Supported by Crown House Publishing

Anyone placed into a leadership role has great responsibility thrust upon them. Some leaders shine to the challenge and make things happen, whereas others are not really up to the responsibility, making judgement errors and decisions that can negatively impact on those who work under them. In a recent #UKEdChat discussion about ‘Great Leadership’ (click to see archive), one particularly great insight was shared that resonated with many…

The great leaders are not the strongest, they are the ones who are honest about their weaknesses. The great leaders are not the smartest; they are the ones who admit how much they don’t know. The great leaders can’t do everything; they are the ones who look to others to help them. (Shared via @IanThomp)

You can read the summary article sharing ‘Ten Leadership Attributes” that were taken from the #UKEdChat session here.

Coincidently, I saw the comment above at the time I received the book ‘Imperfect Leadership’ ready for review and it stayed with me throughout preparing this review article. You see, Steve Munby has been involved in educational leadership now for quite a few decades, but openly admits that leadership is not – and should not be – a sole responsibility. In the opening gambit of his book, Steve shares (wisely) that, once in a leadership position, he started asking individuals (some with significant influence), to voluntarily mentor him to become an effective leader himself. Such a tactic is very wise, as people feel humbled and compelled to help, and the external perspective advice offered cannot be easily encountered in any other way. Something I will be considering in my roles.

Unlike any other book I have encountered, Steve shares a selection of talks he has given over the years, often given the lectern due to his high-profile roles, offering insight, guidance and wisdom – often challenging policy-decisions or politicians. Through his experiences, Steve celebrates imperfect leaders sharing many fears that individuals will encounter within their role. For instance: imperfect leaders worry about getting it wrong today (sometimes too much) but they are even more concerned about getting it right tomorrow; imperfect leaders are aware of their own weaknesses, or; imperfect leaders have an ego but they try to keep it under control. There are many other pearls of wisdom similar, and the chapter on Ethical Leadership is truly worth attention as the moral purposes of leadership are considered, with the accompanying speech highlighting unethical behaviours made by leaders – due to considerable pressures – resulting in being them, or their staff, being banned from the teaching profession – is that really the state our education system has come to? Is that really the state that we want to see in our education system?

Furthermore, the book delves into how Steve’s own leadership developed as his personal context changed, and explores how the notion that a leader needs to be good at all aspects of leadership is not only unrealistic, but is also bad for the mental and physical health of leaders and will do nothing to attract new people into leadership positions.

The book is very England-centric, and even though there is a consideration to international education systems, those involved within the education system within England will be very aware of the political issues, pressures and considerations discussed throughout the book. However, readers from outside the England education system can use this book as a means of comparison of their own educational systems, as many pressured highlighted for leaders will resonate across borders and within different educational environments.

Imperfect Leadership, by Steve Munby, is very auto-biographical by tone, but by being presented in this way does not dictate to the reader, nor does it show a clear path to successful leadership. The book merely offers stories and experiences that show insights from Munby’s career, along with significant lessons he has gained through his high-profile roles – I just hope that the reader who picks up this book as they step into a new leadership role take heed from the words in a speech declaring that leaders must ‘wear the cloak of leadership with dignity and care’ (p.89). Hear, hear!

You need to Login or Register to bookmark/favorite this content.

In time for the new school year, Ofsted – the school inspection agency in England – has today announced changes to the framework for inspections, claiming: “It is not just about exam results”.

Although the same grading system will remain in place, the focus of inspections will change towards:

• the quality of education
• behaviour and attitudes
• personal development
• leadership and management

Inspectors will look at how a school contributes to pupils’ broader development, including their character, citizenship and resilience. They will also look at how the school manages behaviour, low-level disruption and bullying, so that parents can be assured that the school is one in which pupils are safe and able to learn.

Inspectors will check that school leaders are behaving with integrity by putting children’s interests first. This includes checking that schools do not enter pupils for qualifications that are inappropriate for the child but that may have a positive impact on the school’s published performance data.

Inspectors will also check that schools are not removing pupils from the school’s roll without a formal, permanent exclusion when this is not in the child’s best interests often known as ‘off-rolling’.

Reports will also be shorter and clearer, telling parents what it’s like to be a child in that school, what the school is doing well and what it could be doing better.

Inspectors will spend less time looking at test data, and more time looking at what is taught and how it is taught. They will consider how a nursery, school, college or other education provider achieves its results.

The organisation claims: We want to make sure that good results flow from teaching a broad, rich curriculum and reflect real learning, not just intensive preparation for a test.

It is not clear whether schools will be penalised if there is clear evidence of intensive test preparation takes place, and is valid for state schools, further education and skills providers, non-association independent schools along with registered early years settings.

You need to Login or Register to bookmark/favorite this content.

A raft of new measures to help struggling schools, tackle underperformance and ensure standards continue to rise have been unveiled by Education Secretary of England Gavin Williamson.

Outstanding schools will no longer be exempt from routine Ofsted inspection so parents can be confident their children’s schools are continuing to deliver the best education.

Some ‘outstanding’ schools have not been inspected for a decade and this programme will ensure that parents have up to date information about the quality of education their children are receiving, and that standards remain high.

Alongside this, more funding will be made available to help top performing academies across the country to expand to support other schools and help them deliver the best possible education.

A new specialist academy trust will also be set up specifically to take on and turn round the most challenging schools struggling with long term underperformance.

The trust will be piloted in the North of England and offer direct support from school leaders with a proven track record in improving education.

For schools that have consistently been rated requires improvement by Ofsted, we will launch a new programme of leadership support by giving hundreds of them more help from experienced school leaders and evidence-based support programmes and working with Ofsted so that it can provide more detailed analysis on areas for improvement.

The announcement today (1 September) comes days after the Prime Minister delivered the biggest ever cash funding boost of £14 billion over three years for education and set out the government’s ambition to close the opportunity gap and ensure every child, regardless of where they come from, has access to a great education. The funding package for 5-16 schools includes £2.6 billion for 2020/21, £4.8 billion for 21/22, and £7.1 billion for 22/23 compared to 19/20. This will bring the schools budget to £52.2bn in 22/23.

This comes as 61 new free schools open their doors for the new school year, providing more school places and building on the success of free schools across the country. Ofsted’s latest information shows that 84% of all free schools with inspection reports published by the end of June are rated ‘Good’ or ‘Outstanding’. This includes predecessor ratings for free schools that have since been re-brokered.

The Prime Minister made clear that his government will continue to build on rising school standards, level up education spending, and to give schools the powers they need to deal with bad behaviour and bullying.

Education Secretary Gavin Williamson said:

Every parent wants to know their child is getting a great education and I will leave no stone unturned in my drive to deliver that. Education standards in this country have been transformed since 2010, and I am determined to make sure those schools that are leading the way are sharing their expertise and lifting up others so every child, no matter where they are from has the best possible start in life.

This government has delivered on its promise to deliver a huge cash boost for the education system and now we will continue our relentless focus on standards by backing teachers, school leaders and the sector as a whole to do what they do best and deliver the best for our children.

