Too early to say?
The new duty on schools to secure access to independent and impartial careers guidance only began in September 2012 . The government believes that it important that sufficient time is allowed for the duty to bed in before any firm conclusions are drawn about the effectiveness of the new arrangements. Lord Nash recently indicated in the Lords (22 April) that ‘We are evaluating the impact of the new duty in a range of formal and informal ways.’
The Government have also commissioned Ofsted to carry out a thematic review of careers guidance, which will report this summer.
In addition, according to Lord Nash, the government is ‘publishing education destination measures to show the percentage of students progressing to further education or training in a school, further education or sixth form college, apprenticeship, employment or higher education institution. The measures provide us with evidence of how effective schools are in supporting pupils to move successfully into the next phase or their education or into sustainable work, including through the provision of independent careers guidance.’
Ministers and officials meet and correspond regularly with a range of stakeholders on issues relating to the delivery of careers provision in schools, says Lord Nash, which is true, but Ministers are not taking on board what stakeholders and the experts are telling them. No independent report from a reputable source on government reforms to careers advice and guidance in schools has endorsed government policy in this area and international evidence suggests that school based advice is the least effective (see the research from Professor Tony Watts and OECD). There are grave concerns too that only limited access to face to face advice is being offered to pupils which may have a negative effect on the social mobility, access, skills and inclusion agendas. Evidence suggests that the most appropriate form of advice for disadvantaged pupils is face to face advice from an independent fully qualified professional.
The government defends its policy by saying that it trusts in school autonomy. Schools themselves must make these decisions. But schools are not as autonomous as the government would have us believe. The government through its individual funding agreements with academies, for example, prescribes what schools have to do in certain areas . And if schools believe that they are autonomous when it comes to the way they use their extra funding for disadvantaged pupils, through the pupil premium, then they ought to look very carefully at recent speeches from the schools minister, David Laws and Sir Michael Wilshaw of Ofsted.
Lord Nash is confident that the government has detailed enough evidence ‘relating to the effectiveness of school-based careers guidance to inform future improvements in the quality of provision,’ while concurrently telling us that there is not yet enough evidence to gauge whether the new school- based service has bedded in. You dont need to be a rocket scientist to work out that schools, under budgetary pressure, will go for, the most part, for the cheapest option, and that is not face to face advice.
It will be particularly interesting to see what Ofsted has to say in its thematic review. However, there are no plans to make a specific graded judgement on the quality of careers guidance in respect of the school inspection framework and the common inspection framework.
THE PUPIL PREMIUM AND SPECIAL SCHOOLS
A range of policies, for example the introduction of the Pupil Premium, SEN reforms, and the expansion of the academies programme have a particular focus on those pupils left behind currently. The well-known attainment gap at GCSE level is between those who receive free school meals and those who do not—36% of pupils in receipt of free school meals achieved five or more A* to C grades at GCSE, compared with 63% of all other pupils.
The pupil premium is allocated for pupils who are currently eligible or who have been eligible in the past six years for free school meals, children who have been continuously looked after for at least six months, and children whose parents are serving in the Armed Forces. In the financial year 2012-13, the pupil premium was allocated at a rate of £623 per pupil and the service child premium was allocated at a rate of £250 per pupil. The pupil premium will increase to £900 per pupil and the service child premium will increase to £300 per pupil in the 2013-14 financial year. That said there are still significant numbers of children living in poverty who are simply not picked up by the free school meals measure, and therefore they and their schools lose out on the valuable support that the pupil premium could give to them.
But what about what about Special schools and PRU pupils?
Lord Nash, replying to a PQ on 10 April, said ‘Pupil premium grant is allocated to each local authority in respect of eligible pupils in maintained special schools, pupil referral units (PRUs) and alternative provision (ie attending schools not maintained by the authority for which the authority is paying full tuition fees, plus all pupils educated otherwise than in schools under arrangements made by the authority).Pupil premium grant in respect of pupils in these settings can be allocated to the setting where the child is being educated or held by the local authority to spend specifically on additional education support to raise the pupil’s standard of attainment.’
