Tag Archives: teaching

AI – a reminder from 2018

Posted on by
Reply

Sometimes it is worth repeating an earlier post. This one about AI and education was from as long ago as 2018. The post dealt with a Report by a House of Lords Committee. The most prescient section was; 

“One witness warned the Committee, “that the idealised world represented on social media “leads to many illnesses including eating disorders … and serious mental illnesses”.   The implication being that schools must put in place strategies to prevent such outcomes among future generations exposed to the perils of the modern world.”

You can read the full post at: AI and education – The view of the House of Lords Committee | John Howson

So, way back before Covid, Westminster was being warned about serious mental illnesses- that might impact schools, my highlighting.

Well, post covid, the SEND demand has not been generated by physical needs. The government seems to have largely ignored the warnings and is now trying to put ‘the stopper back in the bottle’, to use a phrase popular with the BBC this week.

Can we save on defence sending if we use some of the education budget to help the next generation work with the developments created by AI?

As Ukraine and The Gulf have shown, the mental capabilities of the armed forces may be more important than the physical attributes in a defensive war. We won’t be fighting imperial wars again – or I hope not – Iraq should have been the last one, if Afghanistan is seen as punishment campaign not a land grab, but without an endgame strategy that the Americans seem so bad at understanding is an essential part of any military operation or war.

I am not sure that the curriculum Review – remember that damp squib – really took on board the changes AI would bring to society. The Microprocessor revolution that changed the 1980s; the internet revolution of the late 1990s and the Jave Enabled smart phone revolution of the second decade of our century each changed children’s lives. AI has already done so, and will continue to do so in ways someone of my age cannot even imagine.

I have found turning a blog post into a webinar in just minutes awesome. Creating a poster from the same text is improving all the time, and its outcomes can now be regularly seen on LinkedIn and other social media platforms.

We are a tech savvy nation; but not yet a tech savvy education system. Is it time for bodies like The Royal Society to make their voice known, along with those that represent our creative industries, equally affected by AI.

I wrote in another post that ’the market porter of the early 20th century was replaced by the forklift truck driver. They in turn were replaced by the software engineer creating automated warehouses. Now AI will make most software engineers redundant, in the same way as the forklift truck driver has started to disappear as a role in warehousing.

Radical change is necessary in our education system. Do we need a national conversation around what that change should be, and not just a professional curriculum review?

Falling rolls in London: much worse than the rest of England

Posted on by
1

In my last post on this blog, I looked at the worsening of primary PTRs across much of the DfE’s ‘Inner London’ area. Falling Rolls: Is the funding formula making matters worse? | John Howson

This post looks how ‘Inner London boroughs have fare compared with the rest of England over those three years?

I think it is fair to say that London as a whole really has seen a significant downturn in primary pupil numbers. There are 22 local authorities where primary pupil numbers as published by the DfE have reduced by 5% or more between 2023/24 and 2025/26. Of these, 13 are London boroughs, and six – seven if Newham is included – are Inner London boroughs.

Seven of the top 10 places for the largest percentage decline in primary pupil numbers are filled by London boroughs. The other three places are taken by the Isle of Wight, Rutland and Torbay, three of the smallest unitary authorities in England.

Birmingham, Manchester and Leicester are the only large cities in the table. They fill three of the four bottom places for local authorities with a decline in pupil numbers of five per cent or more, along with Hillingdon in West London.

At the other end of the table, there are few London boroughs with less than a two per cent decline in their primary pupil populations.


London boroughs at this end of the table seem to be mostly outer London boroughs on the fringe of the metropolitan area. By contrast, there are seven county councils in the list of lowest declines in pupil numbers. This number increases to eight, if the Staffordshire figure, of an increase in pupil numbers, is correct.

The London boroughs will have the numbers in reception for each year, and will know how much worse the decline is likely to become over the next few years. More school closures look inevitable unless the funding model is changed to protect schools with declining rolls.

