Latest news with #DepartmentforEducation
Spectator
14 hours ago
- General
- Spectator
Teachers deserve their long summer holidays
What's the best thing about teaching? July and August! Or so the old joke goes. The long school holidays are an easy riposte to teachers' complaints about the profession. Below inflation pay rises? At least you get the school holidays. Lack of flexible working opportunities? Six weeks off over summer. Disruptive behaviour? At least you don't have to see the rugrats over Christmas and Easter. No-one really wants to hear it, but most teachers still feel a knee-jerk need to justify their summer holidays: to explain how hard they work; the hidden hours of marking, planning, report-writing; the free time lost to parents' evenings and away sports fixtures. The sheer exhaustion of performing day-in, day-out is difficult to convey to people outside of the profession; I have friends who fret for days over a one-hour work presentation, and yet teachers present around five times a day 180 days a year. There are many metaphors I could use to try to impart how demanding teaching is. A never-ending hamster wheel. A seven-hour-long improv performance where you are not allowed to drop character. A stand-up comedy show with lots of drunk hecklers, but you aren't allowed to heckle back. The best analogy I can think of is this: imagine you are hosting a party for 30 people, all with very different interests, needs and dietary requirements. You have to do all the usual work of party-planning – who sits where, what you are going to do, how everyone will get on, what speech you will give – but you know that many people in the party don't actually want to be there. Your job is not only to convince them otherwise, but also to engage 30 people so that they pay attention to you and don't have side conversations. You must interact with everyone, individualising your relationship with each of them accordingly: some may be shy, some curious, some downright drunk and disorderly. Then, once they are gone, you must mark each of the party members on ever-changing criteria, while planning for the next party. And you must do this six times a day. Teaching is clearly a labour of love, but it is not an inexhaustible one. Shortening the summer holidays, as more and more people are calling for, would be a disaster. Teacher recruitment and retention has already reached crisis point: the vacancy rate is double what it was pre-Covid and six times higher than in 2010. Each year around 40,000 teachers leave the profession, and yet we are missing recruitment targets in almost every single subject: last year only 17 per cent of the required physics teachers were hired. A Department for Education survey found that a third of teachers and school leaders said they were considering quitting the sector in the next 12 months; for those on the fence, losing some of their summer holidays may be the push they need to explore new pastures. Reallocating those weeks to October and February – two of the darkest, coldest, wettest months of the year – would hardly improve staff or pupil wellbeing. It makes no sense for students to have more time off over winter, when they would simply fester inside, glued to multiple screens, and then have them sweating away in non air-conditioned classrooms for the whole of July, when the days are longer, lighter and warmer. Shorter summer holidays would push up the already eye-wateringly expensive premium on holidays out of term time, as parents who want guaranteed European sunshine would be competing for the same four weeks. Cutting down the summer holidays would make us even more of an international outlier. Many countries with excellent education systems have much longer summer holidays than us: Ireland, Italy, Spain and Portugal have 12 weeks; Estonia and Finland have 11 weeks; Canada has ten weeks; America and Sweden have nine weeks; while China and South Korea have eight weeks. Most countries have more public holidays than the UK, and children start school two or three years earlier than lots of other OECD countries. Quantity of education is clearly not the issue here. Shortening the summer holidays would inevitably affect quality though; burnt-out teachers are less effective ones. Teaching will never be able to compete with the private sector in terms of pay or remote/flexible working options. Holidays, and pensions, therefore need protection now more than ever. The exodus of teachers will only be accelerated if we shorten the summer holiday. Why work in the UK when you can be paid more in Dubai for less time?
