UKPOL.CO.UK

Category: Education

  • Amanda Spielman – 2023 Speech at the Big Conversation

    Amanda Spielman – 2023 Speech at the Big Conversation

    The speech made by Amanda Spielman, the Chief Inspector of Ofsted, on 28 January 2023.

    Hello, and welcome to this year’s Ofsted Big Conversation.

    It’s my first Big Conversation speech since the pandemic, and I’m delighted to be back and talking to you all again.

    Thank you all for coming and for contributing to this hugely valuable event. And thanks to the organisers for all your efforts in bringing it together.

    But I also want to thank you for what you do the other 364 days a year. Because I know it’s been an exceptionally difficult year.

    We published our Annual Report last month, and in it we recognised some of the pressures you’ve been facing.

    The effects of missing early education

    We reported on the longer-term effects of the pandemic including the effects that missing early education has had on some children.

    We now have a clearer picture of where children have fallen behind, and of the difficulties you all face in helping them to catch up.

    Some children’s speech and language are delayed, as well as their wider development. These children often take longer to settle into a nursery or with a childminder.

    And it means some children are less prepared for Reception when they start school.

    But we’ve also seen great examples of the work you are all doing to help children catch up.

    These include creating more opportunities for children to interact. You’ve been rebalancing your curriculums towards language and communication.

    You’re reading to children more, and emphasising social skills in day-to-day routines.

    You’re giving children lots of chances to mix with each other. They’re simple changes, but they can have a significant impact.

    But taking these steps, does need stable and skilled staff. We know that’s also something that many of you are struggling with.

    Our Annual Report noted that it is still difficult to recruit and retain qualified staff. And of course, this can lead to a lack of continuity and consistency for children.

    So far, staffing problems have not affected the national profile of inspection judgements, but of course it is something we are very aware of.

    Apprenticeships

    Apprenticeships could be part of the solution to recruiting enough qualified early years staff. But unfortunately fewer young people are even beginning these programmes at the moment.

    The number of people starting relevant apprenticeships fell from just over 27,000 six years ago, to just over 16,000 last year. We hope this trend can be reversed.

    It is also important to use apprentices in the right way. They can be a huge help, and on-the-job training is a big part of their professional development.

    But we have also seen cases of employers not always releasing apprentices for off-the-job training. This may seem like a short-term fix, but it can delay or disrupt their training and cause problems down the road.

    We’ve also seen some providers using apprentices to replace skilled, experienced practitioners. This can’t be a long-term solution and it isn’t fair to the apprentices, or to children.

    We’re awaiting the results of the consultation on updating and improving the Level 3 criteria for Early Years Educators. I know many of you will have responded to the consultation.

    It’s important that these criteria capture the right things and are brought up to date to reflect current thinking and research.

    It’s so important that people coming into the sector get off to the right start, and this means equipping them with the knowledge they need. We hope this update process can be completed quickly.

    Against this difficult background, it is all the more impressive that so many childminders, nurseries, and pre-schools are rated good or outstanding.

    But we also know that we cannot be complacent. You don’t need me to tell you that children only get one childhood and deserve the best start.

    Best start in life

    And that is why our Ofsted strategy makes a priority of giving children ‘the best start in life.’

    We are really emphasising the first 5 years and especially language and communication.

    We know that many children do well in the early years.

    But last year over a third didn’t reach a good level of development by the age of 5. And that figure is up a lot since before the pandemic.

    This is clearly concerning on its own. But it’s even more concerning, when you consider how this may set them back throughout their education and later life.

    You might have seen that we have now published the first of our early years research reviews.

    It points out that, in early education, children explore the building blocks of the knowledge, in that they will go on to study at school. (And when I talk about knowledge, I do mean in its fullest sense, not disconnected facts.)

    Obviously, preparing children for school is not the only purpose of early education. But it is an important one.

    Later this year we will be publishing more parts of this research review.

    They will explore all 7 areas of learning in the Early years foundation stage (EYFS), with a particular focus on language and communication.

    Language and communication

    Spoken language is such an important channel for learning in the early years, before children can become independent learners through reading at school.

    Language and communication are the most vital areas of learning for the early years, and the hardest to catch up on later. Without them, all other learning becomes more difficult.

    We understand that the EYFS goes beyond and into reception, but we want these reviews to be as useful as possible to you, and have designed them with you, the preschool sector, in mind.

    In developing and evaluating our approach, we consider a range of research and viewpoints. And we look further afield and consider what other countries do.

    This could be the subject of a speech all on its own, especially as no 2 countries have the same approach. But there’s always something to learn when looking at other countries’ arrangements.

    Just as in England, nearly every country has one strand of thinking about childcare and another about early education. In some countries one is more prevalent than the other. Not that anyone is wrong or right, but there are many approaches.

    But almost all countries agree that they want children to be competent readers by about age 7.

    In terms of learning to read and write, English is at the more difficult end of the spectrum, because it has more complex and overlapping relationships between letters and sounds. This complicated code means that literacy takes longer to build in English than in many other languages.

    For you, this reinforces the importance of developing language and communication in the preschool years.

    It sets children up well for starting to learn to read in reception. You can all play a major part in that.

    So, what should you do? I know that might sound like a daunting question. But it can also be remarkably simple. Sticking to the basics will serve you well and serve your children well.

    After all, learning gets lost if you try to overcomplicate it. This applies just as much to young children as to older ones.

    Working out what level of learning children can cope with is important. It’s not about coming up with more exciting and elaborate activities. It’s about working out what you want children to learn and then thinking about the best way for them to learn it. This is something you do every day of course.

    However, there is a balance.

    In the jargon, some cognitive load is required – but cognitive overload should be avoided.

    An approach of little and often, of planning your teaching in small chunks, will help children learn now and set them up for future learning.

    Learning does require effort. But that becomes easier as the young child gathers more knowledge.

    Early years curriculum

    Our research review identified some features that high quality early years education may have.

    It should start with a carefully considered curriculum. I know that word, ‘curriculum’, can be misunderstood or make people think of something more complicated than is actually needed.

    An early years curriculum should consider what children need to learn over time as well as the end goals.

    It should be coherently planned and well sequenced.

    It does not need to include formal subjects, but it should prepare children for that. And it should enable all children to make progress.

    Once you have decided what you want children to learn, you need to think about the best way to teach it.

    Again, the word ‘teaching’ can be so misunderstood. We’re not talking about chalk and blackboards.

    In the education inspection framework (EIF) handbook we define teaching like this:

    Teaching is a broad term that covers the many different ways in which adults help young people learn.

    In the early years, that should be a balance of play, guided activities, and direct teaching.

    Much of children’s learning comes through your interactions with them during planned and child-initiated play and activities.

    But of course, sometimes it’s right to show or tell children what to do through explicit teaching.

    For example, when they are learning something for the first time such as tying their shoelaces or using scissors.

    Judging what, when and how to teach is a key part of your role. Experimenting at the water tray is a great way for children to learn about floating and sinking.

    But nobody expects a child to learn how to use a microwave by discovery. That would lead to broken microwaves and ruined food.

    And we don’t expect children to discover the names of shapes, colours or numbers for themselves. We teach those things explicitly.

    But sometimes we don’t do the same with the wider world and the things around children.

    It is important to consider a child’s interests and work with them to make your teaching engaging.

    For example, if they ask for the name of a flower, naming it and then pointing out the parts of a plant could be a great way to add to their knowledge and vocabulary.

    They will never soak up new words and new ideas faster than when they’re with you, so it’s a wonderful window of opportunity.

    But it is also important to not just to be led by children’s interests and what they ask about. If you do, you may miss essentials.

    So again, there’s a balance to be found, and that’s a big part of your role. You should encourage children to take part in all kinds of play, not just those that fit with their previous experience and preferences.

    Teaching doesn’t mean treating your children as though they are already in school, but it should include making sure that they are ready for that environment by the time they leave you.