In its report “Fair and Square,” the Children’s Society found that some 700,000 children living in poverty are not entitled to receive free school meals, in the majority of cases simply because their parents are working. As six in 10 children in poverty live in working families, some believe there is an urgent need to address the situation of those children who do not happen to qualify for free school meals yet grow up in circumstances just as grim as many who do.
Over a third of young people are interested in just ten occupations
Reinforces the case for access to good independent careers advice
A paper out last month asks a simple question: is there any alignment between the career aspirations of young people, aged between 13 and 18, and the best estimates of actual demand within the current and future British labour market?
The paper says ‘The question is relevant to young people, employers and the UK’s future prosperity. The question is pertinent to young people who make important decisions about their future at ages 14, 16 and 18. Such decisions, about subject options chosen or dropped and experience sought, gained or missed are essential to the ultimate prospects of young people in the jobs market. This paper asks, therefore, whether teenagers, as they make these decisions, do so with career aspirations in mind which reflect realistic opportunities in the world of work. The short answer is they don’t.
Emma Norris’s 2011 report for the Royal Society of Arts engaged 30 staff members and 32 students from four English Further Education Colleges in structured discussion about future decision-making. She found that: ‘students are not fully aware of the diversity of jobs available in different sectors. This leads them to develop aspirations that are neither determined by their ability nor based on a comprehensive understanding of the types of jobs available. …FE learners do not find it easy to access people who have experience of the careers or education they would like to pursue. As a result, their understanding of particular sectors is often restricted to only the most visible roles and jobs, for instance in law – a 4 barrister; in television – an actor. FE learners who decide to pursue law, or broadcasting, consequently direct their energies into attaining the most desirable, competitive and visible jobs in these disciplines as they are the only jobs they know of. (Norris 2011, 16)
A project team from the University of Glasgow reached similar conclusions in 2011.
Considering the attitudes and experiences of 490 pupils in three urban areas (London, Nottingham and Glasgow), the team lead by Ralf St Clair, found little knowledge of available jobs or how to get them: ‘there was little correspondence between the structure of [local] labour markets and young people’s aspirations and expectations. …Parents’ hopes for their children were mainly unspecific as to occupations; there appears to be little awareness of routes to success. …Overall, there seemed to be a common lack of understanding of the ways in which school, post-school education and vocations were linked (St Clair et al, 2011, 58, 64)
A further recent study, also commissioned by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation, reached a similar conclusion.
Loic Menzies’s review of the aspirations of disadvantaged pupils found that they were often high, but that commonly such young people and their parents lacked the knowledge and connections to provide reliable insight into how to achieve career ambitions (Menzies 2013).’ The results support the findings from earlier studies cited above that commonly young people are unable to understand the breadth of ultimate job opportunities across the economy leading them to potentially identify unrealistic career aspirations. From an employer perspective, the findings presented in this paper strongly suggest that labour market signalling is not working. The survey shows 36.3% of teenagers to be interested in just 10 occupations (teacher/lecturer, lawyer, accountant, actor/actress, police, IT consultant, doctor, sportsman/woman, army/navy/airforce/fire fighter, psychologist) and, as stated, half of career interests to lie in just three of 25 broad occupational sectors. While some employers will be spoilt for choice in considering new recruits, others are very likely to be struggling to find young people who are aware of the job opportunities they have to offer and well prepared by their educational choices for them.
Again, this reinforces the case for easy, early access in schools and colleges to high quality, independent careers guidance for teenagers.Ofsted is currently reviewing careers advice in schools but anecdotal evidence from Careers England suggests that the quality and scope of this advice varies dramatically between schools, following recent changes . Face to face advice from a professional is not always easily accessible although this is seen as the most appropriate form of advice for disadvantaged pupils.