New Statesman
2 days ago
- Health
- New Statesman
Schools need more sex education, not less
Illustration by Chris Rogers / Getty Images The grand total of my sex education when I was at school in the Noughties went like this: in Year 6, the girls and boys were split up, and the girls were made to watch a graphic birth video; in Year 8, we carried 'flour babies' around school for a week; in Year 9, we received a self-defence lesson in which the male instructor told us not to wear our hair in a ponytail because an attacker could grab it; and in Year 10, the school nurse demonstrated how to use a condom while we all giggled hysterically. It was entirely focused on the mechanics of sex and the risks it posed to our life outcomes and health. There was no discussion of consent, no suggestion that sex could or should be pleasurable. And there was no mention of the internet and the ways it was already shaping our early, faltering romances. My peers and I learned far more about sex outside the classroom – from playground gossip, chat rooms, TV and porn – than we ever did within it. And yet this is the sort of sex education the last government wanted to return to. In May last year, the then education secretary, Gillian Keegan, published draft revised guidance for Relationship, Sex and Health Education (RSHE), which proposed age limits on what children could be taught. Children, it said, would not be informed about puberty before Year 4 (when they are aged eight to nine), sex before Year 5 (nine to ten), sexual harassment or pornography before Year 7 (11-12) or STIs before Year 9 (aged 13-14). There are basic biological problems with this chronology: girls could start their periods before learning what it is (one in four girls already reports that this is the case); pupils could be offered the HPV vaccine before learning what an STI is. But setting all this aside, it is deluded to believe that children are not exposed to everything Keegan wished to protect them from, and much more, beyond the school gates. So, the new RSHE guidance, released by Bridget Phillipson's Department for Education on 15 July, is a welcome relief. While it incorporates some sensible Tory proposals, such as teaching children about the prevalence of deepfakes, age restrictions have been removed. There is greater emphasis on tackling misogyny and incel culture, which Phillipson described, in the aftermath of the Netflix drama Adolescence, as 'a defining issue of our time'. To the previously planned content on stalking, revenge porn and upskirting, Labour added financial sexual exploitation, strangulation, and 'personal safety in public spaces, recognising that sexual harassment and abuse are never the fault of the victim'. Schools will have the flexibility to teach in late primary about sexual imagery online 'where this is an issue in their school'. Keegan's ban on sex education for children aged nine and under received much media attention at the time, thanks largely to the efforts of Miriam Cates, then the Tory MP for Penistone and Stocksbridge, who coordinated a letter to Rishi Sunak raising concerns about the appropriateness of RSHE content. Cates, who lost her seat last July, has since said the subject should be 'scrapped' altogether. Children, she told the Commons, employing some bad-faith hyperbole, were being taught 'graphic lessons on oral sex, how to choke your partner safely and 72 genders'. (This last was a reference to news reports about a school on the Isle of Man, which is not part of England and therefore falls outside the Department for Education's remit.) It may indeed seem inappropriate to teach children about strangulation during sex. We instinctively feel that they should not have to know about such things – not yet, not ever. And yet it is necessary that they do. No one wants to have to prepare a small child for the possibility that another child or an adult might try to touch their genitals, but they should know that such an act would be wrong and that they should report it. If a child brings to their teacher a question about, say, a pornographic video that has been shared with them, that teacher should be allowed to sensitively discuss with them what they have seen. Children must be prepared for the world as it is, not as we might wish it to be. Subscribe to The New Statesman today from only £8.99 per month Subscribe This is the world as it is: one in ten children has seen pornography by the age of nine, according to the Children's Commissioner, Rachel de Souza. The same research found that nearly half of 18- to 21-year-olds have experienced a violent sex act. More than a third of girls at mixed-sex schools have experienced sexual harassment at school, and, according to the teacher survey app Teacher Tapp, one in eight secondary-school teachers say a student in their school sexually assaulted another pupil in the last autumn term. Pornographic deepfakes are a growing problem; in June 2024 a girls' school alerted authorities that deepfake images and videos depicting its pupils were circulating a nearby boys' school. Despite the UK's overall falling birthrate, pregnancy rates among the under-20s are rising; so too is the prevalence of STIs. 'All children,' as Baroness Strange put it in a debate in the Lords on sex education in 2000, 'have a right to their childhood and their innocence.' Yet it is not schools that threaten their innocence, but technology, which moves at such a pace legislation cannot keep up. Children should be given every opportunity to bring to a trusted adult – whether a teacher or a parent – what they hear and see in the dark corners of the playground or the internet. The alternative is not that they are protected from inappropriate content, but that they are left to process and navigate it alone. [See also: Kemi Badenoch isn't working] Related
