The schools membership organisation SSAT enters a new era today as it launches as a new company following a management buy out. This follows the decision to put its predecessor organisation, The Schools Network, into administration.

SSAT will continue its commitment to working with schools to raise achievement for all young people, and providing opportunities for school leaders to influence and shape education policy and practice.

SSAT is committed to delivering best value subscription for fees and will be a limited company which will continue to serve its thousands of member schools, to reinvest in the school system and to support other organisations with its educational expertise in the same way it is now doing, with the aim of continuously improving our offering.

SSAT has an extensive series of events, conferences, resources, training and services planned for the coming year, including its National Conference in Liverpool on 4-5 December.

SSAT Chief Executive Sue Williamson said:

“Schools know only too well how vital it is for organisations to adapt and change in this fast-moving educational environment. SSAT is no exception and as we enter this new era, we look forward to building on our relationships with schools, bringing even greater value and sharing the expertise and experience that members have developed over the last 25 years.”

“The need for an independent membership organisation is stronger than ever. Our new structure gives us the opportunity and flexibility to work even more closely with schools to improve outcomes for children, enhance teacher quality, develop students as independent learners, introduce innovative approaches to curriculum content and design, and showcase best and next practice from around the world.”

Stephen Munday, Headteacher of Comberton Village College and Chair of the Leading Edge Steering Group said:

“I am delighted that SSAT is to take forward such an important and significant national network of schools. We need this network, especially in the new educational world. It provides a crucial means by which all of us working in schools can seek to share ideas and practice and move forward together. It also provides us with an important voice.

SSAT’s Leading Edge network of high-achieving schools is stronger and bigger than it has ever been. Its desire to share best practice and to develop and share next practice can now press ahead under the auspices of this new organisation. All of us look forward to this and are grateful to be able to continue to work in this major and highly beneficial network.”

Dr Neil Hopkin, Headteacher of Rosendale Primary School and Chair of the Primary Schools Steering Group said:

“SSAT is a great supporter of all phases of education and school leadership. The recognition that Early Years settings, Primary and Secondary schools must all work together to realise our world class ambitions for the nation’s children underpins everything that SSAT does. Here is a forum for all educational professionals to learn from one another, offering inspiration and support in a truly independent and free thinking organization.”

David Gregory, Executive Headteacher of Fosse Way School said:

“Special Schools have long been inspired by the pioneering spirit of the SSAT which lives and breathes in today’s announcement.

SSAT has been a valued part of the educational landscape for a quarter of a century and will continue to be for the next quarter century.

SSAT understands how schools tick and has played a central role in spreading innovative practice throughout special and mainstream schools. I look forward to continuing to work with them in future.”

National mathematics conference 2012

The heart of the matter – outstanding teaching and learning in mathematics

Friday 29th June 2012, University of Warwick

Rachel Clarke – Mathematics Consultant

Ofsted’s latest report, ‘Mathematics: made to measure’ , draws attention to  serious inequalities in pupils’ experiences and achievements in mathematics. These can vary quite significantly between classes and year groups within the same school. The report calls on schools to take action to ensure all pupils experience consistently good mathematics teaching.

In  the report’s foreword  Sir Michael Wilshaw, Her Majesty’s Chief Inspector, states that Ofsted will raise ambition levels for the mathematics education of all pupils by placing greater emphasis in school inspections on:

• how effectively schools tackle inconsistency in the quality of mathematics teaching
• how well teaching fosters understanding
• pupils’ skills in solving problems 
• challenging extensive use of early and repeated entry to GCSE examinations

As an ex head of mathematics, I know from my own experience at school how challenging the role can be.  And in the current climate, where demands are high, the pace of change is rapid and the horizon is filled with so many revisions to the curriculum, assessment, qualifications and school inspection, it is more important than ever to secure the time to reflect, refresh and review priorities and goals.  As teachers we can all benefit from the opportunity to network and share best practice with colleagues in exactly the same role, albeit in a different context, who are faced with the same pressures and issues that being a head of department can bring.

SSAT’s national mathematics conference, ‘The heart of the matter – outstanding teaching and learning in mathematics’  , which is only a matter of weeks away, promises to help you do just that – whether you are a subject leader, a mathematics teacher or a senior leader with responsibility for line managing a mathematics department. With a programme themed around what matters most, outstanding teaching and learning in the mathematics classroom, the conference will be an informative and inspiring event that leaders and teachers of mathematics will benefit from.

