The debate over England’s compulsory reading test for 13-year-old

Published: 21 October 2025. The English Chronicle Desk. The English Chronicle Online.

The UK government has announced that all secondary-age pupils in England, specifically those in year eight aged 12 and 13, will be required to take a compulsory reading test. Officially, the purpose of the test is to help raise literacy standards and ensure that “everyone can thrive” in the education system. While the intention may seem straightforward, the introduction of this assessment has sparked significant debate among educators, parents, and researchers about its potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences.

Under the new scheme, the results of the reading tests will not be published publicly. Instead, the scores will be shared with families and the Office for Standards in Education, Children’s Services and Skills (Ofsted), which is responsible for inspecting schools. Proponents argue that this could encourage secondary schools to devote more attention to improving literacy, particularly for pupils who are struggling. In theory, the test may act as a catalyst for schools to focus on reading skills during a stage in education where literacy can often be overshadowed by the pressures of subject-specific learning.

England has historically performed well in international assessments of reading among young people. Average literacy levels remain high compared to other nations, though, like many countries, England experienced a small decline in reading scores following the disruption of the COVID-19 pandemic. Critics of the new test argue that it may do little to improve outcomes for the majority of pupils who are already proficient in reading, instead drawing attention and resources away from other important areas of the curriculum.

The primary concern should arguably be the minority of pupils who enter secondary school without a strong foundation in literacy. These children often struggle to access the wider curriculum because their reading skills are insufficient for comprehending subject material in science, history, or mathematics. Research shows that low literacy at age 12 or 13 is strongly linked to lower exam results at the General Certificate of Secondary Education (GCSE) stage. Ensuring that pupils meet a minimal threshold in literacy is therefore not only important for their current education but for their long-term academic prospects.

Primary schools in England typically place a strong emphasis on literacy and numeracy, reflecting the understanding that these skills form the foundation for all subsequent learning. Secondary schools, however, tend to focus more on discrete subjects, which often assume fluency in reading. Without intervention, pupils who lag in literacy may find themselves increasingly marginalised in their studies, unable to fully participate in classroom discussions, comprehend complex texts, or complete assignments independently. Advocates of the test suggest that if secondary schools use the results to identify and support these “catch-up” pupils, the initiative could have a positive impact.

However, the introduction of any new test comes with costs and challenges. Preparing students for the assessment will require curriculum time, teacher effort, and financial resources. There is a risk that, if schools do not actively prepare for the test, it may merely offer a snapshot of existing literacy levels without driving meaningful improvement. Additionally, the test may highlight the lower achievement of pupils from disadvantaged backgrounds, including those with special educational needs and disabilities (SEND), as well as children from poorer households. While identifying these gaps is important, it also raises concerns about stigmatisation and the psychological impact on students.

Testing can create anxiety for some pupils, particularly those who struggle academically. It is well documented that standardised assessments can generate stress and affect performance, meaning that the test may not always provide an accurate reflection of a child’s reading ability. For instance, children born in the summer months often start primary school at a younger developmental stage than their peers and tend to score lower on reading assessments, even when their skills are age-appropriate. This raises questions about the fairness and accuracy of a single test as a measure of literacy at age 12 or 13.

Achieving universal success on the reading test is likely to be challenging. Even the primary phonics screening test, taken in year one, sets a target of 90% pass rates, leaving around 10% of pupils who do not meet the standard. The new secondary test should arguably focus on the pupils who struggle most with literacy, rather than attempting to enforce a one-size-fits-all benchmark. Without targeted interventions, the results reported to Ofsted could simply reflect socio-economic disparities and existing learning challenges rather than prompting meaningful improvement. Research has shown that Ofsted inspections sometimes struggle to separate contextual factors, such as poverty and SEND prevalence, from raw test outcomes, leading to unfair assessments of schools.

Some experts argue that if the goal is to raise literacy among secondary pupils, earlier intervention might be more effective. Introducing the test at a younger age, perhaps in year four when children are still developing core reading skills, could allow two years for targeted support before the transition to secondary education. Early intervention aligns with evidence that reading proficiency is best developed in the early years and that literacy skills become harder to improve once children fall behind. However, this approach could be controversial, as primary schools already face pressure from multiple assessments and may resist adding another compulsory test to an already crowded curriculum.

Critics of the secondary test also question whether high-stakes assessments motivate schools to improve teaching quality or simply encourage “teaching to the test.” While the government intends to ensure every child can read fluently, without additional resources and professional development for teachers, schools may struggle to provide the individualised support needed for struggling pupils. Moreover, literacy improvement is a long-term process that involves reading practice, comprehension strategies, and engagement with texts, not just exam preparation.

Some parents and educators have expressed concern that the test could widen existing inequalities. Children who come from households where reading is less emphasised or who have limited access to books may be disproportionately affected. Additionally, pupils with SEND may find standardised assessments particularly challenging, potentially reinforcing negative self-perceptions and affecting motivation. Ensuring that schools use the results to provide targeted support rather than punitive measures is therefore critical.

Despite these concerns, proponents argue that any mechanism that draws attention to literacy gaps is valuable. The test could provide a clear signal to schools about which pupils need additional help and encourage investment in reading support programs. If implemented carefully, with appropriate teacher training and resources, the initiative could help ensure that all pupils achieve the literacy levels needed to succeed academically and in everyday life.

In conclusion, the proposed compulsory reading test for 13-year-olds in England highlights the tension between assessment, educational priorities, and equity. While literacy is undoubtedly vital for academic achievement and life skills, the effectiveness of a single test depends on careful implementation, sufficient resources, and a focus on pupils who are most in need. Without these considerations, the test risks being a superficial measure of performance rather than a tool for genuine improvement.