South Wales Guardian
3 days ago
- Politics
- South Wales Guardian
Students risk falling through ‘qualifications gap' under post-16 plans
Many young people will be left 'without a suitable pathway' if funding is withdrawn for a number of applied general qualifications (AGQs), such as BTecs, and if the uptake of the Government's technical courses (T-levels) remains low, a coalition of education and employer groups has warned. A report by the Protect Student Choice campaign warned reducing student choice for post-16 qualifications risks 'reversing' progress in widening access to higher education and it could lead to more young people not in employment. The coalition – which includes organisations representing students and staff in colleges and schools – is calling on the curriculum and assessment review to recommend 'reversing the ban on AGQ diplomas and extended diplomas in T-level areas' in its final report which is due to be published in the autumn. AGQs are Level 3 qualifications, which include BTecs, for students who want to undertake a broad study of a specific vocational area. In December, the Labour Government announced 157 vocational qualifications, which the previous Conservative administration had planned to remove funding from, would be retained beyond July this year until reformed qualifications become more established in the system. Following a review of Level 3 qualifications that 'overlap' with T-levels, the Government said 57 qualifications in digital, construction and health and science would be funded until July 2026. A further 100 qualifications in engineering, agriculture, business and creative would retain their funding until July 2027. The first T-level courses – which are considered to be broadly equivalent to three A-levels – were launched in 2020 in England and they are being rolled out gradually. Department for Education (DfE) guidance, published in February, has outlined plans to remove funding from 'large qualifications' in a number of T-level subject areas in the future. An analysis from the Protect Student Choice campaign suggests there could be 52,000 fewer young people studying health and science courses each year if funding is removed for AGQs in this area, and it added that nearly 11,000 fewer young people could study digital courses each year. It said more than 200,000 students are currently studying AGQs that are 'either being scrapped or have an uncertain future' which makes it 'difficult' for colleges and schools to plan their curriculum, recruit and train the right staff, or to provide appropriate guidance to younger pupils. The report warned: 'We are deeply concerned that the Government's blanket ban on diplomas and extended diplomas will create a qualifications gap that tens of thousands of students will potentially fall through, leaving many young people without a suitable pathway in the future.' Labour MP Gareth Snell, chairman of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Sixth Form Education, said: 'Sixth forms and colleges up and down the country know the vital role that AGQs play in helping students to progress to higher education or skilled employment. 'Limiting the choice of qualification in certain subjects to T-levels will leave some young people without a suitable pathway at the age of 16, and some employers without the skilled workforce they need.' Professor Martin Green, chief executive of Care England, said: 'Qualifications like the diploma and extended diploma in health and social care are highly valued by providers of adult social care in England as a source of introducing younger people to a career in social care. 'Scrapping these qualifications would close off a well-established pathway to entering the profession and exacerbate the workforce crisis in the care sector for a younger population we are keen to promote access to.' Anne Murdoch, college leadership adviser at the Association of School and College Leaders (ASCL), said: 'We strongly urge the Government to retain these popular and valued applied general qualifications. 'We support the introduction of T-levels, but we do not understand why this must be at the expense of other tried and trusted vocational qualifications which work well for many students. 'At a time when we are seeing rising numbers of young people who are not in education, employment or training, it is surely essential that we provide a choice of post-16 pathways rather than narrowing their options and making matters worse.' A DfE spokeswoman said: 'Through our plan for change we are building a skills system that will drive forward opportunity and deliver the growth that our economy needs. 'T-levels will be at the forefront of our technical education offer. Alongside them, newly reformed qualifications will become available for delivery at Level 3 at the start of the next academic year. 'These are high-quality, aligned to occupational standards in technical routes and offer learners clear routes to higher education or skilled employment. 'The department's position on further plans for reform to Level 3 qualifications will be set out soon, informed by the independent curriculum and assessment review.'