There will be three national keynote speakers who will share the latest developments and issues in mathematics education: Jane Jones, HMI National Adviser for mathematics, will use the findings from Ofsted’s latest report to consider ways of making a successful transition from good to outstanding mathematics teaching; Professor John Mason, The Open University, will lead an interactive session on how to develop and hone pupils’ mathematical reasoning skills; Dr Sara Santos, Maths Busking, will analyse two different extremes of learners, the most talented and the disengaged, and look at activities to enrich their classroom experience.  All three will give valuable insights to help improve pedagogy in mathematics.

The programme is also packed with a variety of workshops and showcases delivered by outstanding practitioners who will share their experience and best practice approaches used in their own classrooms and departments. It will be an opportunity to glean new ideas,  to learn about what works well, and to discuss current issues with like minded practitioners.

To find out more and to book your place, email andrew.rylah@theschoolsnetwork.org.uk

Timetabling for the next academic year is fully underway in schools across the country. Perhaps you are amongst those senior leaders who have had to approach one or more members of the teaching staff to tell them that from September they will be required to teach a subject outside of the subject area in which they trained or are currently working. Perhaps you are the practitioner who has or is being asked to teach a subject which you are not completely equipped to deliver.

We all know that the best teachers are those who have specialist subject knowledge and a real passion and enthusiasm for the subject they teach. We also know that English and mathematics are core curriculum subjects that all young people deserve to be taught to the highest standards.

Research and the experiences shared by practitioners across the country shows that the recruitment of qualified professionals to teach both English and mathematics has been problematic for some years. Consequently highly skilled non-specialist teachers at all key stages are being asked to teach these priority subjects in which student progress and attainment are under constant scrutiny.

The challenge for schools finding themselves in a position where they need to ask non-specialist teachers to teach English and mathematics is to find ways of ensuring that these practitioners are well supported and fully equipped with appropriate subject and pedagogical knowledge. Schools will expect these teachers to skillfully and effectively craft high quality learning activities that will interest, enthuse and meet the needs of all learners in their classroom, enabling students to meet and exceed targets. 

The prospect of teaching English or mathematics outside of one’s area of expertise must be somewhat daunting. Non-specialist teachers will want to be secure in their subject knowledge, be familiar with National Curriculum requirements and be clear about what the Ofsted framework means for practice in their classroom. Essential too will be a practical toolkit which allows teachers to engage, stimulate and stretch students, raising standards just as they would in their own area of expertise. Naturally these teachers will also aim to prepare students to do well in assessment and examination.

We are keen to hear how schools and affected teachers are facing these challenges:

What strategies does your school have in place for supporting the development non-specialist teachers of English and Maths?

In response to discussions about the challenges cited above with our members, The Schools Network will be running an intensive summer school training programme for non-specialist teachers of English and mathematics at either KS3 or 4. The programme takes place from 18-20 July 2012, with an optional extension course 15-16 October 2012 at Scarman House, University of Warwick.

This three-day residential training programme is designed to strengthen and deepen the subject knowledge and expertise of non-specialist mathematics and English teachers building capacity for improvement in your school. The optional extension course in October will be an opportunity to reflect and enhance practice after a period of embedding taught strategies in the classroom.

Our commitment to a “by schools for schools” approach means that this intensive, practical course will be facilitated by outstanding experienced practitioners. The programme will help prepare participants to successfully undertake their new role. Importantly it will also build confidence, inspire and enthuse, and allow time to establish links and networks with peers. A further two follow-up days in the autumn term will enable teachers to review practice and share successes and issues.

Places are still available for this programme so visit https://www.ssatrust.org.uk/subjects/Pages/summerschool.aspx  to find out more or to book.

The Schools Network is in favour of robust educational debate and believes that all schools can improve and benefit from challenge and that we must avoid being the producer interest. In response to Professor Jesson’s recent  report, Great Expectations, please find below a response piece from the Chairman of the NGSA :

Guest blog contribution by Robert McCartney QC, chairman of the National Grammar Schools Association.

