Martin Davidson of the British Council (BC), a subsidised quango that is supposed to represent UK education abroad ,in a letter to ‘Education Investor ‘this month wrote interalia:
‘We believe that our mission is to support and promote the UK and UK institutions and aim to do that professionally and in partnership with others. However we are also aware that we will sometimes compete with other providers as well as collaborate.’
Unsurprisingly given this admission and what they have encountered in the market, UK Education providers say that this is a clear example of a conflict of interests.
How does the BC decide when to compete with a provider and when to collaborate? How can other providers trust an organisation that at one minute claims to represent them (using taxpayers money) and at another competes against them for contracts? What criteria does the BC use to decide when to compete and when to collaborate? Providers are not aware of any published criteria or code of conduct to inform this process- so how exactly does the BC decide? And how much information does it withhold from its competitors in order to secure an advantage for itself and its perceived commercial interests?
That these questions have to be asked (The BC doesnt have credible answers to them, by the way) demonstrates that the British Council is not fit for purpose in its role as the representative of UK education interests abroad.
One further question arises.How would the BC fare in the market if it competed on a level playing field , deprived of its subsidies, and without any political patronage protecting it? That is, of course, one question to which we all know the answer .
The government is trying a new approach to supporting education exporters. Can it work? Patrick Watson
Published in ‘ Education Investor-’ September 2012
This government, it claims, is committed to export-led growth. Education is our seventh largest export industry, worth over £14 billion in 2008-09, and is growing at a rate of 4% a year but, ministers feel, it could do more.
So, in a tacit acknowledgement that our exporters need more support, UK Trade & Industry is moving to offer a ‘system to system’ approach to help education exporters. Its new UK Education Services unit aims to bring the best expertise in the private, public and voluntary sectors together under one roof, to enable a more joined up approach to education exports. The intention is to sell international customers a distinctive UK offer comprising a number of providers working together. This, the theory goes, will be more attractive to potential customers than a number of competing UK offers that meet only parts of their needs. This is quite a change. Until now, the go to organisation for UK education businesses abroad has been the British Council (BC), but that bodys inadequacies are well-known. Its too thinly spread, lacking the capacity, expertise or, indeed, competence to provide the support commercial education firms require. It also suffers from a conflict of interests. Though tasked with representing our education services, in practice the BC often competes with it, by providing language training and so on itself. Accordingly, it often keeps valuable commercial information to itself. To compound the problem, as its grant funding has decreased, its exhorted its staff to act more commercially. This toxic mix of conflicts of interest, overstretch and quality deficit once amounted to an irritation. Increasingly, though, its turned into a crisis.
UKTIs latest initiative, then, could represent a step change in the way the government supports the UKs education industry. We know whats needed: the UKTI spells it out in an overview of its new approach.
First, the identification of major opportunities, through detailed country market analysis. Second, engagement with UK education providers and supporting agencies to identify those with the capability and interest in exporting to these countries.Third, engagement with the host government contacts to develop opportunities to the point where they can be offered to UK providers. And, finally, facilitation and support to UK providers in bidding for contracts.
So far, UKTI has mainly focused on the needs of Higher Education institutions, but increasingly it accepts the need for a more inclusive approach. After all, the UK exports a wide-range of education services: independent schools and their franchises, school improvement, qualifications and assessment, inspection, teacher training, language teaching… Such specialist services are often poorly understood by our local representatives, and so havent had the support that they might.
The UKTI approach sounds promising, but will need to be backed by political will and resources. Secondments from the private sector would give this initiative some focus and traction. Using education service providers as a sounding board will help, too.
But heres one more idea. The BC receives a lot of grant money specifically to promote UK education, but the consensus is that this has not been used cost-effectively. Why not simply transfer it to UKTI, and use it to fund, say, secondments from the private sector?
Published in Education Investor September 2012 Vol 4 No 7
Education Investor is organising a conference in London on 17 October 2012 ‘Exporting excellence: capitalising on the global value of UK education’, at the Westminster Conference Centre
UK Trade & Investment (UKTI) works with UK-based businesses ‘ to ensure their success in international markets, and encourage the best overseas companies to look to the UK as their global partner of choice.’ It is part of the Department for Business Innovations and Skills (BIS). Lord Green is the Trade and Investment Minister .
