Oct 23 2018

APPG Annual Lunch with Angela Rayner MP

The APPG for Education recently held its annual lunch with Angela Rayner MP as guest speaker.  Introduced by co-chair Andrea Jenkyns MP, who entered the Commons as the same time as Ms Rayner, guests were welcomed to the lunch and heard about the APPG’s recent activities.

Ms Rayner spoke of the Labour Party’s proposal for a National Education Service.  She told APPG members and industry stakeholders how she is developing plans to see a fully funded education system with pupils at its heart, and changes made when advised by those with the teaching expertise, as opposed to Ministers or civil servants.  She stated that she saw investment in education as an investment in the future of our country.

Ms Rayner also told the lunch that she thought it was essential that education professionals continue to make their voices heard to ensure adequate funding for the future.

Rayner stressed the importance of developing skills to aid people in the changing workplace and how she believe it is vital that people have the opportunity to study at any point during their lives – a point echoed by co-chair Andrea Jenkyns.

Ms Rayner also spoke of the value of Ed Tech in the classroom, and how it can assist to reduce teacher workload as well as provide valuable support for SEND pupils.  She felt that Ed Tech was not being used to its maximum effect and wanted to work with industry professionals to make improvements.

Also discussed during the subsequent question and answer session was the widening of the curriculum, academisation and the role of MATS.

Caroline Wright, Director General of BESA, gave the vote of thanks to the Shadow Secretary of State for Education.  She echoed the thoughts of those in the room that Ms Rayner’s speech had been entertaining and enlightening and the APPG looks forward to continuing the dialogue with the Shadow Education team.  

Jul 13 2018

APPG for Education panel discussion on measuring the impact of EdTech, 9 July

Caroline Wright, Director General of BESA, introduced the APPG for Education and explained that she would be chairing in the discussion in the absence of Andrea Jenkyns MP.

Caroline introduced BESA and talked about the potential for EdTech to be a force for good in the classroom. She also ran through some barriers to the use of EdTech in schools, including an anti-tech rhetoric over recent years. However, she said that while barriers still exist, it feels like we are reaching a turning point: the government is interested and a generation of teachers exist that are keen to use tech.

Caroline then introduced the panel and invited Tom Thacker, Head of Curriculum at CENTURY Tech, to speak first.

Tom said that he was a former Teach First maths teacher and had been a fan of EdTech in the classroom. He left teaching partly due to workload and partly due to his interest in technology to work for CENTURY Tech, an EdTech company that uses AI to improve pupil outcomes and cut teacher workload. Citing Reform’s recent report, Beyond Gadgets: EdTech to help close the opportunity gap, he said that one of the most exciting things about EdTech is its potential to narrow the attainment gap.

He warned that proving outcomes via EdTech is hard: studies are hard to find; random controlled trials are difficult or impossible in a school context due expense, duration and ethics; and EdTech can evolve and improve over the course of a study, making early results misleading and the resultant studies age quickly. He also said that EdTech is hard to clearly define in a study context due to its wide range of use.

Dominic Norrish, Group Director of Technology at United Learning, spoke next. He said that there has been 30 years of hype around EdTech and said that one of the barriers to its uptake is its implicit critique of teaching. He said that teachers do not see EdTech as ‘core’ to their practice in comparison to other methods. He agreed with Tom that measuring the impact of EdTech is hard, or can be accurate but misleading as in the case of meta-analyses which include tech from the 1960s in their scope. However, despite the difficulty of proving the impact of tech, he said that teachers’ lived experience is that EdTech is useful.

Dominic said that there is an unhelpfully dichotomous debate surrounding EdTech, characterising as either ‘good’ or ‘bad’ when the reality is that  EdTech magnified the impact of teaching already in place. He said that he had worked with over 100 schools and only 5 where EdTech was having a discernible difference, which was driven by strong leadership and rigorous implementation.

Daniel El-Gamry, author of Beyond Gadgets: EdTech to help close the opportunity gap, spoke next. Drawing on his personal experience of education through a state school in Tottenham, he said that many people underestimate the ability of tech to transform children’s lives. He said that one of the main advantages of EdTech was that it could free up time for teachers to make the interventions they want.

Daniel posed the question: who should be measuring the impact of EdTech in schools? He said that schools know what works best and should be encouraged to embrace the innovation and disruption. Due to the proliferation of academies, schools have more autonomy now than ever before, creating an ideal environment for innovation.

Daniel said he was encouraged by the role of teachers in designing EdTech, especially software. He said it is important to look at how best practice is shared at regional level, highlighting the role that multi-academy trusts can play. He talked about the role of Ofsted, saying that the new inspection framework is due soon and could benefit EdTech should the inspectorate assess digital skills alongside literacy and numeracy.

EdTech panel discussion

Caroline Wright asked the panel about resistance to EdTech from teachers. She asked whether the industry or government should be trying to convince them of the role of tech and, if so, what could be done to persuade reluctant teachers.