A report highlighted in the media on 3 May 2012, which was published by The Schools Network, is deeply flawed.  The author of the report, Great Expectations, is Professor David Jesson, who has been openly hostile to grammar schools and genuine parental choice for around two decades.   

Great Expectations notes that grammar schools ‘differ substantially in their  outcomes… inevitably prompting questions as to why this should be the case’.  Grammar schools may, indeed, differ in their outcomes, as would be expected.  Nevertheless, as Professor Jesson acknowledges, they are all high performers –  a description that, sadly, cannot be applied to  many comprehensive secondary schools in the state sector.  

Professor Jesson recommends that because grammar schools produce such excellent results, their performance should be measured by the percentage of their pupils achieving 5 or more A*-A grade GCSEs (including English and maths) instead of the 5 or more A*-C grade measure (including English and maths) used for comprehensive schools.   It is, of course, grossly unfair and nonsensical to suggest comparing schools using different criteria according to their type.  To do this would be totally misleading.  

An A*-B measure would perhaps highlight some differentiation between grammar (and other) schools, but a purely A*-A measure expects unreasonable perfection.  The key point, above all, is that whatever measure is used, it must be the same for all types of school.  After all, as Professor Jesson and The Schools Network know, academies and other comprehensive schools in four fifths of England where no grammar schools exist educate many high-ability pupils.  Why should the establishment want to hide the results of such high-achieving youngsters, for whom there is no other choice?  

The dangers of this partisan approach were also highlighted by a recent analysis by the House of Commons library (The Sunday Times, 6 May 2012).  This found that the children of middle class parents achieve significantly worse GCSE results and make less progress than their peers in other types of state school.  This, it was suggested, was because the academies’ (commendable) focus on improving the results of pupils from deprived backgrounds is at the expense of those from more privileged backgrounds.  But is this fair on the latter?  And will it be good for the country?

Professor Jesson is also remiss in that he takes no account of the different subjects taken:  grammar school pupils usually take ‘harder’ GCSEs, such as chemistry, physics, foreign languages, geography or history.  Pupils in comprehensive schools often take English and maths along with ‘softer’ subjects such as media studies, psychology, or even hair and beauty or information technology which may count for up to 4 GCSEs.  Why doesn’t Professor Jesson consider this?   

The report notes that grammar schools in Outer London and the West Midlands produce better results than those in East and South East England.  Of course, they do because grammar schools in or near large conurbations have many more applicants than grammar schools in isolated coastal areas, where half their catchment areas may be open sea!

Department for Education figures for 2011 show the average percentages of 16-year-olds achieving the government’s basic EBac standard (5 or more good GCSE passes in English, maths, science, a foreign language and geography or history) by type of school and by local authority. In selective grammar schools, it was 68.1%; in independent schools, 48.2%; in comprehensive schools, 13.7%; in academies, 8.0% – little better than the average for the few remaining modern schools, where it was 6.7%.  (It should be noted that in future, the academies’ percentage may improve dramatically because so many high-achieving grammar schools have now become academies.)  

The fundamental flaw is this: Professor Jesson has compared the performance of very good  grammar schools with truly excellent grammar schools in urban areas where competition for places is extremely fierce.  The most important comparison, between the performance of England’s 164 grammar schools and the schools offered to youngsters living in four-fifths of the country where there are no grammars, is thus avoided. How helpful, or honest, is that? 

When only 8% of academy pupils achieved the EBac standard last year, is it reasonable to suggest that there are more pressing problems to occupy The Schools Network than giving space to a subtle attack on high-achieving grammar schools and the principle of parental choice?

Guest piece by Linda Zabriski

The growing popularity of online, advanced education degrees has led to many as-yet unanswered questions regarding economic impact. For many, in picking one of the various online masters degree programs, they give themselves a chance to receive an advance education that may have eluded them otherwise, but the question remains of whether or not that is a sound economic decision.  Regarding this issue, the United States looks to the UK to supply answers.

“The UK is the most internet-based major economy,” writes Melanie Hick, columnist for The Huffington Post. The UK Internet economy is growing at a rate of 10.9%, while other developed nations are growing at an average of 8.1%. The country does not come by this increase by chance. In fact, the UK has initiated a number of programs to improve its Internet usage, including online education, because it believes Internet connectivity can help boost its economy.

