unfounded if we are ready to demand that the accountability framework be a partner in progress, not a brake on innovative solutions to the wicked problems in the system.

Power of autonomy

The most powerful, genuinely outstanding schools I know - schools that succeed for the most vulnerable learners - are the ones that have been most courageous in their curriculum design and their definition of success.

They are not content to let success be defined solely by what is easily measurable. They use sophisticated metrics - like the nuanced teacher assessment in KS2 writing, or the Extended Project Qualification (EPQ) at KS4/5 - to truly reflect the broad talents of their students.

My point is this: when a school’s purpose is clearly articulated, values-led and demonstrated through the vibrant experiences and development of its children, the case for its excellence becomes unassailable.

Accountability should not exist to be the arbiter of “correct” curriculum design, but to ensure that whatever design a school chooses, it is enacted with rigour, equity and impact.

The Francis review may serve as a catalyst to legitimise a more expansive vision of education, but the actual work - the brave, context-specific, profession-led work - must be done by us. We must design the school its community needs, not the one a policy document might seem to demand.

Let’s not wait for permission. Let’s simply show the system a better way. The evidence, and the children, will speak for themselves.

Liz Robinson is CEO of Big Education