Unsurprisingly the BC has taken exception to my views on its role and competence, insisting on a right to reply in Education Investor. Its weak reply in letter form amounts to flannel and flummery so typical of that organisation , signally failing to address the core issues raised. It suggests that I am articulating my clients views, the implication being that these views do not represent the broader education sector. Wrong. There is a broad consensus among UK based education providers, most of whom are not my clients (if only!) about the inability of the BC to represent their interests, for the reasons given above. Many have to work in partnership with the BC or suffer commercially without fully understanding the reasons why. The BC behaves like the worst kind of monopoly, and in consequence damages UK education interests abroad in a sector where we should have some competitive advantage. It really is that simple. The real shame is that our politicians and civil servants allow the BC to get away with it. But for how much longer?
PUBLIC BENEFIT REQUIREMENT FOR CHARITIES
New Draft Guidance from the Charity Commission- up for consultation
Greater clarity for stakeholders
The Charity Commission, which regulates the Charity sector, issued Guidance on ‘ Public Benefit’ in the wake of the Charities Act of 2006. It wasn’t a great success. Guidance is, rather obviously, supposed to deliver some clarity to help, in this instance, trustees to understand how their charity might satisfy the explicit public benefit requirement and to inform their decision-making. This it signally failed to do. With respect to schools, the Commission had created the perception that the number of bursaries offered by a school would provide the clearest indicator of public benefit. This managed, simultaneously, to alienate both the independent and state school sectors. State schools were worried that this would provide a licence for private schools to up their game in poaching their best pupils, harming their schools in the process. Private schools with charity status, on the other hand, were determined to preserve the independence of trustees to determine what measures would satisfy the public benefit requirement. Nobody challenges the idea that schools with charity status should demonstrate public benefit but defining this ,in practical form, was problematic. Private schools and one of the bodies that represents them, the ISC, believed that the Commission were giving too little weight to the range of charitable activities that they undertook, in favour of bursaries and a form of crude calculation involving fees and bursaries.
In May 2011 a judicial review was brought against the Commission’s guidance by the ISC, challenging the legal basis of that guidance. The Upper Tribunal gave its judgment in October and December 2011. In short, the judgement found that the Commission had failed in its efforts to provide clarity on this, albeit complex, issue. The Tribunal found that parts of the Commission’s guidance on public benefit were ‘obscure’ or ‘wrong’. The Tribunal ruled that it is for the trustees of a fee-charging charity to decide how best to meet that obligation in the circumstances of their charity (not for the Commission, the Tribunal or the courts), provided they did so in a way that any reasonable trustee would have done, and that support should not be tokenistic. This amounted to a severe rebuke to the Commission for not getting it right in the first place.
The Commission has now, suitably chastised, issued new draft guidance (as it was instructed to do by the Tribunal) ,for consultation . The revised guidance seeks to explain what the public benefit requirement means and sets out what all charity trustees need to know to make sure that they are running their charity for the public benefit. This makes it clear that schools will be given more freedom to decide how to open up to the poor without necessarily providing free places. It provides welcome clarification that charity trustees have the duty to decide what level of public benefit the charity can offer in its individual circumstances.
Under Labour’s 2006 Charities Act, fee-paying schools are no longer automatically entitled to charitable status and must prove they provide wider “public benefit”
The Schools Network was forced into administration this week, as the TES pointed out ‘ after suffering losses from shrinking school budgets and government cutbacks’.This is shorthand for- they lost their subsidies.The Schools Network and the original SSAT from which it sprung survived because they were subsidised by us taxpayers and guaranteed contracts from the government often without the need to compete , as many contracts were not put out to tender. This was the surest way to ensure that we taxpayers didnt get value for money. Nor did it encourage efficiency and accountability. Large overheads-including plush Mill Bank Offices- poor cost controls and falling income meant that the organisation had nowhere to go. Doubtless the Network did some useful work , helped with networking ,dissemination of best practice and so on. But it also unfortunately helped ensure that the market was not a level playing field and raised other providers costs and risks of entry and participation, both here and abroad. Other providers have long argued that many of the services provided by the Network, and SSAT, could be provided at lower cost by other providers, and without the need for subsidies. Their successor organisation that reverts back to the old SSAT name , should not be allowed any special privileges nor to benefit from the political top cover enjoyed by the predecessor organisations. If the (new) SSAT can compete on quality and price without preferential treatment and subsidies then fine. But its not a culture that is familiar to those who work in the organistaion. Other education service providers will be watching with interest in the months ahead.