While the UK’s online programs are just beginning to develop, the government is already making a commitment to “invest in education.” This investment is what the UK and other countries call “human capital.” Human capital is defined as “a measure of the economic value of an employee’s skill set. The concept of human capital recognizes that the quality of employees can be improved by investing in their education.

Fortunately for the UK and the United States, businesses and industries are becoming more accepting of online degrees, and that acceptance level is expected to rise. Recently, awareness and appreciation of online education has grown to the point that it might eventually be considered equal to campus-based education. With this knowledge in mind, online programs have drawn more traditional and nontraditional students. Some of these same students would not have been able to access brick-and-mortar institutions and can improve their skills, thereby adding to their long-term potential.

David Willetts, Minister of State for Universities and Science stated in a 2012 speech regarding economic growth that “our greatest national assets–our universities, our science facilities and researchers, our extraordinary accomplishments in the arts and humanities–are the best single hope for making our way in the high-tech world of the future.” Willetts believes that while these assets might not solve all the country’s economic woes, they can certainly help.

Dame Lynne Brindley, chief executive of the British Library since 2000 and head of the UK’s Online Learning Task Force, believes that online education is vital in today’s society, especially during the UK’s recession: “The key goal is to help UK higher education remain a world leader in online learning, growing its international market share by 2015.”

The UK Online Learning Task Force is also working to eliminate the the “stigma” associated with online education. In order for economies to realize the potential of online education, businesses need to look positively on online degrees. If current trends continue, this potential will likely become a reality. For instance, online undergraduate degrees are more readily accepted than online graduate degrees.

Now that technology enables employees to acquire new skills easily and cheaply, employers can require more area-specific knowledge, outsource training programs, and hire increasingly qualified candidates. It is only a matter of testing out the “products” of online programs. In time, as employers experience the benefits, and deficits, of online academics, they will be able to make better decisions regarding new hires. In the meantime, facilitating experimentation may be the best way to inspire confidence.

Guest post by Rob Robson, Chair of the Engineering Steering Group

Although there has been a lot of turbulence and many changes in education, many of them have seen us addressing and revisiting old ground.  What we need, and perhaps by 2037 we will have, is a new way of educating children because by then we will be facing a very different economic and social landscape. Two things that I have read recently have made me think that, at last, education might be turning to face the future.

The first was a short letter in The Times.  It was from an academic asking whether universities were needed in the future.  He explained that in the past, universities had been founded in order to gather people around that most expensive of resources, books.  But he then asked about the role of universities in education as information becomes available to more people, is easily accessible and is becoming cheaper. We should ask the same of schools. Do we really need large institutions which bring children into a prescribed “one size fits all” curriculum for hours every day or do we need something quite different for the future? 

The second piece of reading was a reference to the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) and an initiative they are now running called MITx.  The university is offering the opportunity for students around the world to study one of their courses online to gain MIT accreditation for free. Undoubtedly this offer is possible because of the power of MIT’s immense financial backing which is very different to many universities who struggle for funds but it may indicate the way in which education has to go.  It simply won’t be possible for universities and schools to charge the tax payer or individuals thousands of pounds for a curriculum when the content will be freely available via the Internet or its future incarnation.

To survive, the education system has to be able to add value to simply learning facts and we have to innovate to do this. Models of innovation meant that companies used large sums of money to research and develop their own ideas but this approach is very rapidly changing.  Organisations who are nimble innovate by inventing and then letting users do the innovation through networks which encourage development and customisation to bring the idea to the market.  Surely we will see something similar happening in education? By 2037, I don’t think we will be bringing children into a central place for their learning.  We will be able to personalise a child’s learning to play to that individual’s strengths and interests. We know from the way that society is rapidly developing that a flexible work force is essential. And so in schools children will need to learn the skills that they need for the future that they want. These will be the so called ‘soft’ skills of, networking, nimbleness, leadership, flexibility, teamwork and collaborative learning. Schools will not be able to rely on a prescribed curriculum because that will be out of date as soon as it is laid down.  So we are left with the challenge of preparing children for a future we don’t know.