Nothing in common: The career aspirations of young Britons mapped against projected labour market demand (2010-2020) Dr Anthony Mann, David Massey, Peter Glover, Elnaz T. Kashefpadkel and James Dawkins March 2013
This report represents the results of a collaboration between b-live, charity the Education and Employers Taskforce and the UK Commission for Employment and Skills. It is published within the Taskforce’s Occasional Research Papers Series.
The Pupil Premium
Government and Ofsted know that how the Pupil Premium is spent by schools really does matter
Total pupil premium funding will rise from £1.25 billion in 2012-13 to £1.875 billion in 2013-14. This will enable the level of funding for the deprivation and looked after child premium to increase to £900 per pupil and the service child premium to increase to £300 per pupil.
Ministers see the Pupil Premium as the means to improve the performance of the most disadvantaged pupils, to address the long tale of underachievement and to close the achievement gap. The achievement gap is the difference in GCSE achievement between the average for pupils who are eligible for free school meals and the average for those who are not.
Research from the Sutton Trust suggests that given that Pupil Premium funding is not ring-fenced (and in a challenging budgetary climate for schools), in many schools the money is being used to fill budget deficits in other areas rather than being spent directly on the children that generated the funding in the first place. Self -evidently this is worrying. An Ofsted report in 2012 also found that only 10% of school leaders said that the Premium had changed the way they worked. And only half of schools said that it was having any positive effect on pupil achievement. Indeed, many schools were not even disaggregating the Pupil Premium from their main budget and were using it to enhance existing provision, rather than doing anything new with this extra funding. Ministers have been loth to intervene because they champion school autonomy.
Schools do now have to publish online information about the amount of pupil premium money the school receives and how it is being spent, as well as its impact. David Laws ,the schools minister, in a speech this month ,also made in very clear that the government will keep an eagle eye on how individual schools, and ,indeed ,chains of schools, are using the pupil premium to help improve outcomes for disadvantaged pupils and to narrow the achievement gap. Most recently Laws said (at the ASCL conference) that schools must focus “relentlessly” on closing the achievement gap. Indeed he ratcheted up the pressure by announcing that schools in England will no longer be rated as “outstanding” by inspectors if they fail to close the attainment gap between poor and affluent children. And Schools must use interventions that are known to work.
This is a sensitive area. When Michael Gove was in opposition he relentlessly attacked the then Labour government for failing to improve the lot of pupils on Free School Meals pointing out that , if anything, their performance, despite significant levels of new investment, had declined and the attainment gap had increased.
Sir Michael Wilshaw is at one with the government in paying greater attention to the premiums use. Inspector’s judgments on schools’ leadership will consider the use of both the premium and other resources to overcome barriers to achievement for their pupils. In his annual report published in November, Sir Michael committed Ofsted to paying particular attention to attainment gaps affecting disadvantaged pupils in schools where they form a minority of less than 20% of all pupils
But not everyone believes that the funds available under the Pupil Premium are sufficient for their purpose. Some critics suggest that the sums allocated for the Premium do not reflect the estimated costs necessary to equalise disadvantaged pupils’ educational needs, with those of their peers (Sibieta, IFS 2009). The OECD (2010) observes that the premium is ‘relatively low in an international perspective and it is not clear that it will cover the extra costs of admitting disadvantaged students. As the OECD notes, this risk of insufficient funding is exacerbated by the counter-incentive of high stakes accountability measures in the UK context.
What does that mean?