    That includes making sure they can communicate and engage with other children and adults.

    It can also include practical skills such as preparation for writing. You don’t need to teach letter formation, but you could start with a good, relaxed pencil grip when drawing.

    It can also be the daily things that you may not consider teaching.

    Even very young children enjoy simple routines and structures, feeling that they know how things work, and that they can do things.

    Activities like laying and setting a table or tidy up time can of course instil good habits and routines for later in life and build social skills.

    And they can also make children feel good, feel that they are contributing, and feel pride in doing something for other people.

    Little routines throughout the day like putting their bags in cubbies, hanging their coats on pegs, and saying please and thank you, also stand children in good stead for when they start school.

    Many of you already do these things so well and they’re so important.

    These are just some examples.

    But of course, finding how and when to teach most effectively will always rely on your professional judgement.

    Setting the right ambitions and plans in your curriculum will make sure you are on the right path.

    I hope you enjoy the rest of today’s programme – I know my colleagues Wendy Ratcliff and Kirsty Godfrey are looking forward to it!

    Thank you again for joining the Big Conversation, and for all that you do.

  • Gillian Keegan – 2023 Speech to the Church of England National Education Conference

    Gillian Keegan – 2023 Speech to the Church of England National Education Conference

    The speech made by Gillian Keegan, the Secretary of State for Education, on 27 January 2023.

    Good morning – it’s fantastic to be here with you all today.

    As education secretary I often get asked what “education” means. Is it a particular subject, a skill, or is it something else?

    And you know – I think there’s one unifying factor.

    An education lets you do things that you couldn’t beforehand.

    Preparing for this speech gave me the opportunity to reflect on my own schooling which was always in faith schools.

    It was a different denomination – Catholic. I remember starting school aged four at St Mary’s, in St Helens, which is just outside Liverpool.

    It was a terrifying experience, I think it is always quite a terrifying experience when you start school. But not least because it was run by nuns and they were dressed in black robes and they absolutely terrified me.

    Through their kindness, I eventually overcame my fears and began to flourish in school. I learned an early lesson not to judge by appearance.

    Overcoming fear is a valuable life skill and one that I use everyday in the world of politics.

    Indeed, I’m using it right now at the annual conference of a church. A clear demonstration that I’ve learned to do something that I didn’t used to do.

    That is the power of education. Even if those nuns might say, I’m addressing the wrong denomination.

    I am grateful to Saint Mary’s and all my schools.

    All the teachers at the fantastic faith schools have got me to where I am today. They also instilled faith in me, which is still a core part of who I am today.

    Faith is something I think that everyone here can understand – and I want you to know how much I value the role the Church of England plays in educating our children.

    Its reputation for excellence in schools speaks for itself, and you are one of my Department’s most valued partners.

    You provide over a fifth of state-funded schools, a quarter of primary schools, and are the largest provider of academy trusts.

    Your schools are more likely to be good or outstanding than those without a religious character.

    There are Anglican colleges in every continent of the world, bar Antarctica. There is a potential growth opportunity there.

    You are transforming lives. You should be proud of the work you do, and on behalf of the children you teach, I am eternally grateful.

    Put simply, without the Church of England – pupils across the country would be learning less and doing worse.

    And a big part of that is that you have used the academy trust model. This is the structure that we think is going to make the biggest difference for our children, but we know it only works if focused on improving quality all the time, always striving for excellence.

    And I can promise you I will work tirelessly to support quality teaching and spread best practice. I’m taking forward the Review of regulation and commissioning, so we can do this to help improve outcomes for all our children.

    That’s also why I want more schools to be in high-quality trusts.

    To support you we will protect your schools, so that when they become academies they retain the statutory freedoms and protections that apply to Church schools.

    It means working in each area to shape the right plan at the right pace that builds the quality that pupils need.

    In the past 10 years we have made huge strides to give every child the chance in life they deserve. And all of you are central to that success.

    Today 88% of schools rated Ofsted good or outstanding, compared to 68% when we took office.

    From 2010, in just eight years we brought the UK up the PISA rankings from 25th to 14th in reading and 28th to 18th in maths.

    Your schools have played a massive part in this. But to really flourish, we must go further still.

    I am determined to ensure more children meet our expected standards at reading, writing and maths and I agree with the Prime Minister on maths to 18.

    We all use maths every day, from grocery shopping, to buying financial products, to mortgages, to understanding good debt from bad. And we must equip our children to deal with life’s complexities.

    But to make this all add up, there have to be great teachers.

    Many of you will have heard me praise my apprenticeship which provided me with a great start to my working life at 18.

    But that journey began with a school teacher called Mr Ashcroft.

    He would stay late to teach me and another girl technical drawing and engineering, and that allowed me to get 10 O-levels at a school where most struggled to achieve only 4 or 5.

    All thanks to one teacher at one school, helping me to realise my one opportunity.

    I want every child to be inspired by a teacher like Mr Ashcroft. That’s why we’ve put in place a world-class teacher development system.

    This includes the delivery of 150,000 fully funded National Professional Qualifications by 2024 and I want all school leaders to think about how NPQs can benefit both their staff and pupils.

    I know the Church of England is a valued provider of these.

    We also know they are hugely popular. So we want to see even more of our teachers doing them.

    But for teachers to have an impact, they need to be in school.

    I understand the pressures many people are facing including our teachers and we struggle with the economic challenges due to the war in Ukraine. Inflation eats away at all our pay checks.

    On the top of my in-tray when I got this job was a joint letter from the four major teaching unions – it asked for an extra £2 billion next year and the year after to support our schools with increased costs and to help fund this years pay awards.

    We were one of the few departments to be given money in the Autumn Statement.

    And yes, we did get £2 billion more both years. The unions asked, we delivered.

    That uplift means we will be funding schools, in real terms, at the highest level ever in history.

    It may not have been smart to use so much political capital in my first couple of weeks. But I hope it goes to show my personal commitment.

    I know from my speaking to thousands of teachers, many in your schools, that there is more to do.

    My promise to you is I will always listen.

    Saying my door is always open is a cliché but it is true. I am a very open person.

    My ask of all of you now is that you now work with me to keep as many children in school as possible during the disruptive strike action.

    I began by saying how my education had helped me in my career. I’d like to finish by sharing three key things I’ve learnt through that career.

    First, you don’t get far without acting on what you know works; second, you won’t achieve much without a visionary leader and finally, you’ll barely get out of the starting blocks without working together and collaborating with others.

    And I am looking forward to collaborating with you all to make sure our education system flourishes for all our children.

  • David Neal – 2023 Statement on Suella Braverman and Windrush Lessons Learned Review

    David Neal – 2023 Statement on Suella Braverman and Windrush Lessons Learned Review

    The statement made by David Neal, the Independent Chief Inspector of Borders and Immigration, on 26 January 2023.

    I am disappointed the Home Secretary has decided not to progress Recommendation 10, since this presented an ideal opportunity to take stock and examine a number of issues relating to the independence and effectiveness of the ICIBI.

    The ICIBI was established in 2009; its budget has been stagnant since then, and staffing levels have actually decreased, even as borders and immigration issues have grown in prominence and complexity. A role and remit review would have provided an opportunity to assess whether the level of resourcing provided to the inspectorate is appropriate.

    Moreover, unlike other inspectorates, the ICIBI does not have the power to publish its own reports. The Home Office is responsible for publishing ICIBI’s reports, and it regularly fails to meet its commitment to ensure that reports are published within 8 weeks of submission. In many cases, reports are published considerably beyond this timeframe. So this is a missed opportunity to look at increasing powers regarding the publishing of reports as explicitly recommended by Wendy Williams. Of the 23 ICIBI reports that have been published during my tenure, only one was laid in Parliament within the agreed 8-week window. The inspection report on the initial processing of migrants arriving via small boats that I completed in February 2022 – and that documented security breaches at Tug Haven and Western Jet Foil – was not published until the week before last year’s summer recess, nearly five months after it had been submitted to the Home Secretary and some 13 weeks late. Such delays affect perceptions of the ICIBI’s independence and effectiveness and may hinder timely scrutiny of the Home Office’s performance.