To prepare for this uncertain future, schools must learn how to create the conditions for innovation and leaders must develop organisations that are innovation centres in the future.  Leaders cannot create innovation hubs in isolation from each other.  Modern innovation is about networking and it is very much about working together.  That is why all leaders need to spend time working as part of a system of education not as leaders in separated schools and organisations like the Schools Network must continue their crucial role of developing and encouraging networks of innovation for the future.

Guest article by Stephen Munday, Chair of the Leading Edge Steering Group

The past 25 years just happens to be almost precisely the span of my own career to date within the teaching profession. Various key themes have shaped the development of the schools’ system during this time. Two linked and yet perhaps contradictory such themes have been school independence and school collaboration. The purpose of this think piece is to explore these two and to reflect on their possible compatibility or otherwise. A personal contention is that both are highly desirable and that we must thus seek ways to ensure that they can properly co-exist.

 The independence journey is a clear one for schools in the past 25 years. The Local Management of School was followed by the possibility of Grant Maintained Status in the early 1990s. Seen as close to revolutionary by many in the system at the time, it now looks rather less so. It was superseded by Foundation status as the Labour Government moved to puts its own stamp on the school independence move. In later years of that Government, Academy status became a possibility for the few and Trust Schools became a possibility for the many. Now, Academy status is available for very many and probably for all. This is a 25-year trend, not some new creation of a new Coalition Government.

 My own view is that the direction of travel is good. Independence for schools is desirable. I would further contend that this is not a political point (it is interesting how the trend has continued across different Governments). Rather, it is a principle of how to get the best possible public services. As far as is possible, both decision-making and resource should be delegated to those responsible for providing the service. It is the service providers who are best placed to make the best decisions and to ensure that the resource is most effectively targeted to providing the service. The more resource and decision-making get stuck at some other level, the less effectively it is likely to be targeted at what matters most: the provision of the service itself. For schools, this means allowing schools to have access to the largest amount of the resource that can be passed to them, together with the power to make fundamental decisions about the provision of education for young people. From this perspective, Academies are a positive development and the sort of school system that we should desire.

 Together with school independence, the theme of school-to-school collaboration has been strong through the past 25 years. Many examples of developments and initiatives can easily be quoted to confirm this: the development of specialisms with their expectation of a ‘community’ remit; the accreditation of Advanced Skills Teachers with the expectation that they work alongside colleagues in other schools; Leading Edge and Training School designations that clearly expected schools to work in partnership with other schools; the development of various versions of federations, trusts and then sponsored academies, all with the expectation of hard, tight partnership working between schools (or academies); the work of NLEs, LLEs and now SLEs and the expectation that they would work to support leaders in schools other than their own; and now the development of Teaching School Alliances to develop a network of schools working together to provide a landscape of school-to-school support and school-based training and professional development. Again, the trend has been powerful and persistent, continuing through different hues of Governments.

 Some of the collaboration and partnership drive may have been shallow insofar as it was reactive to incentives, financial and other, placed in the system to encourage its development. However, for many it was also a genuine recognition that there was clear mutual benefit to be had from working together with other schools rather than working in isolation. All can be, and often have been, better off due to this. Many of us can quote many clear examples of this. Both of our own school’s inspections this millennium clearly stated that our very considerable partnership work could be seen to be of direct benefit to our own pupils and clearly contributed to high-quality teaching and learning. I have no hesitation in saying that this work was a major contributory factor in securing ‘outstanding’ grades for teaching and learning in both of those inspections.

 But now comes the rub. Can we really hold the trend to ever-greater independence at the same time as continuing to collaborate genuinely and powerfully? Do we not hit a contradiction somewhere? Will not one give in the face of the other? We have to be honest and say that it could. Strong independence with strong freedoms might very easily lead schools/academies to set their faces against each other and look for opportunity to gain at the expense of another. There is greater opportunity for that and the temptation for many might reasonably be strong. We have more opportunity to become stronger and better (or at least to try to do so) by pushing aside others. Collaboration recedes and the system becomes more fractured. Again, a personal view would be that this would be a tremendous shame and not at all in the interests of the system as a whole. Genuinely, I believe that we are all better off, and the system in total is definitely better off, if we seek to support each other rather than the opposite.

