Another way for school readiness
The government’s focus on early years and the introduction of a national target is welcome. However, experts are right to highlight the flaws in the current “good level of development” (GLD) measure (Government school readiness target ‘risky’, say experts, November 11).
The removal of moderation and exemplifications in 2021 will, over time, inevitably lead to a lack of shared understanding across different schools and regions.
If children are to go on and thrive in key stage 1 and beyond, it is crucial they achieve the early learning goals, particularly the most vulnerable.
But there is an alternative policy: the reception baseline assessment could be developed to include a teacher assessment framework and the outcome shared with schools and parents. That would enable teachers to understand where children are – and help them to ensure they are where they need to be by the end of the year.
It would also provide policymakers with a school readiness measure since it takes place at the beginning of reception rather than at the end, when most children have been in school for a year.
Molly Devlin, Ark director of early years
Bans ARE the brave choice
Hannah Carter is right to oppose “high-tech storage solutions” but completely wrong to describe smartphone bans as “a lazy opt-out” (November 8).
UK schools are at a crossroads, increasingly realising that “not seen or heard” policies are untenable. This is obvious when listening to testimony of children, such as 17-year-old Flossie describing being shown, at school, “horrific” violent videos and the fact that 27 per cent of 11-year-olds have seen pornography.
Adopting storage solutions for devices may have been the right choice for schools in the past, but it supports the normalisation of children owning smartphones. Much of the harm
happens before and after school, including on the school bus and at the gates.
It is also extraordinarily expensive, as demonstrated by the recent multi-million deal signed by the Irish government.
Instead, schools must add smartphones to their list of prohibited items, along with vapes and chewing gum. Many schools have done just this, allowing pupils to bring non-internet non-camera “brick” phones, only.
This is the brave choice, one which truly protects children. All schools must embrace it, urgently.
Guy Holder, head of PSHE and campaigner for Set@16
Enrichment’s GCSE blinkers problem
The curriculum review’s call for more enrichment activities is an excellent idea in theory, but in practice might be hard to implement.
At a recent conference, I asked an English teacher if she would consider taking her year 10 class to a cross-curricular lecture show about Shakespeare and his mathematical world (full disclosure: I’m the one putting on the show).
“No,” the teacher replied. “From year 10 we put on the blinkers. We don’t want them learning extraneous information, because they might remember it and quote it in the exam, and they would get no marks for it.”
It reflects a reality which many schools face.
Teachers know that enrichment matters. They see how trips, visiting speakers, and wider experiences can bring subjects alive. But time, stretched resources and the pressure for grades conspire against them.
If enrichment is to be more than a buzzword, schools need support and permission to prioritise it. That might mean building space for enrichment into the curriculum model, recognising it in inspection frameworks, or creating an exam specification which rewards curiosity and connection rather than rote memorisation.
Rob Eastaway, director of Maths Inspiration
Seclusion inclusion
Guidance and legislation won’t be enough unless there is also provision for inspection, investigation and review (Schools to face legal duty to record seclusion use, November 16).
The risks involved in depriving a distressed or angry child of any exit route are huge and in some cases are likely to trigger behaviour leading to permanent exclusion, giving rise to a reasonable concern that this was the intention.
The issues are far greater in complexity and controversy than, for example, those which we determine at independent review panels. Unusually, this is a matter which will affect mainstream, specialist and alternative sectors equally and will cause parents across the sectors to assume the worst because it resembles the kind of scandal with which we have become all too familiar in institutional care.
Your thoughts