Plans set out today will include:

• Reintroducing regular Ofsted inspections for outstanding schools by removing rules which exempted top-rated schools from routine inspection, so that parents have up to date information about their child’s school and can be confident that schools rated outstanding really are providing the highest standards
• Increasing the level of support available to some of the most challenging requires improvement schools – those that have not been good in over a decade in multiple inspections – by giving hundreds of them more help from experienced school leaders and evidence-based support programmes and working with Ofsted so that it can provide more detailed analysis on areas for improvement
• Piloting a new academy trust in the north, specifically established to take on the most challenging schools, where there is no other local academy trust with sufficient capacity available, offering support from directors with a proven track record of turning around underperforming schools
• Building on an existing £17m fund to support our strongest academy trusts to expand into areas of weak capacity and where improvement is most needed – furthering the success of the academies programme since 2010 as a powerful vehicle for driving school improvement
• Expand the School Resource Management programme to ensure the extra funding provided to schools is focussed on delivering better outcomes for pupils, reduces wasteful expenditure and improves efficiency
• Work with Ofsted to ensure all reports also include a rating for financial management and oversight within the school, academy, college or trust in order to ensure best practice is shared across the sector

Today’s announcement will accelerate efforts to improve underperforming schools, furthering recent plans to strengthen the leadership of up to 2,400 schools nationwide and building on policies that have seen hundreds of thousands of children benefit from an education in good or outstanding sponsored academies that were, typically, previously council-run schools.

Plans include piloting a specialist trust run by school leaders with a proven track record of turning around underperforming schools to raise standards and put them back onto a sound financial footing. This new trust will be expected to take on the most challenging schools, by offering a route into a strong academy trust that allows school improvement to begin immediately.

Since 2012, schools rated ‘outstanding’ by Ofsted have been exempt from routine inspection, freeing them up to continue to focus on providing an excellent education for pupils without unnecessary intervention.

This commitment remains, but many schools need up to date information about their performance and parents deserve greater assurance that the education in these schools remains the highest quality. The department will consult on how best to do this, and subject to parliamentary approval, bring these schools back into a regular inspection cycle.

This package of measures to turn around underperforming schools today follows the announcement of £14bn for primary and secondary schools in England between now and 2022/23 – delivering on the Prime Minister’s pledge to increase school funding to give all young people the same opportunities to succeed regardless of where they live or go to school.

You need to Login or Register to bookmark/favorite this content.

The end of National Curriculum levels at KS3 was an opportunity to step away from talking about what level a student is currently on, and instead focusing on how a student can learn and develop. However, schools still want (or need?) data on where students are (ie: a level). Any new system should meet the aspirational goal of shifting the dialogue away from levels but realistically will still need to give an indication of where students are in relation to expected progress. This topic has been blogged about extensively, so here I am focusing exclusively on the system we are developing to assess our mastery curriculum. Although this is far from the perfect system, I think it could achieve the goals of life without levels. It is still a developing idea so all feedback is welcome and will be useful.

Background

Earlier this year I blogged about the mastery curriculum we were developing. Read the details here, the key concepts were: identification of 10 ‘skills’ that students need to master in science in the form of mastery statements; mapping the curriculum from year 7 – 11; frequent low-stakes testing. After half a term of using this system with year 7 and 8, we have learnt a lot, and in this blog, I will look at how we are assessing students.

Assessing the mastery skills

The 10 mastery statements (see figure 1 below) have been mapped to the new curriculum so there are key areas where they should be being taught. However, gaining an understanding of how individual students are progressing with these skills is a challenge. We have developed a system for assessing the 5 mastery statements that are linked to scientific experimental skills. At present, this provides an individual idea of where students are and have the potential to generate a ‘value’ for tracking. The assessment takes place with a ‘mastery assessment’ every half term – which is an assessed practical investigation. One key decision we made was to use the same format for this investigation every time. It is pitched as a GCSE level write up, so year 7 and 8 receive a lot of structured support, which will be removed as they progress. Each assessment will focus on 2 or 3 of the mastery statements, so either the other aspects are provided, or the section crossed out on the sheet. We decided to do this rather than changing the sheet each time for consistency.

Figure 1: The 10 mastery statements

Students currently spend three lessons on the assessment, which is roughly broken down as preparation, carrying out the experiment and recording results, and then data analysis and write up. I anticipate that when these students reach year 9 or 10 they will only need 2 lessons to complete this. Students complete the work on yellow paper, which is stuck in their books. To reduce teacher workload, assessment is done by highlighting what level the student has achieved on a ‘student-speak’ version of the steps to mastery (see here for more details on the steps). This then fits the school marking policy as teachers complete the marking sticker and provide a ‘try now’ based on the area of weakness. Since the try new tasks that will be needed are predictable, these can be provided to reduce teacher workload.

Below is a copy of a students work, plus the teacher feedback.

Figure 2: The layout will stay the same for all mastery assessments (one every half term)

Figure 3: During this assessment cycle, we did not complete mastery statement 5 and so it has been crossed out. We left the pro-forma the same for consistency

Figure 4: The marking sticker is the school policy sticker (we will have to remove the top boxes to be ‘without levels’ when this truly does happen). The blue grid allows the teacher to quickly highlight what the student achieved, and the final sticker is the try now based on the area of improvement needed – red pen used by student for completing the work

How are we reporting progress to students, parents and SLT?

This is probably the key question here, and unfortunately, the answer is that at present we are not reporting based on mastery at all. In Autumn 1 students completed a fairly standard assessment during assessment week, and we are currently discussing with SLT how to report this to parents and students (KS3 levels, 1 – 9 level or other). However, the school is aiming to report based on progress with mastery after Christmas so it is worth discussing the ideas here.

The idea being looked at is on reporting progress along each of the ten mastery strands, and creating an overall ‘percentage of mastery’ figure. This means that students, staff and parents can see a student’s strengths and weaknesses clearly as progress on each strand, and then the overall figure gives some comparable data on how the student is performing relative to others. The challenge here is that the different strands have a different number of ‘steps to success’, and that these ‘steps’ might not be of equal difficulty or weighting. The final grid may look something like figure 5 below, which clearly shows strengths and weaknesses and so immediately focuses the report on progress and next steps. This can also generate an average which could be used for tracking purposes.

Figure 5: This mastery grid clearly shows a weakness in mastery skill 1 and that the next step is step 2 for that skill. This imaginary student is very strong in skill 5, and then the overall average is a comparable and trackable figure. An advantage of this system is that it is easy to identify the strengths and weaknesses, but the concern at this stage is that it would take too long for teachers to input the data.

Frequent low-stakes testing

Every week year 7 and 8 are sitting a 20 mark, multiple-choice quiz on key content. These tests include mainly material learnt during the week, but 5 marks are for content from earlier in the year in an attempt to encourage students to retain information. Teachers log the score into a central tracker each week. Students like the frequent tests and it is a useful tool for teachers to identify where their class struggles. To date, we have not done anything with the centralised data as the focus has been on getting a system working and ensuring data is collected on time from all staff.

Next half-term I am aiming to add in a reward system by giving a gold star for 17+ marks and then a prize at the end of the term for the most gold stars. Additionally, I would like to start a weekly support club for students who struggle in a particular week. Another big improvement to be made to the system is ensuring these quizzes are all created at the start of the term so that teachers can see what is on them and ensure that their students have understood these key concepts. This has not been possible yet as the curriculum is new and still being written, but we should get ahead with this over the coming weeks. There is no plan to report these results so the focus is entirely on helping students achieve the key threshold knowledge required in science.

An overall understanding?

From the multiple choice quizzes, mastery assessments and summative assessments we are developing a very clear picture of where students are in terms of content, skills and application. This should enable us to have focused intervention and re-teaching, and to reflect on our teaching practices and the impact on teachers.

