It’s one job, done better: the synergy between Geography Quality Mark and curriculum change

Students from Kennet School, Thatcham, 2025 awardees

16 July 2026

Read time: 3mins

‘If you consider the GQM process as “extra work” I can understand why you might prioritise re-writing the curriculum. But if you consider the GQM process as a way to design, stress-test and evidence your new curriculum, you can quickly see that it makes sense to tackle both together.’

Becky Kitchen

Tomorrow is the deadline for our 2026 cohort of Secondary Geography Quality Mark schools. They have spent the year interrogating their curriculums, gathering evidence of pupil work and reflecting on what they do and why. While I don’t want to pre-judge any outcomes, I’m hopeful that in September we’ll be awarding nearly 100 schools with a Geography Quality Mark – a huge achievement.

While my colleagues and moderating teams still have a summer of assessment ahead, we will soon be turning our attention to supporting the 2027 cohort. We’ve reached out to our returning schools and a couple have already flagged that they won’t be engaging in the process next year because they will be focusing on curriculum change.

Essentially, the key message I’m hearing is that teachers are concerned that they are potentially being asked to do two big jobs – rewrite the curriculum and complete the Geography Quality Mark (GQM) at the same time – and they are choosing the curriculum. My argument is that, rather than two jobs, it’s actually one job, done better.

I will never apologise for the fact that the GQM is a chunky bit of work. That’s what makes it worth doing and robust and why schools have the best part of a year to do it. As a previous Head of Geography, who incidentally went through the GQM on three occasions, I also understand the time pressures that teachers are under.

If you consider the GQM process as ‘extra work’ I can understand why you might prioritise re-writing the curriculum. But if you consider the GQM process as a way to design, stress-test and evidence your new curriculum, you can quickly see that it makes sense to tackle both together.

Feedback from previous cohorts highlights that engaging with the GQM ‘shines a light on the important stuff’ in the curriculum, increasing opportunities and providing a framework for curriculum discussion and reflection. There are other benefits too:

The GQM aligns with SLT priorities: the GQM is perhaps the most useful tool for teachers preparing for Ofsted inspection, because it covers curriculum, behaviour, personal development and leadership and management in one coherent process.
Every GQM discussion you have is CPD focused on your geography curriculum: schools that engage with the GQM report that the process increases teacher subject knowledge, improves systems of professional development and ‘invigorates staff to engage in whole-school initiatives’.
The GQM improves pupil outcomes and uptake: primary and secondary feedback highlights improved engagement and enjoyment, more memorable teaching, and raised expectations and coverage, all of which are important when introducing a new curriculum.
Doing GQM helps you to showcase geography as a flagship subject at exactly the time that schools are talking about curriculum vision: the GQM raises the profile of geography within the school and local community, signaling that the department is ‘thorough and rigorous in its approach to learning’.
The GQM makes invisible work visible and re-usable: many GQM schools report increased coherence in departmental planning and more efficient sharing of good practice, which in turn cuts down on duplicated planning and inconsistent schemes of work.

So, if you are worried that time will be tight next year, the riskiest option is to change your curriculum without a clear quality assurance framework. Think of the GQM as your insurance policy against gaps, duplication and missed opportunities and as one job, done better.

To register for next year’s GQM cohort visit Quality Marks – Geographical Association

Written by Becky Kitchen, Head of Professional Development at the GA.