A final decision on sweeping progress 8 reforms has been delayed, with school leaders warning the government it is “imperative” they confirm plans in the coming weeks as it impacts options selection. Last year, the Department for Education under Bridget Phillipson announced reforms to accountability measures, including Progress 8, in a bid to boost arts take-up. This was one of only a few areas where the government went further than Becky Francis’s curriculum and assessment review, which recommended that the subject make-up of progress 8 be left alone. A 10-week consultation ran until May, proposing to add new “buckets” specifically for science qualifications and “breadth” buckets, including humanities, creative subjects and a language. It also proposed to no longer publicly compare schools to the national “average” for their progress scores. The government pledged to respond in the summer term of 2026, so schools could take the revised measure into account when determining subject choices for pupils who will start their GCSEs in September 2027. That timetable was also supposed to help schools in their curriculum and workforce planning. But the DfE has now told Schools Week the response will be published “in due course. “The consultation received significant engagement from across the sector and ministers are carefully considering the implications before publishing a response.” Vocational GCSEs Last week Lucy Powell, the education secretary, announced new vocational GCSEs. The government said accountability measures would be adapted to recognise the new qualifications and give schools an incentive to offer them. The DfE refused to confirm this week whether it was this new announcement and the need to make further changes that was causing the delay. But Tom Middlehurst, the deputy director of policy at the Association of School and College Leaders, said the government’s response to the consultation was “one of the first things we discussed with the secretary of state when she came into her post, because whatever changes are made to progress 8 will impact the current year 9 cohort. “Our members tell us that most of them begin year 9 options early in the spring term, so it’s imperative that we have a response from the government in the coming weeks – we have made that very clear.” The new GCSEs will replace technical awards. The consultation had proposed that those awards would be “allowable” in the creative category. But DfE said they must be “a complement to a strong academic core offer” and planned a cap of two awards. Middlehurst added the association was “optimistic” the delay meant the government was rethinking its approach “which continues to prioritise some subjects over others, creating a false hierarchy”. ‘Won’t solve the difficulties’ “However, we are also clear that changing the progress 8 methodology on its own won’t solve the difficulties in recruitment of subject specialists that many schools face. “In order to deliver a broad and enriching curriculum, we need subject experts to teach it, which requires an ambitious strategy for recruitment and retention beyond headline manifesto targets.” An analysis by FFT Education Datalab last year found the proposed changes would make “little difference” to the progress 8 and attainment 8 scores of most schools. But the research did find it would likely impact GCSE entries, with just 65 per cent of current pupils filling all slots on the reformed measures. Jonny Uttley, a former academy trust chief executive, said an intelligent conversation was needed about the context in which schools existed and the different challenges they faced. Matthew Shanks, the chief executive of Education South West, suggested a move to a progress 5 measure could protect a rigorous academic core “while giving young people meaningful choice beyond it. Some may choose high-quality technical or creative learning, while others may choose a full academic suite. “Five subjects in the headline measure would not mean a five-subject education; it would mean judging schools in a way that supports high standards for all without unnecessarily limiting the opportunities available to children.”