By attacking Grammars isnt the network deflecting attention from the performance of their schools?
The Schools Network wants grammar school pupils to have to achieve five A* or A grades at GCSE to be considered as having achieved a satisfactory level of education. All other state schools would continue to be judged on students passing five GCSEs at A*-C grades. The Schools Network , formerly The Specialist Schools and Academies Trust , helped roll out the Academy and Specialist schools programmes under the last Labour government. Academies, of course, are central to this governments education reforms, although Labour claim that the new Academies are not the same as their Academies ,which were almost exclusively located in deprived areas. Just about any school ,even outstanding ones, can now convert to Academy status .
Specialist schools were criticised by some, including Professor Alan Smithers, for not being Specialist in any meaningful sense. Although claiming to be ‘ Specialist’ if you looked a bit closer at, for example, the number of specialist teachers they employed or, crucially the number of pupils taking hard (as opposed to soft)qualifications in their specialism then you might be dissappointed to find, though perhaps not surprised, that they were not much different from their neighbouring school, which claimed no specialism.(and therefore had access to fewer funds)
Professor David Jesson, an associate of the Schools Network, had created a means for measuring value added for SSAT supported schools, taking into account contextual data. Some critics suggested that this was conceived because their schools were not performing well enough under the standard government performance benchmark of five good GCSEs, including maths and English. Perish the thought. Mind you, if a pupil leaving school at 16 were to go to a job interview and argue the case that he hadnt got five good GCSEs but that his school had added great value, one might have grounds for wondering whether this was an approach that maximised the chances of a positive outcome.
Jesson is the author of a new report for The Schools Network which suggests that because grammar schools produce such excellent results, their performance should be judged differently. Indeed the clear implication was that many Grammar schools ,which are selective, are coasting.(so are quite a few comprehensive schools in leafy suburbs-which the SSAT was given funds by the last government to address- err..whatever happened to that programme?)
Robert McCartney, chairman of the National Grammar Schools Association, said: “It would be grossly unfair and nonsensical to suggest comparing schools using different criteria according to their type. To do this would be totally misleading and grammar school pupils usually take ‘harder’ GCSEs, such as chemistry, physics, foreign languages, geography or history.” He continued “Pupils in comprehensive schools often take English and maths along with ‘softer’ subjects such as media studies, psychology or information technology which may count for up to four GCSEs.”
There is certainly evidence that quite a few state schools including academies have ‘gamed’ ie entered pupils for soft options ’ to secure good league table positions, something that the introduction of the Ebacc is designed to address.
Jessons suggestion does seem slightly self-serving. If Jesson’s measurement were applied to some of the schools in the Schools Network then I think we know the level of carnage that would result, and some might then begin to ask some questions about the performance of the Schools Network itself. Food for thought.
The Network has just this week been forced into administration, as public sector cuts ensured government business and its subsidies were slashed. There has been a management buyout which ensures that the ‘SSAT’ continues to trade. Other non-subsidised education providers have long complained that the SSAT/Schools Network only survived because they were heavily subsidised and guranteed business from the government, with quite a lot of this business not put out to open tender.Some of these criticisms now seem vindicated.