 So is there a way forward as we move into the next 25 years? I believe that there is. The essence of this may hinge on all of us having some agreed code of ethics. Doctors have had this for very many years and everyone acknowledges the need for it. Why do we not confirm the same need for another great public service tradition, namely teaching? In fact, an ethical code can fairly simply be drawn up that mirrors the code for doctors and can be applicable to the teaching profession. An attempt to do this is shown as appendix 1. I believe that we would be well served in coming years by affirming such an agreed code and agreeing that we all must abide by it in order properly to be called teaching professionals. From the perspective of school leaders, I think that some of the essence of this can easily be confirmed by a view about what our jobs and roles really are. In essence, do we see ourselves as individual school leaders, or do we believe ourselves truly to be system leaders? If it is the former, then it is just our own school that matters. We might do whatever it takes just to further the ends of our school alone. If it is the latter, then that approach is not possible. We must genuinely be interested in and feel a responsibility for other schools and for pupils in schools other than our own. We must and will collaborate for mutual benefit if this is how we view our role. We can and will hold together independence and collaboration as twin positive themes that do not contradict but sit together for the benefit of our education system. If we all truly see ourselves as system leaders, then every school can be a good (or better) school.

Guest piece by Geoff Barton

I had assumed that predicting the future was a thing of the past.

Then I read that it’s actually a fairly recent phenomenon. Our medieval forebears would have considered it bizarre to talk about the future in terms of anything other than the seasons: They’d do “summer is coming in” and that kind of thing.

It was only with the onset of an industrial age – ie the eighteenth century – that humans started to expect that the quality of life for their children could be different – and hopefully better – than for themselves.

We began to talk about and plan for a different future from our own present-day. By the 1940s and 50s this resulted in those optimistic imaginings of the way the glamorously-named ‘space age’ was going to change everything.

Look at those garishly illustrated depictions of the future, and we were all predicted to live in heaven-piercing apartments from which we would travel to and from work in gravity-defying rocket-ships.

With their cosmic backdrops – big planets usually hanging low on the horizon to suggest that some of our neighbours had moved to live across the universe – these images of the future were full of cheery optimism. The human race, it seemed, was doing well: technology was setting us free and making life better.

Since then we’ve had our fair share of troubles: arms races, wars, terrorist attacks, a looming environmental disaster called global warming, and other stuff that’s probably too gloomy for a blog like this.

It means that if people predict the future now, it’s not with the unalloyed enthusiasm of our mid-twentieth century predecessors. The horizon has darkened.

Take education. One of the clichés of some conferences I’ve been to is that someone, unusually and inexplicably in a dark polo neck sweater and suit (think Milk Tray Man) shows us a picture of children sitting in serried ranks in a Victorian classroom. He then flicks to an image of something strikingly similar from a classroom today.

The point, we are told, is that education hasn’t kept us with the pace of change. A modern-day operating theatre wouldn’t look like one from a hundred years ago, yet classrooms have hardly developed.

But I think something in education has changed. Ian Gilbert’s latest book is called Why do I Need a Teacher When I’ve Got Google? It’s not a bad question. Whereas when I was at school if you had a bad teacher you simply tolerated it, now there’s less need to do so: more up-to-date information than your teacher might know is waiting there, shimmering in cyber-space, to be accessed, downloaded, and cut-n-pasted at will.

Learning is therefore both easier (quick to find) and harder (having to judge what’s trustworthy and reliable), and that’s where I think students will always need teachers. Our role will be to show them how to gain knowledge, how to apply it, how to make connections between ideas and – crucially – how to be creative.

That’s something computers can’t do, and I suspect all of us retain the thrill of learning from experts and seeing how they help us to navigate a world of difficult and challenging ideas.

Nowhere is this more important than in literacy – my special interest. Effective speaking, listening, reading and writing aren’t mere mechanical skills. The best communicators have a sense of style and passion and purpose. They do things with language we hadn’t thought you could do. They surprise us. They interpret our world.

In my educational future we’ll probably still have rooms, even if they aren’t called classrooms. And we’ll still have older, more experienced people coaching and mentoring and instructing younger people, even if they aren’t called teachers.

We’ll need them to help us develop the skill that defines us as a species: homo grammaticus, the species with language, with grammar.

When mothers and fathers sit teaching their child to read, they aren’t just passing on some set of mechanical skills: they are showing them how to be more human. It’s what great teachers use literacy to do – to help us to use our most extraordinary human gift of language.