    It is disappointing as well that no role and remit review will examine Wendy Williams’s recommendation that a duty be placed on ministers to justify the non-acceptance of ICIBI recommendations and that the Chief Inspector will not be able to work closely with a Migrant’s Commissioner when formulating his inspection programme, as the Home Secretary has also decided not to proceed with Recommendation 9.

    A role and remit review would also have provided an opportunity to explore how greater synergies could be established between the ICIBI and other similar inspectorates.

    While I regret that the role and remit review called for in the Windrush Lessons Learned Review will not go forward, it is my hope that the ICIBI will nonetheless be able to work with the Home Office to address these issues. Wendy Williams recognised that the ICIBI is ‘a critically important external review mechanism for the department’. I look forward to engaging with ministers and officials to ensure further progress towards meeting Williams’s call for the Home Office to become ‘an organisation that is more confident under the gaze of external scrutiny’.

  • Ian Bauckham – 2023 Speech at the Sixth Form Colleges Association Winter Conference

    Ian Bauckham – 2023 Speech at the Sixth Form Colleges Association Winter Conference

    The speech made by Sir Ian Bauckham, the Chair of Ofqual, on 18 January 2023.

    Good afternoon. It is a pleasure to be with you this afternoon as Chair of Ofqual. Unfortunately, the Chief Regulator is unable to be with us today, which I know she very much regrets. She spoke to your winter conference last year in remote format, but it’s obviously much better to be here face to face and talk in person.

    And what a difference a year makes. Last year saw the very welcome return of a normal series of examinations and formal assessments, or nearly normal. Thank you for everything you did to enable those to run smoothly in your colleges. I know it wasn’t always easy but we had a really good outcome for young people, nonetheless.

    I will be saying something later on exams this summer, but I wanted to start with what is happening on the review of level 3 qualifications, including, for example, courses like BTECs at level 3, but also the whole range of alternative academic and technical qualifications at level 3.

    I know that there are questions and potentially some concerns about what is happening, including the approval process for continued funding, and why all this is happening, so I thought it might be helpful for me to offer a brief overview.

    Aside from a small number of exceptions, all level 3 alternative academic and technical qualifications (qualifications at level 3 which are not T Levels or A levels, like for example level 3 BTECS, alongside many others) are being required to re-apply for funding as part of a government-led streamlining programme for these qualifications.

    The government’s aim for this exercise is in essence threefold:

    • firstly, to simplify the landscape, including addressing what is seen as in some cases unnecessary duplication where that exists
    • to drive up the quality of qualifications and the assessment that underpins them
    • and to ensure that appropriate priority is given to T Levels and their place in the landscape

    These alternative and technical qualifications constitute a large and complex area in comparison, say, with A levels and T Levels. For example, there are more than 60 awarding organisations offering the qualifications that are in scope, and several thousand different level 3 qualifications in the alternative academic and technical space.

    Some of these are large entry and well known to you in your colleges, and some, of course, are very small in terms of entry, and not likely to be on your radar as college leaders.

    Last week the government published details of their new qualifications funding approval process for qualifications at level 3. Talking to your colleagues, I know that that is under scrutiny by your representatives and I am sure debate will continue. What the document sets out to do is bring clarity on what type of L3 qualifications are likely to be publicly funded alongside A levels and T Levels, and bring clarity on the timescales.

    I recommend that you take a look at this for more detailed information. I believe the Department for Education will be running some webinars to look at some of this in more detail, which may be useful for colleagues here as well.

    As part of the process that awarding organisations are going through, re-applying for funding, we, Ofqual, are contributing by providing qualitative feedback to the DfE on each qualification where funding is being reapplied for, as well as on the awarding organisation itself.

    This means that these qualifications are coming under much greater individual regulatory scrutiny than has been the case up to now. Ofqual has put in place a range of higher expectations relating to quality that we expect awarding organisations to meet in their reapplications. It is against those expectations that we provide our qualitative feedback to the DfE and the Institute for Apprenticeships and Technical Education (IfATE).

    As the process plays out, the DfE is taking decisions on funding for the reapplications it receives taking into consideration the quality-based advice Ofqual provides, as well as the contribution of IfATE, that represents the employer voice.

    It is probably important to flag that the government absolutely recognises that, alongside the aim of simplifying the landscape, there will, in the future, still need to be a range of qualifications at L3 available alongside A levels and T Levels.

    For many students these qualifications are important, not only as vehicles for their continued education and engagement in education, but also because they provide important routes for further study or employment. So there will likely be many decisions to approve applications for funding, alongside decisions not to continue to fund.

    You might be wondering what this means for you as a college leader.

    In short, unless you are a college which offers only A levels and GCSEs, or T Levels, it is almost certain you will be offering some of these qualifications, maybe for example level 3 BTECs or equivalent.

    It is also at least possible that the government will determine that some of those qualifications do not meet the criteria for continued funding, which may mean you will need to take decisions about changing the portfolio of courses you provide in the interests of your students to reflect what is available and funded in the future. So following this process, including through your representatives in this association, to make sure that you are up to speed with decisions being taken is critically important. I am sure you will also continue to make your views heard.

    Grading in 2023

    Moving on now, I will now say something about arrangements for grading GCSEs, AS and A levels in 2023. We published our plans back in September so that higher education institutions could factor in decisions that were being made about grading before they embarked on their offer-making, and of course because some of you will have been arriving at UCAS predictions for students. We felt it was important you had as much information as possible before you started that process. Our plans for 2023 take us a step further on the road to normality, building on what happened in 2022, while also recognising the impact of the pandemic.

    You will recall that in summer 2022, we aimed for a staging post on the way back to more normal grading. In 2023, we will return to pre-pandemic grading, but with some protection in place for your students, a soft landing, if you like.

    Students in the 2023 cohort have not, during their exam courses, experienced the level of national school or college closures experienced by students in the 2 years before them. But I know, from listening to teachers, college leaders and students themselves, that many have certainly experienced some level of disruption.

    So, to achieve that extra bit of protection, Ofqual will put in place the same sort of safeguards used for the first students taking reformed GCSEs and A levels from 2017 onwards.

    Back in the reform context, that meant not disadvantaging students in the first cohorts if overall they performed less well because they were the first to sit the new exams.

    So how will it work this summer? In practice, as in any year, grade boundaries for every specification will be set by senior examiners after they have reviewed the work produced by students in their exams.

    But those senior examiners will be guided in their decisions about where to set grade boundaries by information about the grades achieved in pre-pandemic years, along with prior attainment data for the cohort.

    So that means students in 2023 will be protected in grading terms if their examination performance in 2023 is a little lower than it might have been had the pandemic not taken place. That is what I mean by a soft landing.

    What that means is, a typical student who would have achieved an A grade in their A level geography before the pandemic will be just as likely to get an A in summer 2023, even if their performance in the assessments is a little weaker in 2023 than it might have been before the pandemic.

    We expect that overall results in summer 2023 will be much closer to the pre-pandemic years than results since 2020. In other words, we expect that overall, nationally, results in 2023 will be lower than they were in 2022.

    Individual providers, including colleges and schools, should be prepared for this. I know, as a school leader myself, it’s worrying if you look at figures that are lower than the previous year.

    It’s important that we don’t compare the results in 2022 with any other year. Lower results in 2023 compared with 2022 will not mean, by itself, that your college’s performance has fallen. It will be much more likely to reflect the return nationally to normal grading standards.

    It is important to note that, while we aim to return pretty much to normal grading in 2023, this does not mean there is any nationally pre-determined ‘quota’ of grades. Every set of grade boundaries, qualification by qualification, is determined by human, senior examiners, taking account of all the information they have available, including actual student performance.