Next steps

The key next step in working with SLT and other department heads to finalise a way of tracking and reporting that does not simply create a synonym for levels. Delivery of the mastery assessment needs to be fine-tuned, possibly with more standardised teaching, and definitely with a focus on showing students what great practical write-ups should look like, so we will develop a bank of model answers and collate excellent student work.

This is a re-blog post originally posted by Mark Gillett and published with kind permission.

This article was originally published in 2015, and updated in 2019 in accordance with website changes by UKEd Editorial staff.

The original post can be found here.

You need to Login or Register to bookmark/favorite this content.

I have just finished marking my mocks.  It is a bit depressing if I am honest.  It would seem very little of my teaching or advice about the exams has stuck.

It is ok, I tell myself.  This is a diagnostic process, it is not about pass or fails. The cohort and class performance will help me analyse what topics and skills need more work.  I can use this to help plan targeted intervention and action plans.  This is a diagnostic snapshot to help me tweak my lesson planning for the rest of the year.  This is a diagnostic snapshot to help students reflect on their own learning and analyse their own strengths and weaknesses.

It is also important for students to experience the process, students need to get a feel for what the real exams are like.  We make everything real, the layout, the external invigilators, the rules & regulations, the rickety exam desk, the invigilator with the clicking heels, the little cards with their names on.  It is an exact replica of what will happen in the summer series.  I know this dry run is important for them to acclimatise but it is what they have produced which worries me.

The mock exams went very well, all the students turned up, they followed the procedures and seemed to take them quite seriously.  No one took in a mobile phone or an apple watch and everyone remembered to write their name at the top of the paper.  But why do I feel such despair about the whole enterprise?

I guess part of me wonders whether with such disappointing results was it really worth the effort?  It occurs to me that many (although not all) of my students had not really bothered to revise much.  They may have done the odd spider diagram but their preparation had none of the blood, sweat and tears that come with the summer series.  At best, I think the mocks reflect how much they could remember from their autumn term classes.  Therefore, I wonder what they really tell me.  How valid is this exercise?

We must also consider the opportunity cost of a mock series.  You lose a whole week teaching time, it has taken two days of my holiday to mark and our department time will be taken with standardisation.  Now, I am not saying any of these things is bad of its own accord, but I am left with a disappointing set of mocks wondering how I can retrieve a win from what feels like a defeat.

It seems like a phoney war which has been scripted long ago.  Next week, the students and I will sing a familiar song about working harder and focusing on the question.  We both know these dance steps like the back of our hands.  I will put their examples answers on the board and they will nod in the right places.  On the surface, it looks like engagement with learning but there is also a sense that we are doing it for the camera.  We both know it was a phoney war.  There is a sense of collusion here as I chose a paper that was Goldilocks, not too difficult, not too easy, it was just pitched right for them to show off their skills.

I guess what frustrates me the most is that they are refusing to put the car into top gear until the real race.  Maybe they are right, perhaps you should save the fuel until the final lap but how will you know how fast it can go unless you give it a spin, take a risk and nudge it into the top.  Why would you not give this your best shot?  Why would you not want to show off what you can do?

Why indeed, this is a good question that wants exploring.  Why would you want to risk failure halfway through a course if you cannot achieve a grade that you think you are worth, that your parents would be happy with?  In the half-hearted attempt and withdrawal from the race, one protects the more vulnerable parts of oneself.

However, I should not overlook the emotional content of this phenomenon.  Feeling the despair may have its uses as well.  It feels too hard, too much to do with not enough time.  I am not sure how I will get it all done.  I am pretty sure this emotion does not originate in me, there is a transference of this anxiety.  The reality of only being half-way through a course and not quite getting it all, not being able to make the connections, not seeing the bigger picture can at times make one feel in despair.

Perhaps these mocks are not just an academic snapshot but also a means of taking the emotional temperature of the young people I work with.  The real task here is to help contain some of these feelings and help hold onto the painful experience that is learning.  The real task here is to turn this despair into something more hopeful.  This will involve digging into the mark schemes and looking at where we went wrong but it will also need me to be aware of the emotional factors in teaching and learning.

This is a re-blog post originally posted by @mistershankly75 and published with kind permission. The article was originally published in 2016, and updated by UKEd Editorial staff in 2019 in accordance with policy and website changes.

The original post can be found here.

You need to Login or Register to bookmark/favorite this content.

Review and ratings independently compiled by Colin Hill, Supported by Crown House Publishing

It is clear that the cuts in educational budgets have had an impact on schools, with added costs and unexpected circumstances all putting pressures on the finances. The variance of income between schools is evident, although the educational outcomes of students are set high no matter what economic, social and political expectations are placed on the education system, so maximising income opportunities has suddenly become a critical element of school leadership. Many have adopted a role of School Business Manager (SBM) whose main role is to enhance the budget, allowing increased opportunities for staff, leaders and students, but seeking out the elusive ‘pots of gold’ can be one of the greatest barriers to sustainable success.

In her book, Lindsey Marsh hopes to show how school leaders and SBM’s can maximise the school income from grants, sponsorship and other sources of finance. The book is split into three main sections exploring: applying for grants; fundraising for specific school projects, and; additional information.

Applying for grants can sound like a long-winded and bureaucratic process, but there are lots available for schools that do not have to be paid back. Lindsey considers the application of grants for all countries within the UK, signposting funding organisations, social media signposts (including #UKEdChat ), publications, and so on. However, the important aspect covered by the book is to offer insights into what is expected from grant applications, and what you can expect in return. Advice on getting prepared for a grant application is extensively explored, including the type of documentation you should collect and evidence, how to complete the grant application, and how to communicate your plans for monitoring and evaluation.

The second section of the book explores ‘Fundraising for Specific School Projects’, where Lindsey explores how to go about applying for funding for ICT projects, school libraries, school trips, playgrounds, environmental projects, music projects, extra-curricular clubs, food projects and other projects you might deem important for your setting. Again, the book allows time for considerations to be made before applying and purchasing, with handy checklists within each section and additional signposts indicating where to source and apply for resources and funding – I mean, who knew that WH Smith offer grants to schools for books which are funded from the proceeds of their carrier bag sales? Not only does the book showcase where funding might be available from, but Lindsey also lists a great selection of projects that you may not have considered for your school, and inspiration is offered throughout the book – I particularly liked the list of environmental projects that schools could (and should) be considering to help build awareness for their students.

The final section of the book explores other sources of funding for schools, including fundraising events, business sponsorship, other income-generation strategies, and (interestingly) money-saving ideas. This final chapter of the book is interesting as Lindsey looks at common-sense ideas that schools can explore to save money that has already been allocated. She offers purchasing tips, exploring discounts, collective procurement and sustainability.

This is an essential book to have on hand for school leaders or school business managers who are looking at opportunities to maximise income, develop their school resources further and provide ideas on how to complete the (sometimes convoluted) process of applying for funding grants.

*RRP – Price correct at time of publication.

You need to Login or Register to bookmark/favorite this content.

The complexities of primary school teaching are often underrated by policy-makers, the public and parents. In his book, Gary Pykitt looks at how primary school teachers (within England) need to put each child in their classroom at the heart of every curriculum and teaching decision made. With a focus primarily on safeguarding, online safety, bullying, mental health and wellbeing, this book unpicks key elements of legislation and policy, suggesting practical approaches and resources available to support teachers through some of the tougher challenges of the role.