Coasting schools in leafy suburbs new target
But SSAT was supposed to be targeting Coasting school for the last three years
The Government self-evidently wants to see standards rise throughout the education system so that our schools and system compare with the best in the world. The Accountability regime has ensured that there has been a concentration on targeting failing schools, but the Government also now wants to ‘ concentrate on the schools in the leafy suburbs that are not challenging their pupils as well as they should. All schools will now be subject to our scrutiny to make sure that they raise standards. The new performance tables will identify how schools perform in relation to children of high academic ability, as well as how they perform in relation to children of a lower academic ability.’ (Nick Gibb, Commons 14 Nov). Currently outstanding schools are exempt from inspection but the opposition worry that this might encourage such schools to start coasting . For example , when an outstanding leader leaves an outstanding school, that can often lead to a big change in the performance of that school. The Governments view revolves around the principle of having proportionate inspection and targeting the limited resources on schools that have the most pressing need. However it is perhaps significant that the new head of Ofsted has said one of his priorities is ‘Coasting ‘schools.It is also true ,of course, that even when schools are exempted from inspection, inspectors will still see some outstanding schools during the process of themed inspections, which might look for example at how religious education or maths is taught. David Cameron in a Daily Telegraph article last week says that while it is “relatively easy” to identify problem schools, it is just as important to tackle those that are resigned to mediocrity. “It is just as important to tackle those all over the country content to muddle through — places where respectable results and a decent local reputation mask a failure to meet potential,” he writes. “Children who did well in primary school but who lose momentum. Early promise fades. This is the hidden crisis in our schools — in prosperous shires and market towns just as much as in the inner cities.” In January, new league tables will be published that will show how low-, middle- and high-achieving children are performing in their schools. Coasting schools though is hardly a new problem. Back in 2009 Official data, obtained under the Freedom of Information Act, showed that a total of 470 secondary schools, many located in middle-class suburbs and shire counties, were “resting on their laurels” instead of pushing pupils to get the best grades. In 2008/9 the SSAT won a contract to target and support coasting schools as part of the Gaining Ground programme, using its Schools Network. The aim of the programme was ‘to raise students’ rates of progression through collaborative intervention.’ The SSATs Schools Network involvement in the programme ended on 31st March 2011. Can we now assume that this initiative failed given that the issue is now being revisited by this Government? What exactly did the SSAT achieve with taxpayers money? I think we should be told. No doubt the SSAT will bid for the next contract to support coasting schools. Other bidders for the Gaining Ground programme pointed out at the time that many of the so-called ‘coasting ‘schools were then operating under the umbrella of the SSAT. So it looked at the time that awarding this quango the contract was effectively incentivising failure. And thats what it still looks like!
Nick Gibb, the schools Minister, reacting to this weeks Ofsted Annual report said
“ There are still far too many underperforming schools making painfully slow improvements. It is worrying that Ofsted finds that 800 schools are stuck steadfastly at a satisfactory rating in inspection after inspection. It’s a real concern that some schools with very able intakes are merely coasting instead of making sure students achieve their full potential. And outstanding or good schools cannot afford to take their foot off the pedal simply because they have had a strong inspection result.”
BRITISH COUNCIL RUN WEB SITE
Visit the Education UK website, run by the British Council designed to help students abroad to choose university courses here. It’s a mess. Look at the search facility on the right hand side of the home page. Choose, for example, Degree Courses as the course category and Applied and Pure Sciences as the subject area. The system will find 179 results and list the first ten by default. What are these top ten institutions and how are they ordered ? See for yourself, and put yourself in the shoes of one of these inquisitive students. The site, when I sought information, as above, listed the University of Southampton twice and the University of Nottingham three times in the top ten. With the Metropolitan University, Manchester topping the list. There was no logic whatever to the order of institutions or explanation as to why institutions appeared more than once. Nor were they in Alphabetical order. The FCO is boasting that there were 46 million visits to BC sites over a year, so those accessing the sites could get some idea of ‘British Values.’ Oh Dear!
THE DAMAGE QUANGOS INFLICT ON THE EDUCATION MARKET BOTH HERE AND ABROAD
We should all be grateful to Education Investor (June) for exposing the grave problems in the education market.
The latest edition highlights the escalating tensions between private sector suppliers and education quangos (British Council, SSAT, TDA (on the way out), NCSL).