    I did want to sound one note of caution: if you are using summer or autumn 2022 papers as mock or trial exams, the grade boundaries set for those papers are likely to be more generous, reflecting the approach we took in 2022, both summer and autumn. Do bear that in mind if you are using the results from mocks to give indicative grades for students being examined this year.

    For vocational and technical qualifications (VTQs) taken alongside or instead of GCSEs and A levels, awarding organisations are expected to take account of the grading approach being used in GCSEs and A levels. So for VTQ qualifications certificating in 2023, this also means a return to normal grading arrangements.

    And a word about universities and higher education: decisions about grading by themselves have no effect on the number of higher education places available. That is determined by other factors and has got nothing to do with grading decisions.

    Universities themselves will take account of how exams will be graded when they make their offers, including any differences between the 4 nations of the UK (which already exist). Universities are well-experienced in factoring those in to their offering arrangements.

    UCAS wrote out to all schools just after Ofqual announced our grading decision, to explain how offers will be made this year, and to confirm that universities would take our grading decision into account. The Chief Regulator also wrote to admissions officers just before Christmas.

    Formulae/equation sheets, MFL and resilience

    Further points on 2023: there are one or two changes to support students taking GCSEs. Students will be given formulae sheets for GCSE maths and revised equation sheets for GCSE physics and combined science, which we did in 2022 for those GCSEs. This will give some additional reassurance to GCSE students in the exam itself.

    And for modern foreign languages GCSEs, Ofqual’s changed requirements mean that exams do not have to test unfamiliar vocabulary. That’s to make it feel a bit more accessible for students this year.

    Delivering exams

    Turning now to resilience, the arrangements in place should the unthinkable happen in summer 2023. Clearly the closer we get to the summer, the less likely that becomes, but we’ve all learned to be cautious in how we predict the future. In November, Ofqual and the DfE jointly published guidance on resilience, in the very unlikely event that exams are not able to go ahead as planned. Some colleges may be running mock exams now and I know this is a big operation, particularly in colleges such as yours with large cohorts of students. You are also, simultaneously, preparing students to take their end of year exams. Ofqual was conscious of this when we published the guidance.

    The thrust of that guidance, designed to minimise the burden on you and your students, is that any assessment opportunities you plan should be in line with your normal approaches, as far as possible.

    As well as all the work you do to prepare your students to take their assessments through your teaching and learning, we know that the administration and delivery of exams is something you take seriously. We take our hats off to people in colleges leading the examinations operation.

    It is enormously complex, but there is training and support available, and I encourage you to make sure those who are charged with doing this work get access to the range of training available for them so they can benefit from it and deliver as well as possible on behalf of students.

    If you’ve looked at the GCSE and A level exam timetables for next year, you’ll see there are some changes from 2022.

    The Joint Council for Qualifications (JCQ) listened to feedback about the spacing between exams in the same subject in summer 2022. They have taken this on board for 2023.

    They will largely be preserving those gaps, to reduce the risk of students missing all exams in a subject, but the spacing between some papers is slightly less next summer.

    I did just want to draw your attention to the contingency days that they have built in. Both the 8 and 15 June will be ‘contingency afternoons’ and the 28 June will be a contingency day in case there is national or local disruption that would mean exams had to be re-scheduled.

    Do please let your students know about this and remind them that they might have to be available on those dates. It’s particularly important for them to be aware if they are planning holidays.

    There are more details on the JCQ website, and a quick plug for Ofqual’s resources as well: every year we provide a guide for students and a guide for schools and colleges. These will be published in the spring, and always live somewhere central on our website. I hope you’ll be able to point your students to them.

    Vocational and technical qualification results in 2023

    And finally, just as Ofqual regulates in the interests of students of all ages and apprentices, we are also convinced of the need for parity of treatment for students across the different sorts of qualifications your colleges provide, whether vocational or academic.

    So I wanted to reassure you that we have in train a series of actions to prevent a repeat of the delayed results in vocational and technical qualifications that we saw last August. I know this affected some of you and your students.

    We were shocked by what became apparent in August. Not only that around 20,000 students from 1,550 centres had delayed results, but that for some time, there hadn’t been a single date by which VTQ students could expect results – even when they were used for progression. That is not acceptable and Ofqual will work with the sector to fix this, not just for this summer, but for the long term and in the interests of being fair to students taking these qualifications.

    Our investigation of the awarding organisations involved continues, as does our review of the extent of the problem. We will consider whether enforcement action is appropriate after that concludes.

    In December, we published the 5 key actions that Ofqual, working with you and others in the sector, will deliver.

    These actions cover a range of areas, and there isn’t time to cover them in detail here. They include putting in place clear deadlines, improving data sharing, introducing check-ins for colleges and awarding organisations, improving information accessibility about these qualifications, improving communications from awarding organisations to centres, improving training for staff running exams, and monitoring the implementation of all this via a joint taskforce from around the sector chaired by the Chief Regulator.

    We are certain that taken together these actions will to a very significant extent address the issues we saw playing out this summer (and which to a greater or lesser extent have been endemic in the system).

    Thank you very much for your attention – I think we still have a few moments for any questions.

  • Hywel Williams – 2023 Parliamentary Question on Research Funding for Welsh Universities

    Hywel Williams – 2023 Parliamentary Question on Research Funding for Welsh Universities

    The parliamentary question asked by Hywel Williams, the Plaid Cymru MP for Arfon, in the House of Commons on 18 January 2023.

    Hywel Williams (Arfon) (PC)

    What discussions he has had with Cabinet colleagues on research funding for Welsh universities.

    The Secretary of State for Wales (David T. C. Davies)

    I have regular discussions with Cabinet colleagues on research funding for universities in Wales. We are committed to making the UK a science superpower, backed by nearly £39.8 billion, the largest ever research and development budget. Last week I was pleased to visit Bangor University—at the suggestion of the hon. Member—and to observe the cutting-edge research being done there. I remain committed to Welsh universities capitalising on the funding opportunities that are available.

    Hywel Williams

    The Secretary of State has seen for himself that Welsh universities can and do deliver world-class research, but I think he will accept that their research funding is perhaps less than would be expected. I accept that this is not a simple matter—it is not a matter of counting heads—but what practical help can the Secretary of State give to increase research support in Wales, particularly for new and innovative projects such as those he saw in Bangor?

    David T. C. Davies

    In terms of practical support, I want to visit every single university in Wales over the next few months. I have already met representatives of UK Research and Innovation to make clear my concern about the relatively low percentage of grant funding that is going to Welsh universities for research projects. I want to bring UKRI and those Welsh universities together at an event at Tŷ Gwydr later in the year, and given the hon. Gentleman’s own commitment to this particular issue, I will try to ensure that he is invited and is able to attend.

    Sir Oliver Heald (North East Hertfordshire) (Con)

    Does my right hon. Friend agree that Britain, including Wales, has a proud history of international collaboration? Will he continue to keep up the pressure on the European Commission to allow us to associate ourselves with the Horizon programme, which would make such a difference to the future of British science?

    David T. C. Davies

    I absolutely agree with my right hon. and learned Friend. I would support the Horizon programme, but if that is not possible for any reason, such as intransigence in the European Union, I will be making the case to UKRI that Welsh universities can produce some of the best research in this country and should be receiving a higher percentage of the money that is currently available.

  • Amanda Spielman – 2023 Speech to the University of Oxford’s Department of Education

    Amanda Spielman – 2023 Speech to the University of Oxford’s Department of Education

    The speech made by Amanda Spielman, the Chief Inspector of Ofsted, on 18 January 2023.

    So I have been asked to talk today about the use of research evidence in education and I’m going to talk mainly about how Ofsted uses research, but I am also going to be talking about its wider use in the education sector.

    Overall, I think there is a tremendous amount for the sector to be proud of: England is really ahead of many countries in harnessing research effectively in education. And Ofsted has clearly been part of that movement in recent years.