Tom Thacker said that he agreed that efforts should be made to win over teachers. He said that there is a need for high-quality CPD, saying that CENTURY requires the completion of CPD to use its product. He warned that, while digital skills for children are regularly discussed, not enough consideration is given to teachers’ digital skills. These need to be addressed for teachers to get the best out of EdTech.

Dominic Norrish said that it is not just about teachers wanting to use EdTech; there is too much else going on. He also said that head teachers in charge of schools need to understand the benefits of EdTech. Daniel El-Gamry added that technology is not fully integrated into what schools offer; it should be implemented across the curriculum.

Rachel Matthews from Instructure said that, from her experience of working across schools to implement EdTech, she agreed that leadership was important. She said that EdTech comes second to considerations of how much resource is available and areas of the curriculum prioritised through accountability. She said that schools are crying out for direction. There may be a role for Ofsted in providing this direction. Digital strategies and frameworks could also be effective, citing the digital procurement model of schools in the Nordic countries.

Patrick Hayes from BESA spoke about BESA’s most recent Efficacy in EdTech: What’s the evidence report. It found that, from the teacher’s perspective, barriers to the use of EdTech were not just about low budgets, but – more significantly – about the willingness to use technology or their understanding of the benefits. He said that two solutions that are often suggested are additional training or the involvement of Ofsted. He asked the panel if these solutions would work.

Dominic said that targeted training is important, adding that schools should be required to engage in EdTech. He said that schools need to know the benefit. In order to encourage schools to use EdTech, Dominic said that there needs to be a straight line between what schools are measured on and what EdTech can deliver.

Ysanne Heald from TEEM Education gave an example of headteachers being given laptops, which helped them to be engaged in tech and to see the benefit. She said that an additional barrier facing EdTech is the new computing curriculum, which has in too many cases seen all of a school’s tech resources consolidated in that one area.

Caroline Wright asked who helps or challenges head teachers at schools. She asked whether there was a role for governing bodies.

Tom Thacker said that it is difficult to expect much from certain governors; they are too diverse a group and it is difficult and unrealistic to find people with the right skills in every case. Dominic supported Tom’s views, saying that governance is not the right answer though it might be more possible in MATs.

Jonathan Parts from Afzal Khan MP’s office asked two questions. The first was about the best way to involve teachers in the design of EdTech, narrowing the gap between design and practice. The second was about the role of teachers alongside EdTech enabled self-directed learning.

Dominic Norrish said that there is a role for self-paced learning alongside the current system. He cited Hegarty Maths as an example used by United Learning Schools which sits alongside the traditional model of teacher directed learning. He pointed out that the system was designed by maths teachers as well. Rachel Matthews added that self-paced learning can be more applicable in later school years. Ysanne Heald said that it is often the most disadvantaged pupils who gain the most from personal motivation and the least from self-guided learning. Dominic Norrish responded that effective self-paced learning needs to have accountability measures built in to ensure that children are doing the work, and therefore reaching disadvantaged children who might not otherwise participate.

Citing the example of Scotland who have created an approved procurement list for school technology, Caroline Wright asked whether procurement frameworks were appropriate. She warned that, in Scotland, the approved lists meant that schools were finding it difficult to SEN products that were not on the lists.

Dominic said that recommendations without a closed shop would be helpful, particularly if the recommendations were user-generated rather than dictated from the top down. He said that it is concerning when governments get involved and that a light-touch approach is preferable. Daniel El-Gamry said that, during the days of BECTA, it was easier to procure but harder to get the right equipment. He said that any procurement system would have to be completely transparent.

Caroline finished by asking the panel what one thing they would recommend the DfE do to help EdTech in the classroom. Tom Thacker said the DfE should focus its efforts on providing good quality information to schools. He suggested that the DfE investigate ways of sharing best practice, perhaps in a similar vein to WonderHub. Dominic Norrish suggested a small, acceptable lever in Ofsted’s framework to get schools to engage more in EdTech, specifically that a statement be included in the Effectiveness of Leadership and Management judgement along the lines of ‘The school’s leadership has made discerning use of technology to address challenges/ improve efficiency/ strengthen teaching and learning’. Daniel El-Gamry said that a speech would be useful as it would demonstrate political will. He added that the DfE needs to look at the available infrastructure, particularly for rural and coastal schools, which can act as a major barrier to adopting EdTech.

Caroline brought the meeting to a close and thanked the panellists.

Jun 26 2018

Meeting with the Chair of the Education Select Committee, Robert Halfon, 26 June

On Tuesday the 26th of June, the APPG for Education was addressed by the Chair of the Education Select Committee, Robert Halfon MP.

After being introduced by Andrea Jenkyns MP, Robert Halfon told the APPG about his role as Chair of the Education Committee, describing it as ‘the best job in Parliament’. He talked about his desire for the Committee to address all aspects of social justice so that all children have the opportunity to climb the ladder of opportunity. He said that the Committee’s other priority is to examine productivity. Having chaired around 50 meetings, he is increasingly convinced that many aspects of the Committee’s work are interrelated, with links between education, social justice and productivity.