Quangos are competing here and abroad, head to head, with private and not for profit suppliers, using their public funds, inside knowledge and political top cover to steal an advantage over other non-subsidised suppliers. The charge is that these organisations use taxpayer funding to subsidise their activities, and can exploit “captive audiences” contacts and databases (which can’t be accessed by competitors) built up over time, while fulfilling their regulatory roles and use them to market their self- serving commercial activities. In contract bids this information is exploited by them but is not accessible to others, because it is deemed ‘commercial in confidence’. If anything, in the wake of funding cuts, the activity of quangos in the market is greater now than it has ever been.Neil McIntosh ,Chief Executive of not for profit CfBT Education Trust, told Education Investor “Grant aided organisations are most dangerous to independent ones at the moment when they are told that their grants are being cut’.
Not all though can dip into the Aid Budget, as the British Council has done, to make up its shortfall (the BC is funded by the FCO-but the FCO has seen it budget cut, unlike the DFID). The National College for School Leadership, as Education Investor has pointed out, irritates many providers as its role in delivering the professional qualification for head teachers affords it ‘an iron grip on the UK market for school leadership training’. It is now busy marketing itself abroad where it now competes with both for profit and not for profit providers.
The SSAT is signing up schools abroad too to its Inet school improvement service. It remains something of a mystery, though, to other suppliers, that an organisation responsible for supporting state schools improvement here, with 90% of maintained schools signed up, is qualified to support state schools abroad. Our position in international league tables might suggest that we are hardly regarded as stellar international performers, as Ministers are at pains to keep reminding us (PISA etc-OK I know Pisa has its limitations but the Government regards it as a benchmark) Nick Gibb, the schools Minister put it as follows in a recent speech “We’re failing to keep pace with countries with the best education systems – falling back in the PISA international rankings, from fourth to sixteenth in science; seventh to 25th in literacy; and eighth to 28th in maths – meaning our 15-year-olds are two years behind their Chinese peers in maths; and a year behind teenagers in Korea or Finland in reading. We’re still not meeting the expectations of employers – with the CBI’s annual education and skills survey just last month finding that almost half of top employers had to invest in remedial training for school and college leavers.” The SSAT manages to rise above such awkwardness. Nobody has ever claimed that we have one of the best state systems in the world, although that is the aim of this government which wants our performance to compare with the very best in the world, a laudable aspiration. But we certainly haven’t got there yet. So it’s a little perplexing that a quango which is at the heart of our underperforming system, in support of schools, finds itself in the position that it does- telling others how to improve. Pots and black kettles spring to mind.
The SSAT also won a contract, a couple of years back ,financed by us taxpayers, to help ‘coasting’ schools ie those schools that should, based on their intake, be performing better. Yet these same schools had been, for some time, paid up subscribers to the SSAT. Its called incentivising failure. Of course some of these quangos work closely and in partnership with private sector providers and will tell you that their relationship is sound. But they are always the dominant partners. And talk to these providers and you will find that they believe that the benefits of such relationships do not remotely off -set the damage done to the market, more generally, by quangos presence and anti-competitive activities-in terms of lost contracts and the high costs of participating in a market that is demonstrably neither fair nor transparent . These activities clearly raise the risks and costs of participation in the market for other suppliers. And one wonders whether we as taxpayers benefit from these quangos activities. They are not transparent in the way they operate, and measure inputs rather than ouputs.
Of all the quangos cited, the British Council is by far the most unpopular and most damaging to UK commercial interests. Often co-located with British Embassies abroad and the darling of diplomats and many an MP and Peer, who take advantage of all expenses paid trips abroad to visit its projects, the BC has considerable political patronage and cover. But as one supplier pointed out to Education Investor “You have got to go some to compete with an organisation called the British Council that’s operating out of the ambassadors office”.
David Blackie MD of International Education Connect will tell you of many contracts awarded to the British Council without any competition-which cannot possibly deliver value for money either for the client or the UK taxpayer. Kevin McNeaney, now managing Orbital, who is probably the most successful UK education entrepreneur of the last generation, nurses many bruises from encounters with the BC. He told Education Investor, obviously with some feeling, that “the British Council exists to continue the success of the British Council rather than as an enabler for the industry”. The BC continues, though, to pretend that it represents concurrently both cultural and educational interests abroad. Yet it competes with UK companies ie those it purports to represent for the same contracts. Like other quangos it peddles the fiction that it doesn’t cross subsidise and that it maintains ‘Chinese Walls’ (-What? You ask- like those that operate so brilliantly in the city?)