Not to protect the school estate in London is to assume that there will never be an upturn in pupil numbers. In cities, closing schools and selling off the site for housing means that in any upturn land may not be available for any new schools needed for the extra pupils. This is where thinking for the longer-term is important. During the last downturn of this size, most schools in London remained open, although some, such as Stamford Hill Infant and Junior School in Haringey, where I attended in the 1950s, did eventually close. Interestingly, the one form entry St Anne’s Church of England Primary School, close to Stamford Hill School that wasn’t actually in Stamford Hill, is still open.

However, this is not the post to discuss whether or not, in a more secular society, faith run schools should be closed where an alternative non-faith school can absorb the pupils. But this is an issue to debate, especially in urban areas.

In villages, the church-run school may still be the only school available, and that raises a much larger question about who should run state funded schooling? As the Wesleyan Methodists put it when faced by the 1902 Act, and decisions on whether to open state-funded secondary schools; are our teachers, teachers of children or teachers of Methodist children?

Falling Rolls: Is the funding formula making matters worse?

Posted on by
5

There has been a lot of discussion recently about falling school rolls in the primary school sector in London. This discussion led me to wonder whether a funding formula that is heavily weighted to a per pupil funding model might mean schools with falling rolls would have to adapt to a decrease in their income.

One possible outcome of less funding could be a worsening of pupil teacher ratios if individual support for pupils with SEND is cut, and also whole classes are amalgamated. My thesis is that Inner London boroughs might be witnessing the worst of the falling rolls problem, partly because they are boroughs with little room for new housing to be built, but also because inner cities have traditionally been the home of new arrivals to a country. Post Brexit, many European families from countries such as Poland and Romania may also have chosen to return home, taking their children with them.

With the release last week of the school workforce data for 2025/26, by the DfE, it is possible to review the pupil teacher ratios (PTRs) for each borough for the three-year period from 2023/24 to 2025/26.

Of the boroughs in London, including the City of London, 11 boroughs improved their primary PTRs between 2023/24 and 2025/26. All but one, Camden, were Outer London boroughs. All the other Inner London boroughs recorded a worsening of their primary PTRS over the three- year period.

In the case of Kensington and Chelesea, albeit a small borough, the change was from 17.2 to 19.1 pupils per teacher over the three years: a decline of some 10%. This is a relatively large change for such a short period of time.

Seven Outer London boroughs also recorded a worsening of their primary PTRs over the same period. Of these boroughs, two, Newham and Greenwich have been classified as Inner London boroughs at sometime in the past.

Apart from the City of London, the boroughs with most improved PTRs are on the edge of London – Harrow, Havering, Hillingdon, Barnet, Croydon and Bromley.

The data in the table does suggest that falling rolls have been accompanied by a worsening of PTRs. Might this be caused in part by the construction of the National Funding formula that is heavily weighted towards a per pupil element? Reduced funding is certainly likely to impact upon class sizes and the use of teachers with small groups. Increasing class sizes and cutting individual teacher support for vulnerable learners is likely to impact upon a school’s PTR. If the reduction in pupil number sis widespread across a borough, then the impact will be seen in the PTRS for all primary schools in the borough.

I think that there is a case to be made that falling rolls are worsening PTRs for the remaining pupils across much of Inner London.

For a longer-term analysis of PTRS in London, and how over time they have been better than in most of England see  (1) (PDF) PTRS OVER TIME: A REVIEW OF PUPIL TEACHER RATIOS BETWEEN 1974 AND 2024 AND TWO PERIODS OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT RE-ORGANISATION PTRS OVER TIME: A REVIEW OF PUPIL TEACHER RATIOS

When is a pledge not a pledge?

Posted on by
Reply

When is a pledge not a pledge? Change Labour Party Manifesto 2024

The headline in Labour’s 2024 General Election Manifesto said:

“Recruit 6,500 new teachers in key subjects to prepare children for life, work and the future, paid for by ending tax breaks for private schools.”