I think that’s something we’re always going to need.

Geoff Barton published ‘Read, Write Speak!’ with The Schools Network in March 2012. This student workbook is packed with literacy boosting activities to support KS3 students to improve their speaking, listening, reading, writing and critical thinking skills, whilst helping schools prepare for the literacy focus of the Ofsted inspection framework. Find out more.

A perspective from Graham Quinn, Chair of the National SEN Steering Group.

Drawing on the developments of the past 25 years, what are the key challenges and opportunities for schools, teachers and their young people over the next 25 years?

I began my career in special education almost 20 years ago. 

When examining the issue of where our schools, children and stakeholders may be in the next 25 years let me take you down memory lane.  You know the one where you had to play either a guitar or piano to work alongside children with additional needs.  Warnock had just started to impact as the young people all had “statements of SEN” as a legal entitlement.   A time when you and your classroom support assistant could take eight young people on the train, to London and then onward to France, for a residential, without filling out a single risk assessment and without needing to take a multitude of mobile hoists and slings.    

When I began teaching there was no National Curriculum.  There may have been some schemes of work (based around EDY!) but I guess most of us were left to get on with our own thing.  I remember a greater emphasis on fun and enjoyment but this may just be my fading memory.  I do remember “holding” activities by the Classroom Support Assistant while the “expert” teacher analysed and placed pp (physical prompt), vp (verbal prompt) and I (independent) into small boxes!   Peer observations and appraisal were occasional and I didn’t see an “inspector” until I’d been teaching 10 years.  Who also remembers the time of 6 month notice of inspections?  Ratchet up the stress levels after about 20 weeks.  I do recall a significant amount of support by the local authority and it was always my aspiration, after being a Head, to work as “an advisor”.  We did have one computer (in the school), an old BBC with a Green Screen, they’d never catch on!  How many of you remember the fact that the only finances the school controlled was the capitation, for resources. 

Our children and schools always appeared to be a couple of years behind mainstream schools when new initiatives and developments were rolled out: think National Curriculum, Local management of Schools, Specialist status, School Improvement Partners.   My career has taken me through the debate in the 90’s where almost every month we needed to “defend” the very existence of special schools.   I’ve worked through the debates about co location, continuum of provision, stand-alone special schools. 

Most of us were comfortable with the concept that Every Child Mattered (SHEEP acronyms all round) and, it could be argued, that the funding for capital projects placed a renewed value on our organisations.  Significant funding streams such as TVEI, SRB6, New Deals for Communities, Aiming High, Getting a Life, Aim Higher were a plenty but came with clearly determined outcomes.   However, it could be argued, that we are presently experiencing less local and National Interference and more “trust” afforded to schools to make more appropriate arrangements for their children and stake holders.  The “trust”, it could be argued, is somewhat tempered by a significant and very regular National inspection regime – which if they didn’t keep changing the framework, I could live with.   

So what have we collectively learnt?

I am a born optimist; I have to be supporting a League 1 football team with very limited aspirations.  But isn’t the word aspiration the one we should be focusing on as we move into the next twenty five years.  It would be ideal if our profession ceased  to engage in the arguments of where a child should be educated and place our energies and creative thoughts into  how, collectively,  the “system” can empower our young people.

It will be brilliant to see funding following the child and family, through individualised budgets, and for families and advocates to use this money on bespoke packages.  Schools will be forced to modernise.  Let’s strive to find the latest technical devices, whatever they will be, to empower our children.  We probably won’t have even dreamed of them yet!    We should be at the forefront of this research. 

We need to ensure our staffing teams are able to take up this challenge.  Offer higher quality initial teacher training (that really involves schools) to ensure our teachers and school leaders of the future to have the skills required to work with our children.  Schools of the future will not only require excellent practitioners and colleagues with outstanding  leadership skills but also to be first class managers of people, as collaboration and transferable skills within our workforces  will be essential.

Our children, recent research informs us, are coming into the school system with many more overlapping conditions that impact upon their learning.  We should develop our workforce to empower individuals not straightjacket them around arbitrary roles.