    I must declare at the outset that I am not myself an education researcher. But I have now spent more than 20 years in education, and in all of that time I have been working in different contexts to make good use of available evidence, and to encourage others to do the same, and have made sure that at Ofsted we now have the capacity to do that well.

    And of course, we have several big stakes in good use of research evidence.

    First, we want to ground our inspection approach as securely as we can in evidence about education itself.

    In this way inspections can encourage schools (and of course nurseries, colleges and the other entities we inspect) to align their models and practices with what is already known about quality. That is a big part of being a force for improvement.

    Secondly, we aim to build and iterate inspection models that achieve the intended purposes with sufficient validity and reliability and minimal unintended consequences. Of course, we don’t have total freedom here: we have to work within our statutory framework and within the policy constraints that are set by government, including funding. So that’s 2 stakes.

    The third stake is the aggregation of the evidence that we collect in doing our work, and the related research work that we carry out, makes us a generator of research evidence for others’ benefit, as well as a user.

    And of course, we are just one part of a wider landscape. Much excellent work has been carried out in universities like this one [the University of Oxford] over many years; the Education Endowment Foundation (EEF) has become part of the national network of What Works centres; and many other institutes and bodies do significant work.

    And that brings me to a fourth strand, which links back to the first. Many bodies act as intermediaries, translating complex maps of academic evidence into reports and summaries that can be more immediately useful to practitioners. And this is not of itself a core Ofsted activity, but we know that it is one of the ways that our products are used.

    Curriculum reviews

    For instance, over the last 2 years, we have drawn up and published a series of curriculum reviews. These offer a researched conception of what we consider to be a high-quality education, by subject and by phase. They help translate our researched framework into subjects and phases. And they provide a platform for inspector training in judging curriculum quality.

    (And of course, if we are to be consistent as an inspectorate, we must have a shared conception of what constitutes quality. If you ask people to judge quality in the absence of a clear corporate statement, they will inevitably bring their own views to bear: and of course, individual views will always vary to some extent.)

    But we also know that schools draw extensively on these reviews to develop their curriculums. They have been downloaded many hundreds of thousand times. I believe this shows a tremendous appetite for engagement with educational research, as well as an understandable desire to gain some insight into Ofsted’s approach.

    But of course, there is no comprehensive and definitive version of educational truth. There is much that is well established, and much that is not. New evidence and insights can cast doubt on or discredit previously accepted wisdom. I’ll come back to the difficulties this creates a bit later.

    But children’s lives cannot be put on hold. So neither schools nor we can down tools, to wait for a pot of fairy gold at the end of an evidential rainbow. We must work with what is available, and what is most relevant to our work, while recognising that we will always have to iterate in the light of new developments.

    How Ofsted works

    I think this is a good moment to explain just a little more about Ofsted.

    In many ways we [Ofsted] operate as you would expect. The principles of good inspection and regulation are straightforward: proportionality, accountability, consistency, transparency and targeting. These are the Hampton principles, and they are deeply embedded in our frameworks and handbooks.

    But how does an inspectorate work?

    I think we operate to a fairly standard model.

    Our frameworks and handbooks are the policy instruments. They are powerful levers on the education sector, and they exert influence long before an inspector comes through the door.

    The inspection process itself is designed around professional dialogue. It is intended to help schools improve – and our post-inspection surveys do find that, in most cases, it does.

    At the end of most inspections, we make judgements, for overall effectiveness and for several component judgements. They give parents, responsible bodies and government a clear statement about the overall performance of the institution.

    We also publish inspection reports, describing what is being done well and what needs to improve.

    We inspect at the level of the individual school and other institutions, but to report only at this level would be a tremendous waste of evidence and insight. So we have a strand that is responsible for drawing out the insights from the aggregation of our evidence, and for additional research where needed to supplement this, and also to run our evaluation programme.

    In fact, there are 3 distinct flows here.

    One is the dissemination programme, that includes the curriculum reviews I just talked about, thematic reviews and other research, such as reports recently commissioned by the DfE on tutoring and on T Levels. These are intended mainly for policymakers and for the education sector.

    One flow is back into our frameworks and handbooks.

    And the final flow is back into our inspection processes, including inspector training and quality assurance.

    And of course, we are informed by the work of institutions in all this – we do not exist in a bubble.

    What inspection is, and is not

    And I want to take a couple of minutes to remind us of a broader question: what are the purposes of inspection?

    I believe there are 3 main purposes for inspection today that are relevant for the area of research. These sit in the context of a long-standing government policy that puts responsibility for diagnosis with Ofsted, but locates responsibility for treatment and support with schools themselves and with the regions group at the Department for Education (DfE). (This policy is often misunderstood by people who would like us to function primarily as a support mechanism.)

    So, what are those purposes?

    First, inspections provide information and assurance to parents. Ofsted was created in the early 90s in the context of the parents charter.

    Secondly, they inform central and local government and other controllers of schools. Given the independence of our judgements, they provide a legitimate basis for action by others when its needed. And they also signal excellence that others can learn from.

    And then, thirdly, they can and should be of value to the people at the receiving end: to teachers and heads. This is true even when inspection is limited to diagnosis. I would be deviating too far from my subject today if I went into the reasons why, but this is a matter of tremendous importance to me.

    Case study: the education inspection framework (EIF)

    So I am going to take as a case study the development of our main education inspection framework, the EIF. It had to meet those purposes: they are largely defined by government. But we do have flexibility in how we go about meeting these purposes.

    And we aim to ground all our work in research evidence and to operate as transparently as possible.

    So we took time and care to develop the framework iteratively over 2 years.

    To prepare, we reviewed a wide range of research, from many universities, from the Education Endowment Foundation, from the Department for Education, and from other sources. We summarised what we drew on in a review that was published to provide transparency, both as to the evidence we used and our interpretation of that evidence. This gave the framework additional credibility showed the thought, attention and range of views that fed into its development.

    And we also did some substantial work on the state of curricula in both primary and secondary schools that, itself, will be informed by research into cognitive psychology. This is an important body of knowledge that wasn’t always being drawn on.

    The first phase of our curriculum research found systemic weaknesses in much of curriculum approach and design.

    In the second phase we studied a sample of schools that had curriculum thinking and development embedded in their approach.

    The third phase, tested a model of inspecting curriculum, based on our findings. This confirmed much of what we found in the first 2 phases and also allowed us to explore some potential curriculum indicators, some evidence collection methods, and also the practical limitations of inspections. And we were also able to test our ability to discern strength from weakness in curriculum development and application.

    All of this evidence gathering, research, consultation, evaluation, iterative development and testing resulted in the most evidenced framework that Ofsted has ever produced. The EIF is built around a strong and well-warranted construct of what good education is. And it is built around the importance of curriculum: the real substance of education.

    And I have talked before about the substance and purpose of education. It does need to prepare young people for life and work, but that is not all. It must also be about broadening their minds and horizons. It should give them the tools to make their communities and the world better places to live in. And it should allow them to contribute to society and the advancement of civilisation, not just the labour market.

    The EIF is broad enough to recognise all of these purposes of education. And it is why it firmly promotes a full and rich conception of knowledge, not a narrow and reductive one.

    The EIF and the sector-specific handbooks now underpin all the education inspections we do. They help us to assess the quality of education a service provides.

    I will add that there has been considerable interest from overseas education ministries and inspectorates in the EIF, and in how we developed it. As far as we know, it really is the first education inspection framework to be developed in this way.

    Area SEND framework development

    To do the EIF, we had a wealth of research and findings to draw on. But that is not always the case. Sometimes, we have to develop iteratively in the light of experience, bringing in such evidence as is available.

    I thought I’d talk briefly about our new framework for special needs inspections for a quick contrast. These inspections review the effectiveness of all the relevant agencies in providing joined up special educational needs and/or disabilities (SEND) services in a local area. There is surprisingly very little research evidence to draw on for this.

    In planning a successor to our first framework, we recognised the important work and lessons from the first set of inspections, but we did also see room for improvement.