Note, nothing about lecturers and further education, and key subjects weren’t defined

In the text of the manifesto the promise or pledge was slightly different. The commitment was to recruit an additional 6,500 new expert teachers. Again, no mention of lecturers and further education and ‘key subjects’ didn’t appear, but ‘shortage subjects’ did. Page 82

“The factor that makes the biggest difference to a child’s education is high-quality teaching; but there are shortages of qualified teachers across the country. Labour will recruit an additional 6,500 new expert teachers. We will get more teachers into shortage subjects, support areas that face recruitment challenges, and tackle retention issues. The way bursaries are allocated, and the structure of retention payments, will be reviewed.”

Interestingly, there was also mention of ‘support areas that face recruitment challenges, and tackle retention issues.’

In the review of the 2025 Workforce, the DfE comment that

“The government, in its opportunity mission, has set a pledge to recruit 6,500 additional teachers. Further information on this ambition can be found in the 6,500 additional teachers delivery plan (opens in new tab). Latest figures show an increase of 3,000 secondary and special teachers since 2023/24 which contributes to this target. Combined statistics across schools and further education show an increase of 4,654 against this 6,500 target.” Release home – School workforce in England – Explore education statistics – GOV.UK

There doesn’t seem to be any mention of how these additional teachers ‘support areas that face recruitment challenges, and tackle retention issues.’  According to the DfE, The pledge is for mainstream secondary schools, special schools, further education (FE) colleges, and FE school based providers; it does not include primary schools. Latest figures show an increase of 3,000 secondary and special teachers since 2023/24 which contributes to this target.

However, much of the increase may well be down to improved retention rather than increased recruitment. Sadly, the headcount for both physics and chemistry teachers for all years 7-13 are still below the 2020/21 figure

Physics

2020/21 6,693

2024/25 6,465

2025/26 6,127

Chemistry

Physics

2020/21 5,886

2024/25 5,602

2025/26 5,357

So, there must be some questions to ask about the number of teachers in these subjects, and the aim to ‘get more teachers into shortage subjects’.

Still, perhaps the percentage of hours taught by those with qualifications has increased. Sadly, not since 2020/21

Percentage of hours taught by teachers with qualification for ‘Subjects taught and Specialist teachers and hours’ for 7 to 13

Chemistry

2020/21 48.9%

2024/25 45.7%

2025/26 44/7%

Physics

2020/21 45.2%

2024/25 42.8%

2025/26 41.2%

So, increased ITT numbers and better retention has yet to feed through to the teaching of physics and chemistry. Perhaps it is because of the way teaching in years 7-9 is arranged in most schools. What about teaching in sixth forms of Years 12 and 13?

Percentage of hours taught by teachers with qualification for ‘Subjects taught and Specialist teachers and hours’ for Years 12 to 13, Chemistry, PGCE, PGDE, ProfGCE, or ProfGDE, Physics and Qualified teacher in England between 2020/21 and 2025/26

Chemistry

2020/21 52.6%

2024/25 49.5%

2025/26 49.1%

Physics

2020/21 52.4%

2024/25 49.4%

2025/26 47.4%

I find this decrease disappointing.

Overall, there is some way to go to meet the manifesto wording, and with static rolls and funding for schools likely to be challenging, I wonder whether the proliferation of small sixth forms is helping or hindering the teaching of these subjects. Perhaps the DfE can identify whether there is any link between the sixth of sixth form groups and the qualifications of those teaching Years 12 and 13?

MayDay for some ITT subjects: joy for others?

Posted on by
1

Such are the wonders of modern technology that the DfE is now able to publish the monthly ITT data on a bank holiday. The data for May was generated on the 18th May, so is already a week out of date. However, it is good to see civil servants managing to keep to the regular publication date for these statistics, even though it falls on a bank holiday.