In short, League tables and other performance indicators, along with the recently announced rising floor targets, (see David Laws speech) mean that there are very strong potential consequences for schools whose exam achievement dips. Pupils from disadvantaged backgrounds and other vulnerable groups may then be viewed by schools not as a source of much needed extra funding but ,instead ,as a risk. Hence disincentives (driven by accountability measures) may in practice outweigh the pupil premium incentive in admitting such pupils. Indeed, an OECD working paper on reforming education in England (Braconier, 2012,) warns that if the “perceived deprivation funding is lower that schools’ perceived costs, they may engage in ‘cream skimming’, trying to dissuade disadvantaged students and recruit more able students.” This is why some are warning that schools admissions policies, and in particular academies admissions (given their autonomy), should be more carefully monitored. The Government is seeking to improve transparency by publishing data on the progress of individual schools in closing gaps in attainment for FSM pupils; a move welcomed, incidentally, by Braconier (2012).
We know that, historically, there have been some perverse incentives within the accountability framework, particularly league tables. So the government’s efforts to reframe school league tables to mitigate perverse incentives, evident in the current system, is welcomed by many (Laws recent speech was well received). But it remains to be seen what effect this may have on narrowing the achievement gap.
One thing is absolutely clear, though- schools will be held to account for how they use the Pupil Premium and their grade from Ofsted will depend on how much they have managed to close the achievement gap. Empirical evidence about what works is available, and should be used.And there are a number of interventions from which to choose.Rumour has it that technology companies are making big pitches to schools seeking to persuade them that they have what it takes to make a real difference to outcomes . But experts urge caution. Evidence is mixed. Remember use of technology should be driven by learning and teaching goals rather than a specific technology: technology is not an end in itself. And don’t take, at face value, what the salesmen tell you. See past the bells and whistles of a new piece of tech hardware or software and work out exactly what it does to help disadvantaged pupils. And ,crucially, seek independent, ’disinterested’ sources of advice and evidence.
‘Caveat emptor’ ,as Michael Gove might say.
REPORT ON IMPROVING ACCESS TO HIGHER EDUCATION FOCUSES ON DEFICIENCIES IN CAREERS ADVICE AND GUIDANCE IN SCHOOLS
A new report the ‘National Strategy for Access and Student Success; Interim report to the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills by the Higher Education Funding Council for England and the Office for Fair Access identifies, interalia , a major area of concern in relation to easing access to higher education for the most disadvantaged pupils- namely ‘the changes that came into effect in September 2012 to careers education and guidance.’ In short, schools were given statutory responsibility for providing access for their pupils to good quality independent careers guidance.
The report states ‘The Education Act 2011 ends the statutory requirements for local authorities to deliver a universal careers service to young people. Schools have instead been placed under a statutory duty to secure careers advice but have not been given any additional funding to do so. The requirement to provide careers education has also been removed.’ The report then identifies evidence reflecting these concerns. It states ‘A report by the Work Foundation argues that ‘without careers education, careers guidance is reduced to an abrupt and isolated intervention’. They urge that ‘careers education should be embedded in the curriculum as early as primary schools and expanded on with age’
The report continues ‘ In its evidence to the Education Select Committee in October 2012, the Institute of Careers Guidance said of the guidance offered to young people:
a. There is no overall coherence of career guidance provision whatsoever for young people up to 18.
b. For young people in schools, provision is a postcode lottery subject to budgets and head-teachers’ commitment to independent, impartial career guidance.
c. The service in schools is at best restricted in terms of student coverage and limited to the 30 weeks of term-time provision. In the past, students and parents have always appreciated the opportunity to access independent career guidance during school holidays. Now, at these times, it is not possible to access independent career guidance without payment.
d. E-mail correspondence between the Association of South East Colleges and the Skills Funding Agency has highlighted that the National Careers Service website excludes a range of courses offered by colleges of further education that are not funded by the Skills Funding Agency.
e. Young people between 16 and 18 who are in employment but wish to change direction or develop their career prospects do not have access to any independent face-to-face careers guidance service without payment
Furthermore, in its report of 2011, the International Centre for Guidance Studies argued that the situation for schools was challenging as they adapt to the loss of Aimhigher, Business Education Partnerships and the erosion of the Connexions service.