Each of the chapters explores some of the key issues surrounding each topic, signposting to the policy guidance with links and references that encourage further reading. Policy summaries are scattered throughout, but the book also challenges the reader to ask critical questions about each of the topics, along with sharing ‘good practice examples’, which can be used or adapted into practical classroom or staffroom discussions to help ensure best practices are being undertaken on a daily basis.

All the issues explored in this book are not going to be faced often in schools, but having this resource to dip into – when required – means that it should be available to all primary staff working within such settings. The book is essential reading for school leaders and safeguarding leads, and very useful in clearing the muddied waters that policy changes and initiatives usually create within education.

*RRP, correct at time of publication. Review and ratings independently compiled by Colin Hill, Supported by Critical Publishing

You need to Login or Register to bookmark/favorite this content.

The new scheme is set to give pupils easy access to period products at school or college, helping to break down stigmas and ensure no young person’s education is disrupted by their period.

From Monday 20 January, schools and colleges across the country will be able to order a range of period products from supplier phs Group, making period products readily available for all young people when they need them.

Children and Families Minister Michelle Donelan said:

Periods are a normal part of everyday life and we do not want young people missing out on lessons because of them.

We know that it is not easy for everyone to access period products where and when they need them. This scheme will deal with those problems so young people can go about their daily lives without getting caught out if they have come on their period unexpectedly, forgotten to bring products with them or if they can’t afford the products they need.

This follows the Government’s commitment last year to fully fund period products for all state-funded primary schools, secondary schools and colleges. It also forms part of the Department’s ambition to improve provision of products for young people, helping to support campaigns to break the stigma around periods and raise awareness of menstruation.

The scheme also comes just months before health education becomes a compulsory for all state funded primary and secondary schools, under new guidance on relationships, sex and health education from September 2020 – to ensure all young people learn about living healthy lives, including menstrual wellbeing.

The Government also introduced the £15 million annual Tampon Tax Fund to support women’s charities – and made a commitment to end period poverty globally by 2030.

Amika George, founder of #FreePeriods, said:

We have been waiting for this day for a long time! As a grassroots, student-led movement, Free Periods has been fighting for every single child in this country to be able to go to school without worrying about their next pad or tampon. For the first time in history, this scheme will ensure that becomes a reality.

We ask that schools have open conversations with students about what they need and start signing up to the scheme – no child must miss out. Free products in schools will ensure that every child can learn and be their very best, without periods holding them back.

David Taylor-Smith, CEO of phs Group, said

We have been busy preparing for the launch of this scheme and we are ready for the first wave of demand. We encourage schools and colleges to look out for their activation email and make their first order so they can start offering free products as soon as possible.

Period products are a necessity, not a luxury, and we believe providing free products for young people will be a catalyst for change in creating period equality. We are proud to be the supplier for such a worthy scheme.

Schools and colleges will receive an activation email from the phs Group on Monday 20 January which will enable them to order products for their organisation from the phs Group portal – a range of products will be available so that schools and colleges can offer choice to young people, including eco-friendly options.

You need to Login or Register to bookmark/favorite this content.

Review and ratings independently compiled by Colin Hill, Supported by Crown House Publishing

It has been claimed that the emphasis on academic education is alienating a generation of children and that policy-makers should offer alternative education to young people who thrive doing vocational courses. Building a curriculum within any school community is an opportunity to reflect aspirations, futures and demands needed within society, but the straight-jacketed approach will not suit all individuals all the time. With a perceived approach focused on incessant assessment, pressure on schools and standardised approaches, it is clear that any enjoyment of learning can easily be lost for the sake of results. So, is there any hope?

Fortunately, there is hope. And with many schools wondering how they can build a curriculum model that meets the demands of government policy as well as the needs of the children and communities they serve, Debra Kidd has produced a book that illustrates how teachers and school leaders can deliver learning experiences that genuinely link knowledge to life.

In her book, Debra argues that a strong curriculum that supports the growth of children should have five core elements: coherence, credibility, creativity, compassion, and community. Central to Kidd’s argument is that when these pillars are in place they shouldn’t demand a great deal of extra work for teachers and schools. In fact, admirably, pedagogy is at the heart of this book as a means of empowering children in developing key skills and learning.

In ‘The pedagogy of power’ chapter, The reader is reminded of the power of stories, in particular by adding a pivot to a story that brings students in, directly. Calling upon further reading and research, the argument here is that stories sit within the framework of what can be called our cognitive tools, Engaging body, emotion, intellect and imagination that creates a powerful web in which we can trap learning and memory. Alongside stories, Debra also reminds us about the power of play within education – an opportunity often neglected as children grow older – along also with the power of movement.

As the book progresses, Debra Kidd also encourages that schools find coherence across the curriculum, including encouraging secondary schools to consider linking concepts across subjects. Attention is not only given towards the curriculum demands within England, but specific consideration is given to teachers and the challenges set on educators in Wales, as the new ‘Curriculum for Wales’ comes into force in 2022. It is clear that the author is enthused by this new opportunity in Wales with a curriculum that is underpinned by an ethical frame bound up with the idea that education should seek to empower students to be active citizens who will change the world and their futures. Comparisons are also made to other international jurisdictions, but the essence of the book is bound in offering the five core elements shared earlier. As the book concludes: Hope lives in trust; in agency; in curiosity; in vulnerability; in community, and; in play. Now that is something to be hopeful for.

*RRP – Price correct at time of publication.

You need to Login or Register to bookmark/favorite this content.

Following the recent withdrawal of standardised assessments, children with intellectual disabilities at special schools in the UK are again being treated differently to children at mainstream schools, says a new study from researchers at The Open University.

Published in Disability & Society, the peer-reviewed research shows there is currently no national progress levels for children with severe or profound intellectual disabilities – meaning teachers have no standardized way of tracking the development of students in both academic and non-academic learning areas.

As in many countries, the intellectual and academic progress of pupils at UK schools is assessed using standardised, nationwide tests given at specific ages (for primary school pupils in the UK, these tests are given at age seven and 11). But these tests are not suitable for pupils with severe intellectual disabilities being taught in special schools, as these pupils will be operating far below the levels being tested.

Because pupils with severe intellectual disabilities should still make progress over time, their progress needs to be assessed just like pupils in mainstream schools, both to determine what kind of continuing support they need and to show at what level a pupil is working if they change schools. Until recently, the progress of children with severe intellectual disabilities was determined via standardised assessments known as Pre-National Curriculum Performance Levels, or P-levels, which were specially designed for pupils working below the level of the standard tests and assessments.

In 2016, however, a review of P-levels concluded they were no longer fit for purpose because they were too restricted and limited to assess the complex difficulties associated with many children in special schools. This caused the UK government to discontinue P-levels for all but pupils with the most profound intellectual disabilities and instead ask special schools to develop their own assessment programmes.

According to lead researcher Elizabeth Smith, although this move did allow schools to tailor their assessments to the specific needs and abilities of their pupils, it has also created lots of problems and placed extra burdens on the schools. She and her colleagues argue that these downsides have not been properly considered.

“While some teachers welcome the chance to re-organise or design a new curriculum and associated assessments, many teachers are left perplexed and exasperated by the fact that they have no statutory guidelines or framework to work with and are expected to create their own,” says Smith.

“And if schools are creating their own assessments, how can they ensure these systems are not just viewpoints or opinions but are valid assessment frameworks grounded in theory? With each school creating their own assessments, it will also be difficult for them to know at what level a pupil joining from a different school is working at.”