With the downgrading by the DfE in their analysis of the Teacher Supply model outputs of requirements for the number of trainees needed in many subjects, some admissions tutors can look for an easy final three months of the current recruitment round.

For others, the remainder of the time until courses start in September will still be take up with encouraging more people into teaching as a career. Worries about AI and graduate careers have not yet seemed to have driven graduates in many subjects towards teaching as a career in larger numbers than in the past.

However, there is a concern, registered by this blog in previous posts, about the dominance of certain subjects in the monthly ‘offers’ table.

Three subjects, mathematics, physics and computing make up 32% of all the offers in secondary sector subjects on the 18th May. Three other subjects (Classics, Business Studies and ‘other subjects’) have made so few offers that these subjects almost certainly won’t fill all the places available this year, based on the DfE target number for these subjects.

Another three subjects are at risk of not filling places this year unless recruitment improves after graduation in June. (Geography, Music and Religious Education). Although Biology almost certainly will fill the places on offer, I have downgraded it to PROBABLY from YES, as overall science ’offers’ already exceed the target.

The likelihood of those offered places in mathematics, physics and computing actually taking up their places needs to be closely monitored, because of this extreme distortion of the overall data by the number of offers made in these subjects.  

Looking at applications, the growth in applications is mostly from career switchers in the 25 to 49 age groups. The under 25 have only seen an increase of 1,078 in applications, compared with 2,465 for the 25-29 age group. Indeed, the youngest age group of new graduates have seen an increase of only 166 on May last year.

There has been a significant increase in male applicants, up from 14,992 to 20,003, when comparing May 2025 with May 2006. This must be the first time in many years that the increase in applications from men has been greater than the increase in applications from women.

So, where has this growth in male applicants come from? It seems likely that the ‘Rest of the World’ grouping has provided many of these applicants, as applications from the ’Rest of the World’ increased from 7,727 in May 2025 to 12,909 in May 2026. London, where the increase has been from 6,708 to 7,534, is the only other region with a significant increase.

Perhaps, surprisingly, considering the wider job market, applications from candidates in the North East, from Wales and from Northern Ireland are all below their May 2025 levels.

The majority of applicants are for secondary subjects, so much so that there are now more than twice as many applicants for secondary subjects as for the primary sector as a whole. Candidates may be perceiving that falling rolls will make finding a post as a primary school teacher more of a challenge, and avoiding that career option.

Higher Education has been the key beneficiary, if you can use that term, of the increase in applications, up from 26,876 candidates in May 2025 to 33,0325 in May 2026. Post graduate apprenticeships, up from 5,505 to 9,184 was the only other route with a significant increase in candidate numbers. Teacher degree apprenticeships increased from 677 candidate in May 2025 to 1,534 in May 2026, not an overwhelming vote of confidence for this route into the profession.

These monthly numbers are becoming so distorted that at the headline level, used by many, they are possibly now misleading. A review of how the data are presented seems overdue.

Finally, I still think the removal of the bursary from music was a mistake. The following chart, although busy, shows ‘offers’ over the past decade. This year, is towards the bottom of the range.

NEETs, schools and teachers

Posted on by
Reply

The DfE has recently published an analysis of the factors contributing to the risk of a young person becoming a NEET (Not in Education, Employment or Training) at certain ages. Risk factors for becoming NEET: a statistical analysis using linked data

The key conclusion was that

“At each age group, and when controlling for overlapping risk factors, three factors stand out: persistent absence from school during KS4, having an EHCP, and not attaining 5 good GCSEs including English and maths.” Page 20

Two of these risk factors may have been made worse for some pupils by the fact that for the last decade there has been a shortage of qualified teachers in many subjects. Not all schools have suffered equally from staffing shortages, and within schools, not all pupils may have experienced the same degree of teaching from teachers with less than optimum qualifications and experience in the subjects that they were teaching in the secondary sector.

Might less than excellent teaching be a contributory factor to both absence during KS4, and the failure to attain 5 good GCSEs including English and maths? Perhaps the report would have benefitted from some cases studies linked to schools with high risks factors, but low rates of NEET?