It would be wonderful if our curriculum offer was able to celebrate the arts, allow the young people to keep active, develop enquiry, innovate our key skills programme, ensure independence and engage with the latest technologies.  Building this into a world view will be essential.

Where and when should this offer occur?  If recent policy is anything to go by then a period of more autonomous schools is in the offing.  Schools will almost certainly gravitate to partnership working – it’s what the most successful organisations are good at.  We’ll see federations, links, chains and even umbrellas!  Will we still have 39 week offers?  I doubt it.  I believe there will be a blurring of the edges of the curricular and extra-curricular into a more “wrap around” offer.

However perhaps our next stage of system change should centre upon “real” impact?

The combined and seamless system should empower our young people to participate and contribute to our communities in a way they feel valued and equal partners.  This will not just challenge our schools but society as a whole.  Maybe elements of funding should be linked to ensuring that schools offer young people appropriate post school placements.

The last 25 years have seen improvements in many aspects of policies and systems.  I would argue not enough emphasis has been given to outcomes that directly link to the communities in which our children spend their leisure time, work and lives.  There are going to be exciting times ahead.

Oh and, a plea, let’s make it fun.  Let’s ensure we keep those moments of awe and wonder, because we all have to remember it is the best job in the world!

Conor Ryan writes the latest in our series of articles looking forward to the next 25 years in education to celebrate 25 years of The Schools Network.

When Lord Baker launched City Technology Colleges 25 years ago, he was creating a school brand. It was certainly not uncontroversial, and it developed in unexpected ways. Technology Colleges and their successor specialist schools proved easier to expand. They made a big difference to standards, as they focused schools on what they could do best; and in doing so, they helped thousands of schools to become better all-rounders.

When the Labour government re-ignited the CTC model through academies, its early incarnation was as much through private philanthropy as through branded chains. But as academies have grown, so have the chains. Last year, the improvements from Harris, Ark and ULT were not only in excess of the national average, they were ahead of the academies average too.

Other growing brands have been promoted by pioneering headteachers like David Carter’s Cabot schools in the West, Michael Wilkins’ Outwood model in Yorkshire and David Triggs’ Greensward brand through the Academies Enterprise Trust. With the growth of free schools and the introduction of primary sponsored academies, there is a real demand for successful chains to expand.

There are some who say that we will only really get traction with school brands when profit-making schools, as in Sweden or parts of the States, are unleashed into English education. But while profit-making may help some brands, those who make the case also ignore the entrepreneurial spirit of English heads that has been a remarkable change since the CTC Trust – that is now The Schools Network – was born.

And that spirit of entrepreneurialism, made infectious by Schools Network conferences, is destined to be more important over the next 25 years, as schools need not only to improve to match the best in the world, but also need to realise the full benefits of emerging technologies and to find ways to deliver teaching and learning in a manner more fit for the early 21st century than the late 19th century.

That’s why the ‘by schools, for schools’ model is so important. With 45% of secondary schools likely to enjoy academy status by next year, the traditional local authority model is not only being displaced by the familiar chains, it is being superseded by a host of much smaller trusts, federations and other partnerships between schools across the country.

I’ll be honest: I’d have preferred if ministers had pushed a few more incentives into the system to encourage this process along. But there is no doubt that it is happening. And that spirit of entrepreneurial headship, using the best practice that they have found to work to help others to improve will be as important a part of the new school brands as the undoubtedly excellent achievements of Harris and Ark. And if there are to be real improvements in the primary sector, ministers know that this model is the only one that will deliver.

That’s not to say that these micro-networks won’t draw on wider school brands when they need to do so. But it does offer the prospect of increased insights into curriculum delivery and ICT innovation. After all, if the most successful gaming companies rely on players for their most interesting new ideas, schools and academies should be hubs of innovation in the future of learning.

For that to happen, school leaders and teachers need to take a leaf from the Finnish book, and see post-graduate practical research as an integral part of their job. Those insights – allied to what we know works with the basics – will be a crucial part of the new school brands for the future. They can become brand leaders as well as school leaders.

In its various guises, the Schools Network has been at the vanguard of schools reform over the last 25 years: the next 25 will be the years when ‘by schools, for schools’ really helps to shape our national education system for the better.

Conor Ryan, a former senior government adviser, is a writer and consultant. He blogs at http://conorfryan.blogspot.com.