Smith and her colleagues further argue that the abandonment of P-levels shows that special schools and their pupils are still viewed and treated very differently.

“This would never happen in mainstream schools, so why are special schoolteachers being left to cope with all this extra work without the time and resources to do so?” she says.

“Despite governments’ policies promoting equality amongst all children and the need for inclusion of all, children in special schools are again being treated as ‘other’.”

You need to Login or Register to bookmark/favorite this content.

The gap between children with the highest and lowest socio-emotional skills has increased over the past three decades, and the socio-economic status of mothers is a significant contributing factor, according to a new UCL study.

The study, published in the Journal of Public Economics, compares the socio-emotional skills of two cohorts of children born in England 30 years apart and shows for the first time that inequality in these early skills has increased.

Researchers from UCL Economics analyzed data from 9,545 people born in 1970 from the British Cohort Study (BCS) and 5,572 people born in 2000-2002 from the Millennium Cohort Study (MCS). The data was collected at the UCL Centre for Longitudinal Studies, part of UCL Institute of Education.

Associate Professor Gabriella Conti (UCL Economics, UCL Centre for Longitudinal Studies and IFS), corresponding author on the study said: “We found that inequality in socio-emotional skills at five years of age was lower among children born in the 1970s than among those born in the 2000s. For example, the difference between children of more and less educated mothers, or of mothers who smoked during pregnancy and those who didn’t, was greater among those born in the 2000s compared to those born in the 1970s.”

The researchers also show that these socio-emotional skills measured at age five, an earlier age than in most of the existing literature, are significant predictors of unhealthy behaviours later in life, such as smoking or having a higher BMI.

Socio-emotional skills are defined as ‘internalising’ and ‘externalising’ skills, the former relating to the child’s ability to focus their drive and determination and the latter relating to interpersonal skills. A child with high externalising skills exhibits less restless and hyperactive behaviour, and has less anti-social conduct, while a child with better internalising skills is less solitary, neurotic, and worried.

Professor Conti added: “Our findings highlight the role of inequalities in the early years for the process of individual development and health outcomes across someone’s life. For example, we find that children with better externalizing skills are less likely to smoke in adolescence. Showing that these early skills are predictive of different outcomes later provides a key rationale for the role of early intervention in reducing life course inequalities.”

The research shows that the gap in the socio-emotional skills of children between the 90th percentile and the 10th percentile has increased substantially in thirty years; the increase is particularly pronounced for boys, for whom the gap has increased by 19% for externalizing skills and by 30% for internalizing skills.

While maternal education and behavior is an important determinant of children socioemotional skills in both cohorts, the benefit of having a mother with higher levels of education and are in employment is significantly larger for both boys and girls in the most recent cohort. The inequality has also increased between children of mothers who smoked during pregnancy and those who didn’t.

The researchers suggest that significant societal changes account for the increases inequality. The average age of women having children has increased by approximately three years from 26 to 29 years old, the proportion of women in employment has increased from 42% to 62%, and the proportion of unmarried mothers has increased dramatically, from 5% in the BCS to 36% in the MCS.

Co-author on the study, Professor Orazio Attanasio (Yale University and IFS, formerly UCL Economics) commented: “Different factors explain the rise in inequality of children’s socio-emotional skills. For example, mothers are having children at an older age, when they are more engaged in the labour market which we find matters for socio-emotional skills. But mothers are also more likely to be unmarried at birth, which might be associated with a more stressful lifestyle. Changes in these factors explain about half of the cross-cohort increase in inequality when it comes to a child’s externalizing skills.”

Co-author on the study, Professor Richard Blundell (UCL Economics and IFS), said: “The methodology that we apply in this paper is likely to be relevant in many other settings, for example when measuring trends in inequality in other dimensions (such as satisfaction, mental health or well-being) whose measurement might have changed over time.

“The ultimate goal of such research would be to uncover how much inequalities in early human development contribute to income, wealth and health inequalities later in life. The present paper constitutes the first step towards such an endeavour.”

More information: Orazio Attanasio et al. Inequality in socio-emotional skills: A cross-cohort comparison, Journal of Public Economics (2020). DOI: 10.1016/j.jpubeco.2020.104171

You need to Login or Register to bookmark/favorite this content.

Current restrictions on group sizes will be lifted to allow schools, colleges and nurseries to fully reopen to all children and young people, as Covid-19 infection rates continue to fall.

Covid-19 secure measures will remain in place to reduce the risk of transmission, with schools being asked to keep children in class or year group sized ‘bubbles’ and encourage older children to keep their distance from each other and staff where possible. This is alongside protective measures such as regular cleaning and handwashing.

Where there is a positive case in a school or college, the Public Health England local health protection team will advise on the appropriate action, which could include small groups of young people and staff being asked to self-isolate for up to 14 days. Where there are two or more confirmed cases in a two-week period, health protection teams may ask a larger number of other children or young people to self-isolate at home as a precautionary measure.

Where an outbreak in a school is confirmed, for specific detailed investigations a mobile testing unit may be dispatched to test others who may have been in contact with the person who has tested positive. Testing will first focus on the person’s class, followed by their year group, then the whole school if necessary.

All staff, pupils and their families will continue to have access to testing if they develop Covid-19 symptoms and schools will be provided with easy to use home testing kits for children and staff who would otherwise be unable to get a test.

Schools will be expected to have plans in place to offer remote education to pupils who are self-isolating.

For nurseries, childminders, and other early years providers, restrictions on group sizes will be lifted from 20 July, increasing capacity from the start of the summer holiday.

Education Secretary Gavin Williamson said:

I know these past three months have been some of the most challenging that schools have faced. What they have achieved to make sure that young people are kept safe and can continue to learn during this period is remarkable, and I am incredibly grateful for that.

Nothing can replace being in the classroom, so ever since schools, colleges and nurseries closed to most children, we have been working hard to ensure they can reopen as soon as possible. We have already seen more than 1.5 million children and young people return, but we must make sure all pupils can go back to school in September, giving them the opportunity to thrive and fulfill their potential.

I want to reassure parents and families that we are doing everything we can to make sure schools, nurseries, colleges and other providers are as safe as possible for children and staff, and will continue to work closely with the country’s best scientific and medical experts to ensure that is the case.

The guidance published today (2 July) provides schools, colleges and nurseries with the details needed to plan for a full return, as well as reassuring parents about what to expect for their children. The guidance has been developed in close consultation with the sector and medical experts from Public Health England.

Deputy Chief Medical Officer, Dr. Jenny Harries, said:

Thanks to the hard work of everyone, including our teachers and all school staff, there has been a decline in the rate of COVID-19 transmission in our communities.

A child’s education is essential to their healthy development – we know that missing too much school can have a negative impact on children’s mental and physical wellbeing.

Everybody wants children to be safe and thankfully as we have learned more about COVID-19, the evidence has shown that the risk of severe disease in children is low. However, although the number of COVID-19 cases has declined, it is still in general circulation – so it important we ensure schools implement sensible precaution to reduce potential transmission of COVID-19 and minimise any risk to teachers and their pupils.

Schools will need to work with families to secure full attendance from the start of the new academic year, with the reintroduction of mandatory attendance.

To ensure pupils can catch up on lost learning, schools will be required to resume teaching a broad and balanced curriculum in all subjects, making use of existing flexibilities to create time to address gaps in knowledge. Schools should consider how all subjects can contribute to filling gaps in core knowledge.