Are there regional differences in the risk factors, perhaps associated with local job markets? Might the consequences of AI on the graduate labour market mean that such a study in a few years’ time might have a different set of risk factors?

Has education policy during the past decade, with an emphasis on the subjects in the English Baccalaureate contributed to some pupils becoming NEETs, perhaps because they found the curriculum, however well taught, not interesting at KS4, even though most will have accepted the need to study English and Mathematics.

In terms of in-school factors, I was surprised not to see anything about valued added from year 7 to 11. Can we trace the likelihood of becoming a NEET back to poor attendance in Reception at the start of formal education?

It seems to me that these are the questions we need to ask if policy decisions are to be made that will reduce the possibility of a young person becoming a NEET. By actions within schools.

However, the big challenge is the extent to which schools recognise the societal risk factors, such a being a young carer, having an ECP, moving school in KS4 and experience of being a Looked After Child.  Teachers are generally form the groups with low risk factors, after all they must have achieved 5 good GCSEs and that probably meant good attendance at KS4. It would also be interesting to know how many teachers had declared special needs at secondary school – perhaps Teachers Tapp could ask that question?

With little experience of risk factors, and, I guess, a training curriculum that devotes little time to how to motivate those at a high risk of becoming a NEET, perhaps we ought not to be surprised that the present labour market offers few opportunities for those without qualifications, especially now that hospitality an retail are sectors shedding jobs not offering opportunities.

Higher Education: markets v planning for the sector

Posted on by
Reply

I don’t often write about higher education, as, although I spent more than a decade running a large department in a university, and also writing about activity-based costings in higher education, I don’t consider myself well enough briefed to comment regularly.

There are exceptions to my self-imposed rule, and this post is one of those. What persuaded me to write this post was a link to this article Universities on the brink: Decoding the UK higher education funding crisis and the path forward | The Educationist

Now, for most of this century, and indeed the last decade of the previous century, higher education providers have been free to operate in a market, with limited government intervention, except in areas such as teacher education, and providing courses for both doctors and the professions allied to medicine.

As I discovered when running courses for new heads of departments in universities about how higher education funding worked, most academics had limited knowledge and often less interest in the subject when asked to take on running department: at that time; even Deans were often more interested in course quality than the financial health of the departments they headed.

Regardless of the reasons behind the current financial malaise, should the market be left to bring the sector back to financial equilibrium? Of course, the government could just throw money at the problem, but I guess it hasn’t the funds, and anyway, the DfE might put NEETs and SEND above bailing out universities in any priority list.

However, I don’t think the government should leave everything to the market. After all, it is the largest consumer of graduates: 30,000 teachers per year to be trained; NHS staff; the defence forces; the civil service and local government. These are all consumers of graduates in large numbers.

Allowing the market to solve the financial problems might have unintended consequences. A major concern for me is around the mobility of new graduates. Many years ago, I studied where trainee teachers went to study, and there was a correlation between where a first degree or higher-level courses was studied, and where individuals entered teacher preparation courses. Universities without schools of education provided fewer recruits to teaching.

Well, Teach First helped solve that problem, at least in London, but I am concerned that market driven course closures could leave parts of the country without degree courses in some subject areas vital for the public sector.

For this reason alone, I think the government should ensure some form of course planning for the higher education sector, so that there are not areas without say, music courses or philosophy. Both are degree courses important as part of the pipeline for future teachers of music and religious education. As these are also both subjects that already fail to recruit enough graduates into teaching, reducing the number studying them on degree courses even further would endanger that pipeline even more.

The intervention of the government in place planning, even at a broad level, also makes economic sense to me, as moving students from loans to welfare is also not a good use of public money. How to manage the balance between leaving the future for higher education to the market, and an orderly return to fiscal rectitude might at least be worth a discussion amongst politicians and those that advise them.