    We’d already identified recurring weaknesses, flaws and delays in the identification of children’s needs. We had also often found a lack of clarity about who is responsible for what, between the various organisations involved.

    We also listened to a lot of feedback from children, young people and their families, from people working in all kinds of SEND and related services, and from the many organisations that support children and young people with SEND as well as representative bodies.

    We combined the inspection analysis with the feedback from the various strands of engagement. That enabled us to develop and refine our new proposals. These proposals or aspects of them were then tested through discussions and a set of pilot inspections. (Piloting is a very powerful tool for us.)

    All of this led to a new approach with 9 proposals for improvement, which we consulted on last summer. Happily, we found strong support for all proposals, increasing our confidence in the direction, and also provided valuable comments and suggestions that led to some changes and clarifications in the draft framework and handbook.

    In summary, we have started by building on our existing framework and inspection programme. We incorporated our analysis, feedback and engagement. We tested our new proposals. We consulted on them – and all of this going into the framework. We think we have created an approach that will improve outcomes for pupils with SEND, help families navigate a complex and sometimes adversarial system, and strengthen accountability by clarifying where responsibility for improvement lies.

    I think it’s a good example of how to develop a framework in a less evidence-rich environment.

    Evaluation

    The next thing I want to talk about is evaluation.

    These cases studies illustrate how we draw on established research and generate research to design our models, in the light of both well-developed and under-developed bodies of research.

    But we also need to know whether our frameworks and methodologies are being implemented as intended and having the effects we expect. We therefore have a programme of evaluation work. When we do this, we make a contribution to the body of professional knowledge about inspection. But, significantly for us, the evaluation work completes a positive feedback loop. We harness those findings and then use them in refining our process, our handbooks and our frameworks.

    One important example of how we evaluate is by using research methods to establish how reliable inspections are. Our frameworks and handbooks clearly outline what we focus on in inspection, and what we consider to be of high quality. So inspector judgement is, from the very start, focused on a construct that’s transparent to all through our handbooks. Our inspectors are there to apply the framework, not to apply their own individual ideas of what good looks like.

    Beyond our routine quality assurance activities, we have conducted reliability studies on inspector judgement inter-rater reliability. In other words: do 2 inspectors come to the same judgement? We saw high levels of agreement in the results.

    Taken together, our quality assurance work and reliability studies all feed back into the continuing development of our frameworks and handbooks.

    The limits on consistency

    And I want to talk a bit more, actually, about the concept of consistency of inspection judgements. Those of you here who, like Michelle Meadows and Jo-Anne Baird, are experts in educational assessment will immediately recognise the issue of reliability, with all its counter-intuitive complexities.

    School inspection is of course a process of human judgement. It complements various other measurement processes, including exams and testing and also many other kinds of measurement, such as attendance reporting. Judgements of overall effectiveness are composite judgements reflecting many aspects of performance.

    Now the reliability of human judgement processes has been studied in contexts in and beyond education. Michelle’s 2005 review of the literature on marking reliability was something I read early in my time at Ofqual, and gave me really valuable insight into the strengths and limitations of human judgement.

    For me, there are 2 particularly important lessons that come from that literature. First, that ‘perfect’ reliability is unlikely to be achievable. And secondly, that improving reliability often comes at the price of sacrificing some validity. The narrower the construct you choose to assess, the more precisely you can assess it, at least in theory. But the narrower the construct, the less valuable the assessment is likely to be in practice.

    And as you all know, national expectations of schools and other education institutions are broad. There is a democratic consensus that compulsory education should extend far beyond minimum competence in maths and literacy, that it should encompass wider personal development on many fronts as well as academic study, and that schools should have responsibilities for safeguarding children.

    This means that the ‘overall effectiveness’ that we are required to judge is, and is likely to remain, a broad construct. The corollary of this is that so-called ‘perfect’ reliability is not achievable.

    We accept this in many other areas of life, though perhaps without pausing to think a great deal about it. Driving test examiners; judges passing sentence in courts; judges in an Olympic sporting event; I am sure you can think of other examples where we accept that there will be some level of human variation. (The Eurovision Song Contest is an example of where the divergence between markers is so extreme as to suggest that they may not all be assessing the same construct.)

    And in fact one of the reasons that inspection continues to exist is precisely because we all recognise that data measures alone cannot carry the entire weight of measuring quality. And there can be unintended consequences of putting too much weight on data outcomes alone: there can be unhealthy backwash, for children and adults alike. So looking under the bonnet, at how outcomes are being achieved, has real value.

    There will therefore always be a degree of variability than cannot be engineered out of inspection, and where we could do more harm than good if we tried.

    But of course, we take consistency very seriously. We design the framework with great care, to be clear, structured and unambiguous. We design inspection processes with great care. We put a great deal of effort into recruiting and training our inspectors, when they join, in their early months and throughout their time with us. We have many quality assurance processes, covering all aspects of the process and also our reporting. And we have many sources of feedback: post-inspection surveys, complaints, our evaluation work, as well as regular interaction with sector representative bodies. All of this is used to keep on improving our work.

    Proactive research

    But our research isn’t only about developing and improving Ofsted’s regular work. We publish a lot that faces the outside world.

    Some of this is relatively straightforward aggregated information: we produce official statistics, including inspection outcome data, and publications such as our annual children’s social care survey.

    We also aggregate, analyse and disseminate evidence that we collect through our routine work, to produce our annual report and other publications.

    And we do more than just secondary analysis of inspection and regulatory evidence. We also conduct primary research where we need to supplement what we can learn directly from inspection.

    Our body of work on pandemic recovery was a significant recent contribution. We recognised that we were particularly well-placed to report on the continuing challenges schools and children faced as education gradually returned to normal. We do have unparalleled access to thousands of children and professionals.

    We saw the effects of the pandemic and restrictions on children: on their academic progress but also on their physical, social and emotional development. And for a minority of children, being out of the line of teachers’ sight had harmful consequences.

    We saw the efforts that have and are still being made to accelerate children’s learning and wider development and to address those harms. Collating and aggregating and evaluating what we found gave valuable insights.

    We reported on a live, shifting situation, publishing dozens of rapid reports, briefing notes and commentaries from September 2020 onwards. Our reports and the speed of their publication helped everyone understand what was happening. Our insight was crucial in making sure that policymakers understood the continuing challenges and it helped us highlight the good or innovative practice that others could learn from. We also reported on poorer practice and on how we would expect schools and other providers to improve.

    And professionals in all sectors have told us that our research accurately reflected their experience of the pandemic and post-pandemic periods. We know that we were one of the few bodies doing early research on this. And there was international interest in our work – it was picked up in places like Portugal and South Korea, for example, as well as by other European inspectorates. And I think this showed both its importance and the scarcity of credible research on education during the pandemic.

    This work made us very aware of the difficulties in schools, colleges and nurseries, at every level, from those working directly with children, all the way through to their leaders.

    It also gave us a strong basis for our decision to return to inspection, confident that we had the right level of understanding of the continuing challenges. It helped us to frame the right expectations, suitably high but still realistic. We wanted to see high ambition and support to help children make up for lost time. But our judgements needed to be fair in this context.

    And it is worth noting that the flexibility designed into the EIF allowed us to do this within the existing framework. The previous framework would not have been able to adapt in the same way. We would have needed a new temporary framework – something that professionals in the sector clearly told us that they did not want. The sector had spent time contributing to the development of the EIF, and then in understanding and embedding it. Sector feedback was very clearly in favour of sticking with the framework, suitably applied.

    We’re also examining other trends in education and social care, bringing our unique position and reach to bear for the benefit of children and learners. We have researched, for example, how local authorities plan for sufficient accommodation and services for children in care; how alternative provision for primary-age pupils is being used; and how secondary schools are supporting struggling readers.