Leader Live
3 days ago
- Politics
- Leader Live
Students risk falling through ‘qualifications gap' under post-16 plans
Many young people will be left 'without a suitable pathway' if funding is withdrawn for a number of applied general qualifications (AGQs), such as BTecs, and if the uptake of the Government's technical courses (T-levels) remains low, a coalition of education and employer groups has warned. A report by the Protect Student Choice campaign warned reducing student choice for post-16 qualifications risks 'reversing' progress in widening access to higher education and it could lead to more young people not in employment. The coalition – which includes organisations representing students and staff in colleges and schools – is calling on the curriculum and assessment review to recommend 'reversing the ban on AGQ diplomas and extended diplomas in T-level areas' in its final report which is due to be published in the autumn. AGQs are Level 3 qualifications, which include BTecs, for students who want to undertake a broad study of a specific vocational area. In December, the Labour Government announced 157 vocational qualifications, which the previous Conservative administration had planned to remove funding from, would be retained beyond July this year until reformed qualifications become more established in the system. Following a review of Level 3 qualifications that 'overlap' with T-levels, the Government said 57 qualifications in digital, construction and health and science would be funded until July 2026. A further 100 qualifications in engineering, agriculture, business and creative would retain their funding until July 2027. The first T-level courses – which are considered to be broadly equivalent to three A-levels – were launched in 2020 in England and they are being rolled out gradually. Department for Education (DfE) guidance, published in February, has outlined plans to remove funding from 'large qualifications' in a number of T-level subject areas in the future. An analysis from the Protect Student Choice campaign suggests there could be 52,000 fewer young people studying health and science courses each year if funding is removed for AGQs in this area, and it added that nearly 11,000 fewer young people could study digital courses each year. It said more than 200,000 students are currently studying AGQs that are 'either being scrapped or have an uncertain future' which makes it 'difficult' for colleges and schools to plan their curriculum, recruit and train the right staff, or to provide appropriate guidance to younger pupils. The report warned: 'We are deeply concerned that the Government's blanket ban on diplomas and extended diplomas will create a qualifications gap that tens of thousands of students will potentially fall through, leaving many young people without a suitable pathway in the future.' Labour MP Gareth Snell, chairman of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Sixth Form Education, said: 'Sixth forms and colleges up and down the country know the vital role that AGQs play in helping students to progress to higher education or skilled employment. 'Limiting the choice of qualification in certain subjects to T-levels will leave some young people without a suitable pathway at the age of 16, and some employers without the skilled workforce they need.' Professor Martin Green, chief executive of Care England, said: 'Qualifications like the diploma and extended diploma in health and social care are highly valued by providers of adult social care in England as a source of introducing younger people to a career in social care. 'Scrapping these qualifications would close off a well-established pathway to entering the profession and exacerbate the workforce crisis in the care sector for a younger population we are keen to promote access to.' Anne Murdoch, college leadership adviser at the Association of School and College Leaders (ASCL), said: 'We strongly urge the Government to retain these popular and valued applied general qualifications. 'We support the introduction of T-levels, but we do not understand why this must be at the expense of other tried and trusted vocational qualifications which work well for many students. 'At a time when we are seeing rising numbers of young people who are not in education, employment or training, it is surely essential that we provide a choice of post-16 pathways rather than narrowing their options and making matters worse.' A DfE spokeswoman said: 'Through our plan for change we are building a skills system that will drive forward opportunity and deliver the growth that our economy needs. 'T-levels will be at the forefront of our technical education offer. Alongside them, newly reformed qualifications will become available for delivery at Level 3 at the start of the next academic year. 'These are high-quality, aligned to occupational standards in technical routes and offer learners clear routes to higher education or skilled employment. 'The department's position on further plans for reform to Level 3 qualifications will be set out soon, informed by the independent curriculum and assessment review.'