The centre argues that ‘the removal of the statutory duty to provide careers education could result in a focus on “activities” rather than on a developmental curriculum’
Crucially, this National Strategy for Access and Student Success report says in Para 145 pg 51 :
‘ In light of such concerns, we anticipate that the final report may recommend that a greater governmental focus on issues of advice and guidance within schools and colleges will be important in terms of maximising the return on investment in widening participation to HE. The strategy will also explore how HE can most effectively engage in supporting good information, advice and guidance (IAG) concerning HE in schools and colleges in the new environment.’
Experts agree that face to face careers guidance from an independent, qualified professional is, more often than not, the best form of careers advice and this is particularly the case for the most disadvantaged pupils. A number of reports, including those mentioned above, stress the importance of easy access to high quality advice. This will help ensure that pupils are better equipped to make informed choices regarding the pathways into further and higher education , training and work as well as improving access to higher education for the most disadvantaged pupils and in advancing the governments social mobility agenda.While government guidance encourages face to face advice, where appropriate, it is left to schools to decide the type and scope of advice they will offer to their pupils.Given that there is no ring fenced funding for this advice , experts believe that schools, under budgetary pressure ,will opt for cheaper, lower quality forms of advice ie telephone advice and access to advice through a web portal. The new National Careers Service is focused mainly on the needs of adults.
From September 2012, the Education Act 2011 placed schools under a duty to secure access to independent and impartial careers guidance for their pupils in years 9-11. The Careers Guidance in Schools Regulations 2013 will extend the age range to which the duty applies. From September 2013, the duty will be extended to include all registered pupils in year 8 (12-13 year olds) and years 12 and 13 (16-18 year olds).
A CIPD survey this month finds that parents and pupils are not getting sufficient or appropriate advice in schools on Apprenticeship options, which affects their take up and credibility.The survey – Employee Outlook: Focus on Apprenticeships – looked at responses from more than 400 employees with children under the age of 18. It found two-thirds of parents believed apprenticeships were a good career option, yet, only 15 per cent of them thought school teachers gave their children enough information about them as an alternative to a university education.
TOUGH ON CHARACTER
‘How children Succeed’-its not just about cognitive skills
Character is what leads to lasting success
If you do well in exams and pass the tests you are set to succeed in life. Not necessarily. Until recently, most economists and psychologists believed that the most important factor in a child’s success was his or her IQ. This notion is behind the obsession with test scores. Tests, of course, are important, but there is much in a child’s education and learning that cannot be reliably tested. It is also the case that confidence in the testing regime, certainly in England, is at an all time low.And an individual’s non-cognitive abilities are now assuming much greater importance to employers who need them in the workplace
Education policymakers here and in the States have been driven by the need to promote more rigour and robustness in academic standards. Test-based accountability measures have been enacted with the intention of holding schools accountable for reaching these higher standards, measuring pupils cognitive skills. Its nearly all about content knowledge and testable academic skills. But in How Children Succeed, Paul Tough argues that the qualities that matter most for students have more to do with character: skills like perseverance, curiosity, conscientiousness, optimism, and self-control. Economists call these non-cognitive skills. Psychologists call them personality traits. Neuroscientists sometimes use the term ‘ executive functions’. The rest of us often sum them up with the word ‘character’. Tough offers the revolutionary concept that character, unlike DNA, is not fixed or completely innate in a person. It is, in a word that recurs throughout How Children Succeed, malleable.
This is what Tough says’ … the conventional wisdom is that the big problem for low-income kids is that they don’t get enough cognitive stimulation early on. In fact, what seems to have more of an effect is the chaotic environments that many low-income kids grow up in and the often stressful relationships they have with the adults around them. That makes a huge difference in how children’s brains develop, and scientists are now able to trace a direct route from those early negative experiences to later problems in school, health, and behaviour. The problem is that science isn’t yet reflected in the way we run our schools and operate our social safety net. And that’s a big part of why so many low-income kids don’t do well in school. We now know better than ever what kind of help they need to succeed in school. But very few schools are equipped to deliver that help.’