This will help pupils catch up and will work alongside the financial support provided to primary and secondary schools through the Government’s £1 billion Covid catch-up package. This is on top of the £14 billion that we are investing in schools over the next three years.

Exams will take place in 2021 and Ofqual is consulting on arrangements for those exams, including measures to mitigate any impact on pupils from time out of school.

Alongside this, Ofsted will carry out visits to schools in the autumn term to discuss how they are supporting the return to education for their pupils, with routine inspections planned to restart in January 2021.

Nurseries and other early years providers, including childminders, have already been welcoming back children of all ages since 1 June, with a range of protective measures in place. From 20 July, restrictions on group sizes for nurseries, childminders and other early years providers will be lifted, increasing capacity for more children to return, as set out in updated guidance published today.

The schools guidance sets out a range of measures to protect children and staff. This guidance applies to all mainstream schools, alternative provision, independent schools and boarding schools and sets out advice on how they can minimise contact and mixing. Separate guidance has also been published for special schools.

Schools should implement class or year sized bubbles, as well as encouraging staff and pupils, where they are able, to keep their distance from each other and avoiding touching. All schools should work to implement other policies in line with their own risk assessment and in a way that ensures pupils can be taught a broad and balanced curriculum. Other measures set out in the guidance include:

• teachers to distance from each other and older students where possible
• increasing the frequency of cleaning
• reducing the use of frequently shared items
• minimising contact in corridors

You need to Login or Register to bookmark/favorite this content.

• Ministers in London move to address concerns about how GCSE and A-Level results have been awarded.
• The move is in response to the u-turn announced in Scotland, that unfairly reduced results for pupils from more disadvantaged backgrounds.
• Now, for students in England, pupils can apply to have their mock exam grade awarded, or attend an autumn exam.
• Minister says: This triple lock system will help provide reassurance to students and ensure they are able to progress with the next stage of their lives.
• Worries will still evident for students and their parents about attending the next stage of their education based on the initial results.

Following the u-turn and outcry over exam results in Scotland, UK Ministers have announced an extraordinary move to prevent criticism on how GCSE and A-Level scores in England have been awarded.

Under an urgent revision, the UK government has now announced that students could receive the higher result out of their calculated grade, valid mock grade, or autumn exam grade to ‘bolster fairness’.

Ofqual has been asked to determine how and when valid mock results can be used to calculate grades.

All outcomes will hold the same value for universities, colleges and employers, building on the significant number of students who will still progress as a result of their calculated grades. Similar arrangements will apply to vocational and technical qualifications.

The move comes as the Government also announces an extensive support package for all schools, colleges and further education providers to run a full exam series in the autumn.

Reacting to pressure from his cabinet colleagues, Education Secretary Gavin Williamson said:

Every young person waiting for their results wants to know they have been treated fairly. By ensuring students have the safety net of their mock results, as well as the chance of sitting autumn exams, we are creating a triple lock process to ensure confidence and fairness in the system.

No one wanted to cancel exams – they are the best form of assessment, but the disruption caused by Covid-19 meant they were not possible.

This triple lock system will help provide reassurance to students and ensure they are able to progress with the next stage of their lives.

The move might quell immediate initial concerns, but worries will still be evident for students and their parents about attending the next stage of their education. It is hoped that colleges and universities will show some grade flexibility in the offers that were made before the COVID-19 pandemic.

Any appeals for awarding different grades must be made by schools directly.

The Council for the Curriculum, Examinations and Assessment (CCEA) in Northern Ireland said it would ensure that GCSE, A and AS level standards were maintained. Schools can use mock exam results and some completed units of GCSEs in appeals if they felt a pupil had been given the wrong grade.

You need to Login or Register to bookmark/favorite this content.

• New guidance issued for England schools supporting the teaching of relationships, sex and health curriculum.
• All pupils should receive teaching on lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) relationships during their school years.
• Secondary schools should include LGBT content in their teaching.
• Primary schools are strongly encouraged, and enabled, when teaching about different types of family, to include families with same-sex parents.
• The guidance includes support on building a school policy, required for inspection purposes.

New statutory guidance issued by the Department for Education this week has outlined updated requirements for the teaching of a relationship, sex and health curriculum for schools in England.

Schools will be required to teach:

• relationships education (all primary aged pupils)
• relationships and sex education (RSE) (all secondary aged pupils)
• health education (all pupils in state-funded schools only)

Once inspections return, Ofsted will evaluate the provision for relationships education, relationships and sex education and health education in line with Ofsted’s school inspection handbook and in the context of the updated guidance.

Independent schools are required to teach personal, social, health and economic (PHSE) education.

Sex education at primary school is not compulsory but can be taught if a school decides that it is appropriate to do so.

All pupils should receive teaching on lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) relationships during their school years. Secondary schools should include LGBT content in their teaching. Primary schools are strongly encouraged, and enabled, when teaching about different types of family, to include families with same-sex parents.

The guidance includes information to create an inclusive classroom, taking into account, “what it is like for a diverse range of pupils to be taught about these topics and how individual pupils may relate to particular topics, including complex and sensitive subjects that might personally affect them.”

For primary schools, the guidance advises,

Primary schools are not required to teach sex education but must teach relationships education and have regard to the statutory guidance in full.

DFE, 2020

Schools are also required to produce School Policies covering what is being taught, with consideration to safeguarding, the curriculum and dealing with sensitive issues.

For more information and to read through the guidance, visit the UK government website by clicking here.

You need to Login or Register to bookmark/favorite this content.

The wellbeing and mental health of teachers in England is similar to those in other professions and teachers are less likely to report feelings of ‘low self-worth’, according to new research from academics at the UCL Institute of Education.

uch a large number of teachers to other professional groups, found that teachers had similar levels of anxiety, unhappiness and life satisfaction to other professional groups.

Overall, the study found that 22% of secondary and 20% of primary teachers were unhappy, compared to figures of 21% and 23% for demographically similar individuals working in other professional jobs. Relatively few primary (5%) and secondary (7%) teachers had low levels of self-worth, compared to around 11% for other professional workers.

The situation was even brighter for headteachers, who were found to be happier, have higher levels of life-satisfaction and were more likely to feel that their life is worthwhile than other occupational groups.

Co-author of the study, Professor John Jerrim (UCL Social Research Institute) added: “A myth seems to have emerged that teachers have worse mental health and lower levels of wellbeing than other groups. Our study provides clear, comprehensive evidence that this simply isn’t true. On the whole, teachers have similar levels of wellbeing to other professional employees.”

Co-author, Dr. Sam Sims (UCL Centre of Education Policy and Equalising Opportunities) added: “We should be encouraging graduates into the teaching profession, and not lead them to believe becoming a teacher is bad for your mental health. Like all jobs, teaching has its challenges—but not the excessively bad picture we sometimes hear about.”

Of the other professional groups included in the study, authors and writers, graphic designers, journalists and solicitors were found to be amongst the most anxious and with the lowest levels of reported self-worth.

On the other hand, accountants, IT professionals and Human Resources (HR) workers were amongst the happiest, least anxious and with high levels of life satisfaction.

The researchers note that the data they used in the analysis was collected before the COVID-19 pandemic hit the UK. It is not yet known at a detailed level how this has affected the wellbeing of different occupational groups.

Cheryl Lloyd, Education Programme Head at the Nuffield Foundation said: “By helping us to better understand the well-being and mental health of teachers compared to other professions over the past decade, this research can inform how we talk about teaching as a career path. However, it remains important to identify the causes of work-related anxiety and to offer mental health support to existing and new school leaders and teachers. Indeed, as previous research from this project has shown, anxiety has increased amongst headteachers since lockdown.”

