What Ontario can learn from England’s turn back to basics in schools
Ontario’s stagnant EQAO results have prompted a review. England’s shift to a knowledge-rich, evidence-based curriculum and teacher-preparation changes offers concrete lessons.
Copy link
By Torontoer Staff
Ontario’s latest EQAO results show little improvement in reading and mathematics. In 2024–25, 36 per cent of Grade 3 students, 49 per cent of Grade 6 students and 42 per cent of Grade 9 students failed to meet provincial math standards, prompting Education Minister Paul Calandra to commission an external review of student assessment and achievement.
The province has announced a move toward a "back to basics" approach. Looking beyond Canada, England provides a recent example of system-level reform that produced substantial gains in reading and maths, and that offers concrete steps Ontario could adapt.
What changed in England
England abandoned an education orthodoxy often described by reformers as "progressivist education". That approach emphasised discovery learning, minimised explicit instruction and treated practice as rote. Reforms shifted the system toward a knowledge-rich curriculum, routine phonics screening, regular checks of times-tables fluency and restrictions on calculator use in standardised assessments.
Those changes were driven by curriculum revision, new assessment rules and structural shifts in school governance and teacher preparation. England introduced "free schools" and academies that operate with greater autonomy, and it created alternative teacher-preparation pathways that place trainee teachers inside schools to learn evidence-based methods.
"progressivist education"
Sir Nick Gibb
The evidence of impact
The results followed. By 2023, English pupils ranked fourth on PIRLS, an international assessment of Grade 4 reading, with the largest gains among the lowest-performing students. England also improved on TIMSS Grade 8 mathematics, becoming the highest-performing non-East Asian country in that assessment.
Those international gains came despite strong institutional resistance. Faculties of education and teachers’ unions warned the reforms would harm students, but national assessment results and international comparisons indicate otherwise.
How Ontario could adapt the approach
Ontario’s review should prioritise evidence-based practices and protect the process from interest groups that aim to preserve the status quo. That means involving classroom teachers and leaders committed to proven instructional methods, rather than relying solely on education faculties and central agencies that may be invested in longstanding orthodoxy.
Practical moves include adopting a clearer, knowledge-rich curriculum, restoring explicit reference to practice and fluency, removing calculators from key provincial math assessments, and implementing routine checks for phonics and times-tables recall. England’s experience shows that naming and defending these elements matters: when a draft maths curriculum initially had the word "practice" crossed out in consultations, policymakers restored it after reviewing the evidence on the role of practice in learning.
- Replace vague competencies with a knowledge-rich curriculum aligned to international high performers.
- Introduce routine screening for phonics and timed checks of basic facts.
- Prohibit calculators on standardised math assessments where automatic recall is being tested.
- Expand school-based teacher-preparation pathways that teach evidence-based instruction.
- Create accountability mechanisms that measure foundational skills and catch early gaps.
Political and institutional obstacles
Any major curriculum shift will face pushback from stakeholders who see certain practices as ideologically suspect or professionally threatening. In England, resistance from university faculties and unions was intense, yet the government persisted by relying on research from cognitive science and by offering alternative training routes for teachers.
Ontario’s government has signalled it will look outside the ministry for review. That is a necessary step, but not sufficient. The review must produce concrete, system-level recommendations and a clear implementation plan that protects curriculum language from dilution during consultations.
Classroom-level implications
At the classroom level, the shift looks like more explicit instruction in early reading, routine practice of core facts in mathematics, and clearer expectations for what students should know and be able to do at each grade. Those are modest changes in method, but they require changes in teacher training, resources and assessment design to be sustainable.
Ontario’s current investment choices should be judged not only by dollars allocated, but by whether those resources support instruction that cognitive science and international comparisons identify as effective.
England’s reforms did not rely on a single policy fix. They combined curriculum clarity, aligned assessments, alternative teacher-preparation pathways and shifts in school autonomy to create a system that rewarded the teaching of foundational knowledge and fluency.
What to expect next
Ontario’s external review offers an opportunity to break with entrenched assumptions. If the province adopts evidence-based recommendations and defends them from dilution, it can focus spending and policy levers on practices with proven impact on reading and mathematics.
The immediate measures under consideration will signal whether the province intends to pursue system-level reform or incremental changes that leave dominant practices intact. England’s experience suggests that clear curricular priorities, aligned assessments and changes to how teachers are prepared produce measurable improvement, especially for students who have been falling behind.
Ontario’s review should produce specific, implementable steps and a timeline. Without confronting the prevailing instructional orthodoxy and ensuring reforms reach the classroom, additional funding alone will be unlikely to change assessment outcomes.
educationOntarioEQAOcurriculumpolicy