Robert Halfon addresses the APPG for Education

He talked about how cross-party consensus can be facilitated through the Select Committee, citing in particular his work with the Shadow Education Secretary to extend the entitlement to 30 hours free childcare to foster children. This stemmed from the Committee’s inquiry into fostering and culminated in a backbench business debate led by Lisa Nandy.

Halfon talked about the failure of the Social Mobility Commission. He said that he wants the Commission to have ‘real teeth’. He believes that every piece of legislation should be assessed against its ability to improve social justice and the Social Mobility Commission should have a role in enforcing that.

On the Committee’s inquiry into alternative provision, Halfon said that the Committee’s aim is to speak up on behalf of children who have ended up in alternative provision because they have been let down by the school system. [stats]

Referring back to the idea that all aspects of the Committee’s work are interrelated, Halfon talked about the SEND and school and college funding inquiries, which were launched at the same time. On funding, Halfon said the Committee wants to look at whether the school funding model should change; in the same way that the NHS has a long-term funding plan, so too should education. He said that one of the tragedies of the current funding set-up is that funding for high needs is often lost, which in turn contributes to high exclusion rates for children with SEND and children ending up in alternative provision who do not need to be there. The Committee’s SEND inquiry aims to look at the implementation of the 2014 Children and Families Act, a piece of legislation that is based on good ideas, but seems to have suffered from being put into practice.

Halfon talked about how the Committee is getting a wider range of people involved in its work, citing for example inviting children with experience of care to question the children and families minister in Committee sessions on the subject. He intends to keep inviting the subjects of Committee inquiries to not only attend sessions, but to actively participate.

Andrea Jenkyns opened the floor to questions from the audience.

Tracy Brabin MP started with a tribute to Robert Halfon’s willingness to work in a cross-party manner, highlighting in particular the backbench business debate on foster care. She also praised the work Halfon has done on special educational needs and disabilities. On childcare, she warned that the underfunding of the 30 hours free entitlement was leading to childcare providers turning away children with SEND. Robert Halfon said that, on early years, the Committee has launched a short inquiry on life chances. He also said that it was his personal view (not necessarily that of the Committee) that the National Audit Office should run an inquiry into whether the government’s current childcare commitments are deliverable as currently formulated. He highlighted the social injustice that working parents can access the 30 hours free childcare, but children from workless homes were denied the opportunity. He suggested cutting the tax credit threshold at which childcare support becomes available.

Cara Bleiman warned that a potential danger of having social justice at the forefront of education is that it results in too much focus on the attainment gap, which results in a narrowing of the curriculum. Halfon said that was an important point but added that social justice in the context of the Committee’s work is not just about educational injustice, but also about building social capital.  When viewed in that way, narrowing the curriculum is also a social injustice. He asked whether GCSEs were really necessary and whether they resulted in a positive outcome for disadvantaged children.

Steve Hayes from the National Deaf Society said that the current school funding situation is resulting in a weakening of the application of the Equalities Act. He said that a third of Local Authorities have cut support for deaf children and asked Halfon to advocated for an increased focus on low incidence but high need children as part of the SEND inquiry. Halfon promised to look at the National Deaf Society’s submission to the inquiry.

Max Fishel from pdnet asked about the lack of consistency in the use of teaching assistants for SEND provision. Halfon said that he did not want to pre-judge the outcome of an open inquiry, but said that he would be cautious about having too prescriptive a policy on teaching assistants as different schools may find different uses for them that are more effective in their specific context.

Ji Li from Plum Innovations asked about apprenticeships. He said that many apprentices have followed the apprenticeship path because they have difficulty with exams. He asked why apprenticeships still involve sitting exams. Robert Halfon suggested that it might be a generalisation that all apprentices are bad at exams; the exams sat by apprentices are designed to be appropriate and achievable by the people with the right skills.

Tom Guy from GL Assessment said that the Committee is running a large number of open inquiries and asked what guarantee there was that the SEND inquiry in particular would have a real impact on government. Halfon outlined the process for what happens next now that the inquiry has received written evidence: the evidence will be sifted, the Committee will run evidence sessions designed to represent all views expressed in the written evidence (the first of which is Tuesday 3 July), the Committee will compile a report which will be debated in Parliament, and the Government will have to respond to the report.

Emma Skelton from the British Council asked whether the Committee was planning to revisit international education. Robert Halfon said that, as it had been the subject of a recent inquiry, the Committee had no immediate plans to revisit the topic.

Andrea Jenkyns concluded by inviting any participants who had not been able to raise a question to email the APPG for Education secretariat who would pass on the question.

Chair of BESA, Chris Ratcliffe, brought the meeting to a close with a vote of thanks.

Load more