Tough talked about character in a recent interview, citing the KIPP chain of not for profit charter schools and its dedicated founder, David Levin. KIPP schools produce report cards for academic performance but also character assessment. “Dave is doing new and important work,” Tough said, adding: ‘He has a new vision for character and it’s quite scientific in that he’s trying to figure out which character strengths make a difference in a kid’s success. And at the root of his research and thinking is the assertion that character is… a set of qualities that [enables] kids to change themselves and qualities that parents and teachers can instil.’ The schools Tough writes about in “How Children Succeed” that are collaborating on a character initiative are those KIPP charter schools in New York City, which serve a mostly low-income student population, and Riverdale Country School, a private school in the Bronx that serves a mostly high-income student population. Together, they have come up with a list of seven character strengths they are trying to encourage in their students. KIPP had discovered that their most successful students were not necessarily those that came top in tests but those, instead, that were the most resilient .
Tough points out that protective parents, with the best of motives, might well be harming the longer term prospects for their children: ‘By not giving them the chance to learn to manage adversity, to cope with failure, we produce kids who have real problems when they grow up. Overcoming adversity is what produces character. And character, even more than IQ, is what leads to real and lasting success.’
In the words of a recent academic study (see below) ‘… there is still much to be learned about how to leverage non-cognitive factors to transform educational practice from its current focus on content knowledge and testable academic skills to the broader development of adolescents as learners.’
The Consortium on Chicago Schools Research report titled “Teaching Adolescents to Become Learners: The Role of Non-cognitive Factors in Shaping School Performance: A Critical Literature Review.’ June 2012
Use Interventions that are known to work
The Pupil Premium was introduced in April 2011 to target support for the most disadvantaged pupils.
Pupil premium funding is provided to schools which have on roll pupils known to be eligible for free school meals (the deprivation premium); children in care who have been continuously looked after for at least six months (the looked after child premium); and children whose parents are serving in the armed forces (the service child premium).In 2012–13 schools were allocated a total of £1.25 billion funding. In 2012-13 the pupil premium has been worth £600 per child, rising to £900 next year and by 2014-15 this is expected to rise to approximately £1,200 per child. From this September, schools have to publish details of how they use their premium. The DFE also publishes in the school performances tables information about disadvantaged pupils’ achievement. Ofsted has a closer focus on how the premium is used and on how it benefits pupils. The principle the government is adopting generally, in introducing the pupil premium, is to leave discretion on how it is spent as much as possible to individual heads because they will know the circumstances of the children for whom they are responsible. But there are concerns that some schools are simply using the premium to fill shortfalls in school funding or are using interventions that are ineffective. The Education Endowment Foundation, which was set up specifically to spread good practice and help other schools learn the most effective ways of tackling disadvantage has published a tool kit which provides evidence of the types of intervention that work. An Ofsted survey this year based on the views of 262 school leaders found most said that the introduction of the Pupil Premium had had some impact on the way that they did things. However, school leaders in only one in 10 schools said that it had ‘significantly’ changed the way they worked – all of whom were in more deprived areas. Very few schools said that it had had any impact on their approach to admissions or exclusions. Around half of the schools that responded to the additional inspection questions thought that it was having a positive impact on raising pupils’ achievement, but relatively few could as yet provide evidence to substantiate this. Clearly it is disappointing that so many school don’t at this early stage believe that it is having much impact.
Unions have warned that some schools are using the Premium to meet perceived funding shortfalls-which is clearly not how the Premium should be used.
The Education Endowment Foundation stresses how important it is to apply approaches that are known to work. The research summarised in their Toolkit suggests that different ways of using the premium are likely to have very different impacts on attainment.