But clock this. In a recent British Council publication it gave the game away. Expressing the hope that the BC would rapidly expand its commercial operations it said ‘The aims are for the British Council to be seen as an important player in our priority markets and sectors… and to present our contracts business as a fully integral part of our cultural relations programme.’ A prize- for anyone who can spot the wall, chinese or otherwise! If the British Council, the DFE and the BIS are not supporting UK education companies abroad (which they are not) then who is? It’s a very good question-if you know, could you let me in on the secret, so I can pass the message on to providers)?
Five senior executives of leading UK education companies wrote to the Government in December of last year complaining about the conduct of the British Council and other quangos in the market outlining the issues affecting the education market here and abroad , providing some recommendations to ensure that there is a level playing field in the market and that the referee isn’t wearing one sides colours. It took the Government five months to reply, presumably because Ministers needed to think long and hard about it, more of which later.
For more on Quangos and the Market look at this months Education Investor Vol 3 No 5 ’Hitting the Wall’ -Firms brand quangos barrier to new business
For more on the British Council look at http://www.dblackie.blogs.com/
ACADEMIES –AND REGULATION
Need to ensure that autonomous schools are accountable
In January, this year, the Commons Public Accounts committee found that academies, the independent state schools that are central to this Governments education reforms, have improved pupils’ educational achievements and life chances in some of the most deprived communities in the country. Around 17% of state secondary schools are academies and the government has made no secret of the fact that by the time of the next election it would like half of all secondary schools to be academies. This certainly seems possible at the current pace of conversion.A study by Stephen Machin and James Vernoit at the London School of Economics found that academy status tends to raise pupil performance and improves the performance of neighbouring schools. The Government takes some pride in what it sees as the academy success story. But the rapid expansion of the scheme raises other important accountability issues that were picked up by the PAC. Many academies, it found, have inadequate financial controls and governance to assure the proper use of public money. It said that the DfE and YPLA have not been sufficiently rigorous in requiring compliance with guidance. It added that it should be made compulsory for all academies – sponsored and converter – to comply with basic standards of governance and financial management. This should include ‘segregation of key roles and responsibilities, and timely submission of annual accounts.’ It added that ‘as the Programme expands, there are increased risks to value for money and proper use of public money’ so ‘ the Department needs to develop sufficient capacity and adequate arrangements to provide robust accountability and oversight of academies’ use of public funds.’ Until very recently Academies were not subject to the Freedom of Information Act which was an absurd anomaly, given the amount of taxpayers money tied up in these schools.(The SSAT quango which supports Academies is still not subject to the FOIA-work that one out)
What is clear is that while Academies appear to be performing relatively well against educational benchmarks (although some have complained including the Civitas think tank that there has not been full transparency over what exams their pupils sit) the pace and scope of Government reforms leaves it open to criticism that the administrative and regulatory tail is playing catch up. The proposed abolition of the YPLA which has responsibility for Academies may serve to complicate accountability issues. Part of the attraction of setting up these schools is that they are autonomous and because they are freed from local authority control they have less bureaucracy and red tape to contend with, which is seen as a real positive. But some are concerned that the regulatory framework within which these autonomous schools sit is not robust enough. Policymakers have tended to focus on the imperative of freedom of choice rather than the regulatory implications of supply side reforms and in working out how to put in place an enabling environment that safeguards the public interest and minimises the chances of these new schools failing and indeed ensuring that a system is in place to manage failure and its consequences. The Government has recently tightened up the vetting of Free Schools bids which suggests that it has its own concerns. The challenge of course is to strike the right balance between real autonomy and accountability to the Government.
Other countries have introduced supply side reforms, including autonomous state schools and there may be lessons that we can learn from their experiences. CfBT Education Trust has been investigating international practice in the area of school reforms and will be publishing a report this summer. The timing could not be better. Watch this space.
- CRACKDOWN ON EXPLOITATION OF INTERNS
- 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?
- 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