Powys County Times
3 days ago
- Politics
- Powys County Times
Students risk falling through ‘qualifications gap' under post-16 plans
Tens of thousands of students could fall through a 'qualifications gap' as a result of Government plans for post-16 vocational courses, a report has said. Many young people will be left 'without a suitable pathway' if funding is withdrawn for a number of applied general qualifications (AGQs), such as BTecs, and if the uptake of the Government's technical courses (T-levels) remains low, a coalition of education and employer groups has warned. A report by the Protect Student Choice campaign warned reducing student choice for post-16 qualifications risks 'reversing' progress in widening access to higher education and it could lead to more young people not in employment. The coalition – which includes organisations representing students and staff in colleges and schools – is calling on the curriculum and assessment review to recommend 'reversing the ban on AGQ diplomas and extended diplomas in T-level areas' in its final report which is due to be published in the autumn. AGQs are Level 3 qualifications, which include BTecs, for students who want to undertake a broad study of a specific vocational area. In December, the Labour Government announced 157 vocational qualifications, which the previous Conservative administration had planned to remove funding from, would be retained beyond July this year until reformed qualifications become more established in the system. Following a review of Level 3 qualifications that 'overlap' with T-levels, the Government said 57 qualifications in digital, construction and health and science would be funded until July 2026. A further 100 qualifications in engineering, agriculture, business and creative would retain their funding until July 2027. The first T-level courses – which are considered to be broadly equivalent to three A-levels – were launched in 2020 in England and they are being rolled out gradually. Department for Education (DfE) guidance, published in February, has outlined plans to remove funding from 'large qualifications' in a number of T-level subject areas in the future. An analysis from the Protect Student Choice campaign suggests there could be 52,000 fewer young people studying health and science courses each year if funding is removed for AGQs in this area, and it added that nearly 11,000 fewer young people could study digital courses each year. It said more than 200,000 students are currently studying AGQs that are 'either being scrapped or have an uncertain future' which makes it 'difficult' for colleges and schools to plan their curriculum, recruit and train the right staff, or to provide appropriate guidance to younger pupils. The report warned: 'We are deeply concerned that the Government's blanket ban on diplomas and extended diplomas will create a qualifications gap that tens of thousands of students will potentially fall through, leaving many young people without a suitable pathway in the future.' Labour MP Gareth Snell, chairman of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Sixth Form Education, said: 'Sixth forms and colleges up and down the country know the vital role that AGQs play in helping students to progress to higher education or skilled employment. 'Limiting the choice of qualification in certain subjects to T-levels will leave some young people without a suitable pathway at the age of 16, and some employers without the skilled workforce they need.' Professor Martin Green, chief executive of Care England, said: 'Qualifications like the diploma and extended diploma in health and social care are highly valued by providers of adult social care in England as a source of introducing younger people to a career in social care. 'Scrapping these qualifications would close off a well-established pathway to entering the profession and exacerbate the workforce crisis in the care sector for a younger population we are keen to promote access to.' Anne Murdoch, college leadership adviser at the Association of School and College Leaders (ASCL), said: 'We strongly urge the Government to retain these popular and valued applied general qualifications. 'We support the introduction of T-levels, but we do not understand why this must be at the expense of other tried and trusted vocational qualifications which work well for many students. 'At a time when we are seeing rising numbers of young people who are not in education, employment or training, it is surely essential that we provide a choice of post-16 pathways rather than narrowing their options and making matters worse.' A DfE spokeswoman said: 'Through our plan for change we are building a skills system that will drive forward opportunity and deliver the growth that our economy needs. 'T-levels will be at the forefront of our technical education offer. Alongside them, newly reformed qualifications will become available for delivery at Level 3 at the start of the next academic year. 'These are high-quality, aligned to occupational standards in technical routes and offer learners clear routes to higher education or skilled employment.