The Government has commissioned two evaluations of the Pupil Premium — from Ofsted and its own external evaluation of the premium’s first year. The findings of both reviews will be available next spring
CAREERS GUIDANCE-GUIDE TO HELP SCHOOLS
Publication helps schools to meet their new statutory responsibility
From September 2012, schools will be legally responsible for securing access to independent and impartial careers guidance for all pupils in years 9-11. Careers guidance secured under the duty must include information on all 16- 18 education or training options, including Apprenticeships. In March 2012, the Department for Education published ‘Statutory Guidance for Schools – Careers Guidance’. Schools must have regard to this in exercising their new responsibilities. Apart from the elements identified in the statutory guidance, schools are free, to decide what careers provision to make available in accordance with the needs of their pupils. However, no ring-fenced funding will be available to schools to provide this support.-so they will have to find the funds from existing budgets.
The Guide accepts that ‘that most, if not all, young people would benefit from individual, face-to-face careers guidance to enable them to make informed decisions about future options based upon consideration of the wealth of information available from a range of sources and media.’
On the face of it this looks good. But face to face advice is more expensive than other forms of advice (by telephone and via web portals) .Most experts believe that schools will go for the cheaper option, though face to face advice is regarded as essential for the most disadvantaged pupils. It is also the case that social mobility will improve if young people are given good independent advice as early as possible(aged 12/13) so they can choose the qualifications and pathways into Further /Higher Education ,or into employment, that are most appropriate for them. There has always been a concern that schools advice has been of poor quality and not always impartial , given that schools have a financial interest in keeping pupils on their rolls.
A further worry is that Ofsted will not inspect the quality of careers advice being offered by schools-so how exactly will schools that fail to provide good careers advice-be held to account?
Schools can retain their careers adviser ‘but, as the statutory guidance makes clear, you will need to supplement this with external sources of careers guidance to meet the new duty. This could include an external careers provider, employer visits, mentoring, website and telephone helpline access. Taken together, the external sources must provide information on the full range of post-16 options and access to face-to-face support where needed’.
Securing Independent ,Careers Guidance A Practical Guide for Schools
- PAYING FOR RESULTS-CAN IT HELP RAISE PERFORMANCE- OR DOES IT CORRUPT THE LOVE OF LEARNING?
- PROSPECTS JOINS MUTUAL JOINT VENTURE TO DELIVER PUBLIC SERVICES-GOVERNMENT KEEN ON EMPLOYEE OWNED MUTUALS DELIVERING PUBLIC SERVICES
- PROFESSOR TONY WATTS RESIGNS FROM THE NATIONAL CAREERS COUNCIL
- EDISON LEARNING AND THE NAHT UNION LAUNCH A SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT INITIATIVE WITH DFE BACKING
- THE FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT OF ACADEMIES-WHAT HAPPENS IF THERE ARE CONCERNS?
- PUBLIC ACCOUNTS COMMITTEE REPORT ON ACADEMIES-SOME CONCERNS OVER FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT
- CAIRNS OF BRIGHTON COLLEGE BACKS ACADEMIES
- IS CAREERS ADVICE IN SCHOOLS EFFECTIVE OR IS IT TOO EARLY TO SAY?
- LEMOVS TEACH LIKE A CHAMPION -TOP TECHNIQUES USED BY THE BEST TEACHERS
- THE PUPIL PREMIUM AND SPECIAL SCHOOLS
- EDUCATION EXPORTS-NEW GOVERNMENT STRATEGY IN THE WINGS?
- INSPECTING ACADEMY CHAINS-ON THE AGENDA
- Careers advice and Guidance
- Charity Status
- Charter School
- Coalition Education Policy
- Conservative policy
- Discipline and Truancy
- early years learning
- education market
- education quangos
- education reform
- Free schools
- higher education
- Home Education
- independent schools
- primary schools
- Public Services Reform
- published letters
- Pupil Support
- quality assurance
- quality assurance and inspection
- school governance
- secondary schools
- Secure Estate
- SPECIAL NEEDS
- teachers and teaching
- Think tanks
- us education system
- Youth policy