Researchers based their analysis upon data gathered from 11 large-scale surveys collected over the last decade. Within these surveys, teachers and other professionals were asked questions about their wellbeing and mental health. This included subjective measures, as well as some surveys about the prescription of anti-depressant medication. The study authors analysed this large amount of data to provide the largest and most comprehensive assessment of how the mental health and wellbeing of teachers compare to other professional groups to date.

More information: John Jerrim et al. How does the mental health and wellbeing of teachers compare to other professions? Evidence from eleven survey datasets, Review of Education (2020). DOI: 10.1002/rev3.3228

You need to Login or Register to bookmark/favorite this content.

Amid the Coronavirus pandemic with schools and colleges closing their doors in many societies, the education inspectorate of England has shared – what they think – is some useful advice for leaders and teachers, aimed at helping them develop their remote education offer.

Within the guidance, myths and explanations are shared about what remote learning is, along with seven factors that educators need to consider:

1. Remote education is a way of delivering the curriculum
2. Keep it simple
3. When adapting the curriculum, focus on the basics
4. Feedback, retrieval practice and assessment are more important than ever
5. The medium matters (a bit)
6. Live lessons aren’t always best
7. Engagement matters, but is only the start

Further explanations, guidance and resources are also offered, along with setting out that the remote education curriculum should be aligned to the classroom curriculum as much as possible, and carefully sequenced to ensure pupils obtain the building blocks they need to move on to the next step. It suggests that whether learning is delivered through worksheets, textbooks, or via an online platform, it is a good idea to keep resources simple and straightforward to use.

Within England, from 18 January, Ofsted will resume monitoring inspections of schools judged to be inadequate at their previous inspection, as well as some schools graded ‘requires improvement’. Monitoring inspections look at the progress a school is making and encourage improvement. Unlike full inspections, they will not result in a grade.

Inspectors will look at how well schools are educating pupils in the current circumstances – which for most pupils means being educated remotely. Unlike during the first lockdown last year, the government has set a clear expectation that schools must provide remote education, so pupils can continue to learn away from the classroom.

Inspections will be carried out in line with the operational note published in December. A new framework for inspecting remote education is not required, as inspectors will be looking at it as part of the overall quality of education.

Inspectors will consider the school’s remote learning provision, to give reassurance to parents. They will also consider any complaints made by parents about remote education, to help resolve issues and make sure children are being well-served. If parents feel their child’s school is not providing suitable remote education, they should first raise their concerns with the teacher or headteacher. If issues are not resolved, they can report the matter to Ofsted.

You need to Login or Register to bookmark/favorite this content.

A fear of poor SATs results is driving headteachers to separate pupils by ability despite the impact on children’s self-esteem and confidence, according to a study by researchers from UCL published in the peer-reviewed British Journal of Sociology of Education.

The findings, based on a survey of nearly 300 principals of primary schools in England, provide new evidence of a high-stakes culture around testing where some pupils are prioritised above others and physically segregated from them. 

More than a third (35%) of headteachers said SATs were the reason for grouping children into different ability sets for English, and just under half (47%) for maths, according to the results which also include in-depth interviews with school principals. 

Other practices adopted by schools include targeting resources at pupils on the borderline of passing SATs at the expense of ‘hopeless’ cases. The most significant finding was the growth of ‘intervention’ sessions where children are removed from normal lessons or playtime to plug gaps in their learning and be ‘fixed’ academically. 

The authors warn that these approaches are part of a ‘potentially damaging’ system where some children are made to feel inferior and which raises questions about how groupings ‘might exacerbate inequalities’. 

A debate is needed, they say, about the consequences for primary school children of high-pressured learning assessments, and also for staffing and resources.

“These forms of disciplinary power are encouraged by the disciplinary function of SATs themselves,” says Dr Alice Bradbury from UCL Institute of Education.

“They place pressure on headteachers to prioritise results over the broader purposes of education.

“The SATs are in themselves a practice of division, designating children as at age related expectation (ARE) or not. This binary between success and failure, passing or failing, is a brutal division of children at age 11. 

“Early evidence from teachers suggests that there is a strong desire for change following the (Covid) crisis, including the removal of testing.”

Standard Assessment Tests (SATs) are used to assess a child’s educational progress and form the basis of school league tables. The most significant (Key Stage 2) take place in May of the final year of primary education (year 6). For this type of testing, the focus of recent research has been largely international, not on how schools in England are affected or on headteachers’ views.

This study involved an online survey from March to June 2019 of 288 heads about the impact of SATs in general and on issues such as staffing and extracurricular sessions. Comprehensive interviews were also conducted with 20 headteachers at a range of schools across England. 

Education leaders at faith schools, academies and community primary schools were among those who took part, with ‘good’ the most common Ofsted rating. 

The research focused on the impact on teachers and children from assessment policies which put pressure on schools. 

The findings showed evidence of three approaches towards separating children in relation to SATs. The first was dividing by ability into sets, despite what the authors say is ‘increasing evidence of the disadvantages’. In some schools, pupils physically moved from their normal class to different rooms/teachers, and some were even streamed permanently.

Several heads expressed concern about putting children in sets and some rejected the practice. One headteacher commented that ‘pupils get into a psyche of failure because they’ve always been in the bottom set’. 

Another approach which was commonplace involved ‘booster’ sessions – singling out children on the cusp of achieving a benchmark SAT grade. These are a feature of educational ‘triage’ where students are sorted into who will fail, pass with help, or succeed without extra support.

The authors also identified a new variant of this triage system which they say has been triggered by the ‘increasing complexity of school league tables’. These involved pupils on the borderline of reaching ‘greater depth’ (above the expected level for year 6) who are given special support, for example, before school and during holidays. 

The final practice was what the authors call ‘intervention culture’ where some pupils are withdrawn from normal lessons to resolve ‘gaps’ in their learning. They say this intensifies division by excluding those children in need of additional help from other parts of the curriculum. 

The authors acknowledge that divisions created by these practices would not disappear entirely without SATs, which are currently suspended because of the pandemic. However, they suggest these tests might be replaced with ‘more nuanced ways of understanding a child’s attainment’. They add: “There can be no triage or ‘cusp’ if there is no benchmark to judge them by.”

You need to Login or Register to bookmark/favorite this content.

The latest review draws on our education inspection framework (EIF) and other religious education (RE) literature to identify what contributes to high-quality RE curriculum, assessment, pedagogy and systems in schools where we inspect RE.

Click here to read the RE research review.

The review recognises that there is no single way of constructing and teaching a high-quality RE curriculum. However, it does identify some common features:

• The curriculum should cover substantive content and concepts collectively (or ‘collectively enough’), rather than covering excessive amounts of content superficially. Content is sufficient for pupils to grasp a bigger picture about the place of religion and non-religion in the world.
• What is taught and learned in RE is grounded in what is known about religion or non-religion from academic study. This helps prevent pupils from developing misconceptions about religion and non-religion.
• Pupils study certain areas of the RE curriculum in depth and acquire a range of detailed knowledge of different concepts and ideas, which they remember long term. Drawing on this prior knowledge enables them to consider more complex ideas about religion. Leaders and teachers select this ‘depth of study’ from contrasting religious and/or non-religious traditions so that pupils avoid developing misrepresentations.
• The curriculum is well sequenced to ensure that pupils learn the knowledge they need for later topics.
• There is a consideration of when pupils should relate the content to their own personal knowledge (for example, their own prior assumptions).
• How the curriculum is taught and assessed focuses pupils’ attention squarely on the knowledge they need to learn.
• Adequate curriculum time is given to RE, so that leaders can deliver an ambitious curriculum.
• There is sufficient training and professional development so that teachers have appropriate subject professional knowledge.