    Tutoring

    Much of our research work is commissioned by government. One example is our work on tutoring, the first phase of which was published last year. This was based on visits to 63 schools to explore their tuition strategies and how well they had integrated tuition with their core education programmes, to report on the progress and, to the extent possible, the effectiveness of the National Tutoring Programme, on which the government is spending £1 billion.

    We found some good use of tutoring, but also that quality varied greatly depending on the school and the tutoring provider. And we also found limited understanding of the effectiveness of tutoring. Used well and properly integrated, tutoring can be a huge help to pupils who fall behind, but it is a very expensive intervention. It therefore needs to have a big enough impact to justify its cost.

    There are obvious difficulties with assessing impact. Getting a handle on the effectiveness of tutoring at the level of the individual child or the school is always going to be problematic: how do you attribute progress as between classroom teaching and tutoring? It may be possible where tutoring is very targeted at specific topics or areas of the curriculum. But expectations here do need to be realistic.

    Our reviews are already helping the government develop the tuition programme and helping schools and colleges to implement and integrate tutoring better, and the second phase of our research, which is currently in the field, will explore how schools are adapting and applying the programme after a year’s experience.

    Policy evaluation

    Some of our work is characterised as policy evaluation. One recent example was the exemption of outstanding schools from inspection.

    We have now reported on the first year of inspections of previously exempt schools since the exemption was lifted. Most schools inspected were no longer outstanding, and over a fifth dropped to requires improvement or inadequate. These were typically the schools that had gone longest without inspection, typically around 13 years. And we have also set a somewhat higher bar for the outstanding grade in the EIF, so no-one should over-interpret this data. But nonetheless, we can now see that the policy expectation of continuing improvement in the absence of inspection was not realised.

    We will be publishing a further report on this strand of inspection later this spring, including an analysis of the weaknesses that have been found in formerly outstanding schools that have been judged RI or inadequate.

    Research for practitioners

    Our research doesn’t just provide recommendations or suggest improvements for policymakers though. We also publish research reports and reviews for the education sector: for early years, schools and post-16, from the viewpoint of our inspection framework.

    For example, we recently published our ‘Best start in life’ research review, which examines the factors that contribute to a high-quality early education. The review drew on a range of sources, including academic and policy literature.

    That was the first in a series of reports on early education. We identified some of the features that high-quality early years curriculum and pedagogy may have. What were these features? A curriculum that considers what all children should learn, practitioners who choose activities and experiences after they have determined the curriculum, and adults who think carefully about what children already know, teaching them what they need to know, and broadening their interests.

    It was the latest in the series of research reviews we have published since early 2021 – I mentioned the school curriculum reviews earlier.

    I think this might be a good moment to pick up on the issue of challenge and contest in education research. Some of our work is in areas where there is little that is contested. But much of it, like so many domains of knowledge, is in areas that are highly contested. And this is certainly true of much of the curriculum.

    I can remember a previous Ofqual research director, Michelle’s predecessor, a man with a very long memory, telling me that in successive rounds of qualification reform, the 2 subjects that have always been hardest to finalise have been religious studies and mathematics, where the divergence of views among academic subject experts is especially, and perhaps surprisingly to those who aren’t in the mathematics world, particularly wide. I also remember hearing that in the most recent round of reforms, disagreements between members in another subject expert group were so profound that tears were shed in a group meeting.

    It is therefore entirely unsurprising that our work attracts hostility from some quarters. I think this tends to reflect those wider continuing disputes.

    As we said in the principles paper which we published ahead of the curriculum reviews:

    Educational research is contestable and contested, and so are documents such as these research reviews. Therefore, we are sharing our thinking with subject communities so that we can get input from the broader subject community. We hope that publishing our evidence base for how we have developed our understanding of subject quality will provide insight, both on what evidence we have used and on how we have interpreted that evidence when creating research criteria for our subject reports.

    Each curriculum review collates relevant research evidence, but they are not intended to be all-embracing papers covering the entirety of academic thought on a subject. That is not our job, and it would not be a responsible use of our time and resources. Instead, their primary purpose is to lay out the evidence-base for the kind of subject education that our frameworks reward as high quality. They give a broad foundation for the judgements that we make.

    While it is not their primary purpose, we do also hope that they will help subject leaders in their curriculum planning. The reviews are not narrowly prescriptive but offer what appear to be reliable general principles that schools can then apply intelligently. They are also not overly restrictive: each review lays out only the possible feature of high-quality education, without claiming that these are the only features. The enormous popularity with schools, of both the reports and of the related webinars that we offer, is an encouraging indicator that they are indeed helpful.

    And we have also heard how helpful schools have found having reviews across the set of subjects. Schools are really appreciating the exploration of the nature of a high quality curriculum across subjects, including computing, PE, music and so on. These research reviews fill a vacuum because in some subjects, curriculum (as opposed to pedagogical approaches) has not been a significant focus of other work. Subject and senior leaders regularly share their appreciation of our work, which gives them guidance across a range of subjects.

    And of course, this will in turn contribute to improving the quality of education, raising standards for all children.

    How the sector uses research

    In exploring the place and function of research evidence in educational policy and practice, it is also interesting to reflect on how the sectors we inspect themselves use research.

    On the one hand, there is a very positive picture, with much to be optimistic about. We know that many teachers see being reflective practitioners and researching practice as part of their professional identity. Teachers and other practitioners draw on EEF toolkits and summaries, for example, and apply them in their everyday practice. All this is helping to eliminate some of the perhaps fashionable fads and follies of the past.

    Twinned with our focus on subject education in the EIF, there’s also been a renewed interest in subject-based research. This development, in particular, really helpfully bridges academic departments within universities with classroom subject teaching in different phases of education. And teachers write about these things, blog about them, and exchange their knowledge at practitioner conferences such as ResearchEd.

    And the aroma of that interest has drifted upwards – out of the classroom – to school leaders who, because of their leadership of the curriculum, are developing their subject research knowledge about how best to sustain and develop school subjects. In this way, I think we have contributed to an intellectual resurgence in school leadership. And I think this really is a tremendous thing, to awaken intellectual curiosity at all levels of educational institutions.

    But, on the other hand, this brings complexity. As you all know, navigating research is not without its difficulties. The sheer range of research and evidence in a domain as large as education is daunting: some research is not empirical, other kinds of research are empirical, using qualitative and quantitative methods. Discerning strength, weakness, relevance, and applicability in research requires professional judgement. And without this, cargo cults and lethal mutations can emerge.

    What I do think would be helpful now is a clearer overall architecture that recognises and values all the parts of the system that generate educational research and evidence, including the entities that are translating research into usable products for practitioners, and the tools to navigate it. And it would also be helpful to have a clearer medium-term focus on building consensus through research.

    Conclusion

    Now, this evening, I have concentrated mainly on how Ofsted uses research. What I really wanted to make clear is that research isn’t just one part of what we do, it is a part of everything we do.

    It informs our day-to-day work, our frameworks and handbooks, and our overall approach. It helps us strive to be better, and to inspire improvement in the sectors we work in. And it lets us to share what we know with government and with practitioners so that they can make informed decisions.

    And I hope that you will take this talk and our wider approach as showing how much we value the work that happens in this and in many other universities, here and abroad, as well as in smaller specialist institutions. I believe that you and the whole education sector benefit from this renewed intellectual energy, which is being harnessed so constructively in so many places. I’m fortunate to been in positions over the last 20 years where I have been able to promote this healthy development.

    And with that, I’d be happy to take your questions. I have brought along 2 colleagues today: Alex Jones, who is our Director of Insights and Research, and Richard Kueh, acting Deputy director for Research and Evaluation, who was previously the religious education lead in our curriculum unit and author of our RE curriculum review.

    Thank you.

  • Chi Onwurah – 2023 Parliamentary Question on the Cost of Living with Students

    Chi Onwurah – 2023 Parliamentary Question on the Cost of Living with Students

    The parliamentary question asked by Chi Onwurah, the Labour MP for Newcastle upon Tyne Central, in the House of Commons on 16 January 2023.

    Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab)

    What steps she is taking to help support students with the cost of living.

    The Minister of State, Department for Education (Robert Halfon)

    My Department has made a one-off reallocation of funding to add £15 million to this year’s student premium, now worth £276 million. Universities can support disadvantaged students by drawing on this student premium and their own hardship funds, and many universities such as Newcastle and Northumbria have allocated funds to support disadvantaged students.

    Chi Onwurah

    Newcastle University student union’s recent cost of living crisis survey revealed that 41% of students had considered dropping out due to financial pressures. They are trying to balance studying with part-time and full-time jobs, and they feel increasingly isolated and exhausted. The student union food bank is restocked daily and is emptied quickly, with the record being within seven minutes. The Minister knows that his additional hardship fund works out at about £10 per student, and students are £1,500 worse off because of the mismanagement of maintenance loans. Why is he punishing students like this?

    Robert Halfon

    Of course I recognise that some students are facing hardship with the cost of living challenges, like many people up and down the country. The £276 million is a lot of money that universities can draw on. As I mentioned, there has been an increase of £15 million. Students in private accommodation can get a £400 rebate on their energy bills. We have frozen tuition fees for the past few years; by 2024-25, they will have been frozen for seven years. We have increased maximum loans and grants by 2.8% and if students’ incomes fall below a certain level, they can reapply to get their loans looked at. I really welcome the fact that Newcastle University has increased the package of support available to students to more than £1.7 million—

    Mr Speaker

    Order. I call Matt Western.

    Matt Western (Warwick and Leamington) (Lab)

    As we hear, the cost of living crisis is serious for everyone, but students in particular are facing real hardship. Independent economists estimate that many students will be up to £1,500 worse off this year. Given the Government’s current focus on maths, can the Minister explain how his Government calculated an increase of just 2.8% in the maintenance loan, following 2.3% this year, when the rolling average inflation rate is running at 9.3%?

    Robert Halfon

    We have to be fair to students, but we have to be fair to the taxpayer as well. We recognise student hardship, which is why we increased the student premium by £15 million to £276 million. Universities have their own hardship funds, and I highlighted the £1.7 million given by Newcastle University. Universities across the country are helping disadvantaged students. Students whose family income falls below a certain level can apply to the Student Loans Company to have their loan reassessed.

  • Ian Lavery – 2023 Parliamentary Question on School Rebuilding Programme Funding in Northumberland

    Ian Lavery – 2023 Parliamentary Question on School Rebuilding Programme Funding in Northumberland

    The parliamentary question asked by Ian Lavery, the Labour MP for Wansbeck, in the House of Commons on 16 January 2023.

    Ian Lavery (Wansbeck) (Lab)

    If she will make an assessment of the adequacy of the level of school rebuilding programme funding allocated to schools in Northumberland.

    The Minister of State, Department for Education (Nick Gibb)

    Two schools in Northumberland are prioritised for the school rebuilding programme, including Ringway Primary School in the hon. Member’s constituency. Schools were nominated by local authorities and trusts, and selected according to the condition of their buildings following a robust assessment process. This is in addition to the £5.8 million of school condition allocation funding for Northumberland County Council in this financial year.

    Ian Lavery

    The Department’s own report now reclassifies the risk of school buildings collapsing as critical and very urgent. Despite the sterling efforts of headteachers and staff to keep school buildings in decent condition, many children in my constituency are taught in buildings far below the standards they should expect. Despite what the Minister has just said, can he tell the House when adequate funding will be made readily available to bring all schools in my constituency up to scratch?

    Nick Gibb

    We have allocated £13 billion since 2015 to school buildings and maintenance. In May 2022, for example, the Government announced the outcome of the condition improvement fund bids for 2022-23. That will provide £500 million for 1,400 projects at 1,100 schools and sixth forms. The CIF is for individual schools and groups of schools. In addition, £1.1 billion of school condition allocations was made to local authorities and large groups of academies. We take this issue very seriously and we want to make sure that all our schools are in the best possible condition for pupils to be able to learn.

  • Tan Dhesi – 2023 Parliamentary Question on Inflation in Education

    Tan Dhesi – 2023 Parliamentary Question on Inflation in Education

    The parliamentary question asked by Tan Dhesi, the Labour MP for Slough, in the House of Commons on 16 January 2023.

    Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab)

    What recent assessment her Department has made of the impact of inflation on (a) school budgets and (b) the costs to parents associated with the school day.

    The Secretary of State for Education (Gillian Keegan)

    Schools, like families and businesses across the world, are facing global inflationary pressures. The Prime Minister has pledged to halve inflation, and school funding will increase by £2 billion next year as well as the year after that. This will be the highest real-terms spending on schools in history, totalling £58.8 billion by 2024-25. In 2010, school funding stood at £35 billion, so we will be delivering a 68% increase in cash terms. The Government have also announced further support for parents worth £26 billion next year.

    Mr Dhesi

    In addition to having grave concerns about recruiting and retaining teachers, schools in Slough and across our country continue to struggle with their budgets, with a quarter of primary school senior leaders reporting that they have had to cut outings and trips due to budgetary constraints. How will the Government ensure that children do not miss out on these vital opportunities?

    Gillian Keegan

    The autumn statement announced significant additional investment in core schools funding. The core schools budget will increase by £2 billion in 2023-24 and 2024-25. That will be paid into schools’ bank accounts in April, and I am sure they will welcome that additional funding.

  • Zarah Sultana – 2023 Parliamentary Question on Free School Meals

    Zarah Sultana – 2023 Parliamentary Question on Free School Meals

    The parliamentary question asked by Zarah Sultana, the Labour MP for Coventry South, in the House of Commons on 16 January 2023.

    Zarah Sultana (Coventry South) (Lab)

    What assessment she has made of the potential merits of extending the eligibility criteria for free school meals.

    The Minister of State, Department for Education (Nick Gibb)

    The Government support the provision of nutritious food in schools, which ensures that children are well-nourished, develop healthy eating habits and can concentrate and learn. Some 1.9 million pupils are eligible for free school meals. That is an increase from 2021, when 1.7 million pupils were eligible. In large part, the increase is due to protections put in place to support families as they move to universal credit. In addition, 1.25 million pupils are eligible under the universal infant free school meal programme.

    Zarah Sultana

    Each month, 4 million children experience food insecurity, go to bed hungry and set off to school on an empty stomach. To tackle this injustice, my free school meals for all Bill would guarantee that every child in England had a hot, healthy meal each day, just as they do in Scotland and Wales. It could be paid for twice over by removing the private schools’ £1.7 billion tax break, a move that the Conservative party on the Government Benches blocked last week. My Bill is due to get its Second Reading on Friday. Will the Minister back my Bill, or does he believe that protecting tax breaks for elite private schools is more important than feeding hungry children?

    Nick Gibb

    The Government have extended free school meals to more groups of children than any Government over the past century, including Labour Governments, increasing numbers from 1.7 million to 1.9 million children. This Government introduced an extension to 85,000 students in further education colleges, new eligibility for some children of families with no recourse to public funds, and a scheme for 1.25 million children in infant schools.

    Mr Speaker

    I call the Scottish National party spokesperson.

    Carol Monaghan (Glasgow North West) (SNP)

    The Levelling Up Secretary said in October that extending free school meal provision would be the most timely, effective and targeted of all public health interventions that this Government could make. The Scottish Government have already committed to universal free school meals for primary children. Does the Minister agree with his colleague? If not, what targeted interventions would he make to tackle child hunger?

    Nick Gibb

    We are spending £1.6 billion a year on free school meals for children. We want to make sure that that funding is targeted at the most needy. That is precisely what is happening. We accept the point, and I agree with the hon. Lady that it is important that free school meals are provided to children from disadvantaged backgrounds and those who cannot afford meals at lunchtime—and we are doing that. As I said, we have increased the number of children eligible for benefit-related free school meals from 1.7 million to 1.9 million pupils.