The review refers to 3 different types of subject-specific knowledge that pupils learn in RE. Each of these is powerful and should not be confused with ‘mere facts’. The first is ‘substantive’ knowledge about various religious and non-religious traditions. The second type is ‘ways of knowing’, where pupils learn ‘how to know’ about religion and non-religion. The third type is ‘personal knowledge’, where pupils build an awareness of their own presuppositions and values about what they study. The review suggests that improvement in RE at both primary and secondary level includes knowing more of these ‘pillars of progression’. This prepares pupils to engage in a complex, multi-religious and multi-secular world.

In the spring term of 2022, we will be publishing a report on the quality of RE curriculums taught in schools. We will gather the evidence for this through subject ‘deep dives’ during inspections under the EIF.

To find out more about Ofsted’s curriculum work, read the principles behind the research reviews and subject reports.

You need to Login or Register to bookmark/favorite this content.

Supported by Crown House Publishing

Sometimes a book will land on the desks of the UKEd team sparking curiosity, and although we know not to judge a book by its cover, the title of this book caught a lot of attention as the title itself made us wonder how this specialised medical field related to education. As any quick search on the internet will tell you: Obstetrics is the field of study concentrated on pregnancy, childbirth, and the postpartum period. Hence the curiosity among the team.

But no – this is no book about pregnancy and childbirth. It is a book that presents a powerful manifesto for school leaders and teachers setting out how they can bridge the advantage gap and deliver positive outcomes for all pupils. The author’s – Rachel Macfarlane – main concern is about disadvantage and closing the gaps in education. Starting with a quote from Marcus Rashford, Rachel sets out that the book is about righting wrongs and offers a grim set of statistics highlighting the educational disadvantages to groups of young people that negatively impact on their lives and the wider society they grow into. So, why the reference to obstetrics within the title? Rachel justifies the title by referring to the child mortality rates of the 1800s, which were so alarmingly high that something had to be done about it. As a result, the link between the high rates of educational underachievement are made, therefore requiring similar political action, educational transformation and creating opportunities to inspire our younger generations.

Each chapter of the book focuses on a key potential barrier to success and offers school leaders and practitioners a range of strategies to help dismantle them. Calls to build strong relationships with students, acknowledging the importance of relationships and the role of leaders in developing relationships is highlighted early on. Attention to positive and supportive climates and cultures in classrooms that will determine outcomes for young people. Similarly, attention is given to impactful parental engagement as well as creating an environment of high-quality teaching and learning. The book also provides guidance on strategic planning, as well as a variety of ideas and inspiration for staff training.

Rachel also highlights the importance of metacognition and self-regulation (see details here about our 5* rated online Metacognition Teaching Strategy here), offering reflections, audits and explanations on how to start exploring this impactful approach to teaching and learning. Of concern in recent years has been the poor levels of oracy that are evident when children embark on their schooling, and the importance of supporting learning to develop critical oracy skills. The book also explores poverty-proofing your school, developing cultural capital, and preparing learners for successful transitions. However, none of these strategies will work unless we get to the root of the problem. Rachel offers four key steps required for an impactful action plan:

1. Showing clarity about the barriers faced by learners.
2. Agreeing objectives, targets, success criteria and milestones.
3. Designing an effective implementation plan.
4. Reviewing, evaluating, adapting and re-implementing.

So no, this is not a book about childbirth and pregnancy, but it is an important book that highlights the disturbing educational disadvantage gaps evident in the England education system. The book concludes that staff in schools need to recognise the barriers which are placed in the way of our young people succeeding, and believing in the potential of all learners to achieve outcomes that may exceed the expectations of themselves, their families, and their communities.

The book is essential reading for school leaders and teachers at all levels of education, and although the book focuses on England’s education system, there are clear messages which are applicable to school systems in other countries.

*RRP – Correct at time of review publication

You need to Login or Register to bookmark/favorite this content.

The review draws on Ofsted’s (England’s inspection regime) education inspection framework (EIF) and other literature to identify factors that can contribute to a high-quality maths curriculum, assessment, pedagogy and systems. We will use these findings to examine how maths is taught in England’s schools, before publishing a report about what we have learned in the autumn.

Click here to read the maths research review.

English pupils, on average, gain higher attainment in maths than pupils in many other countries, and mathematics continues to be the most popular subject to study at A level. However, the attainment gap between the lowest and highest achievers is wider than the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) average. Likewise, disadvantaged pupils in England are much less likely to achieve a grade 4 at GCSE, or to meet the expected standards at the end of the early years foundation stage (EYFS), or at key stages 1 and 2.

In addition to highlighting approaches that could raise the attainment of all pupils, a core theme of the maths review is how to prevent struggling pupils from falling further behind their peers.

There are a variety of ways that schools can construct and teach a good maths curriculum, and Ofsted recognises that there is no singular way of achieving high-quality education in the subject. However, the review identifies some common features of successful, high-quality curriculum approaches:

• Teachers engineer the best possible start for all pupils by closing the school entry gap in knowledge of basic mathematical facts, concepts, vocabulary and symbols.
• The teaching of maths facts and methods is sequenced to take advantage of the way that knowing those facts helps pupils to learn methods, and vice versa.
• Throughout sequences of learning, pupils benefit from teaching that is systematic and clear.
• The aim is for pupils to attain proficiency. Pupils are then more likely to develop motivation and confidence in the subject.
• Pupils need regular opportunities to rehearse and apply the important mathematical facts, concepts, methods and strategies they have learned.
• Assessment is most useful when it focuses on the component knowledge that pupils have learned. This aids pupils’ confidence and makes it easier to analyse and respond to gaps in learning.
• Teachers can support pupils’ progression by ensuring written work is of a high quality. This is important because when pupils’ calculations are systematic and orderly, they are better able to see the connections of number and to spot errors.
• School leaders can develop teachers’ subject and pedagogic knowledge through opportunities to work with and learn from each other.

Her Majesty’s Chief Inspector, Amanda Spielman, said:

Mathematics is an integral part of every school curriculum. It is a foundation of many disciplines and a source of interest and enjoyment in itself. It also unlocks the door to further study and employment in a vast range of fields.

However, for too many children and young people, maths is mysterious and difficult, and this has implications not just for their future attainment, but also for their self-esteem. Our education inspection framework is clear that schools should ensure the maths curriculum is designed to help pupils to gain increasing mathematical proficiency and build confidence in their ability.

We hope this review is useful to school leaders and teachers as they continue to design and develop their maths curriculum.

The review emphasises the idea of engineering pupils’ success in maths, underpinned by systems thinking. This type of approach will seek to transform an offer of content into a guarantee that content can and will be learned.

The review concludes that variation in the quality of mathematics education in England is likely to be the result of the absence of systems and systems thinking, as well as possible gaps in content, instruction, rehearsal, assessment and the plans for their evolution over time.

To find out more about Ofsted’s curriculum work, read the principles behind the research reviews and subject reports.

You need to Login or Register to bookmark/favorite this content.