UCET’s changing of leadership: a rare event

Posted on by
Reply

I have been rather tardy in posting my appreciation of the work of James Noble-Rogers, as executive director of UCET (The Universities Council for the Education of Teachers). James was only the second Executive Director the organisation has had so far, taking over from Mary Russell, its first director, after she had presided over the coming together of UCET and PCET, the universities high education teacher training organisation that merged with the polytechnics and colleges organisation, after those institutions became universities in the 1990s to form UCET as it is currently constructed.

James was recruited to his post at UCET from the civil service. I first knew him when I served at the then Teacher Training Agency between 1996 and 1997, in the role of advisor on teacher supply, an interest I retain until this day. James was working on ITT numbers in the DfE, and was a natural fit to take over from Mayr on her retirement. However, I suspect that many were surprised to see a civil servant, and not an academic, appointed to the role. Appointing James was an inspired move.

Afte leaving the TTA in 1997, I worked closely with UCET, and James, for about a decade while he steered UCET through the problems of firstly, falling interest in teaching as a career, and then the boom after the 2008 economic crisis that lead to, in my view, the mis-guided decision by Ministers to axe the training grant and require the payment of tuition fees for graduates when Michael Gove became Secretary of State. These moves contributed to the teacher supply crisis that I foreshadowed on this blog in my 2013 posts (see Howson: Teachers, Schools and views on Education – available from Amazon as an eBook).

The early years of the coalition were a challenging time for colleagues working higher education preparing new teachers and providing INSET. Some will recall the ‘blob’; others, the issue of recruitment controls that nearly caused several universities to consider pulling out of ITT/ITE.

James remained resolute in supporting the higher education community’s central involvement in teacher preparation and development, the position it still holds today, while recognising the emerging partnership with schools that through SCITTS were providing their own version of teacher preparation. At the same time, Teach First was creating another route into teaching.

The last decade after 2016, brought new changes, the effect of the covid pandemic, plunging interest in teaching from home students and the growth, in recent years, of applicants from around the world.

As I became more involved in local government politics after 2013, I lost regular contact with UCET, and stooped attending their annual conference.

Even to, I am delighted to be able to recall my association with James, and the long service he rendered to UCT over more than a quarter of a century. I hope that as with his predecessor, his work will be acknowledged formally by the State.

I enjoyed the time when I worked with James, and wish him well in the next stage of his life. I am delighted to see that he is still offering his support, advice and knowledge that few others can rival.

Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Act 2026 – misconduct

Posted on by
Reply

S52 of the new Act deals has made changes to the scope of teacher misconduct. Three things to note

The term teacher is still not a reserved occupation term: anyone can still call themselves a teacher., but if they do so, they will more likely now be caught by the widened provision, unless that is they are self-employed offering only tutoring. Should such tutors also be covered by misconduct regulations, or just subject to the general criminal law?

Clause 52 of the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Act 2026 widens the scope of those within the compass of the new section on misconduct as a teacher to include:

“a person who employs or engages a person to teach at an institution within the further education sector, an independent training provider or an online education provider.”

and hence these ‘teachers’ now become liable to be brought before The Teacher Regulation Agency for a hearing into misconduct

The legislation confirms that action outside of employment may trigger a misconduct hearing

“(3A) For the purposes of subsection (1)(a) or (b) it is irrelevant whether the conduct occurred, or the offence was committed, at a time when the person was employed or engaged to carry out teaching work or at some other time.”

That’s pretty draconian, but not surprising in view of the need for child safety.

Of course, if the on-line provider is outside the United Kingdom, then this provision won’t apply to non-British citizens. Will it apply to British citizens working outside the United Kingdom and working for an on-line provider?

Teaching work has been defined as: “teaching work” means work of a kind specified in regulations under this section (and such regulations may make provision by reference to specified activities or by reference to the circumstances in which activities are carried out).”

So now you know. It could mean almost anything. This may be important now the definition of those subject to regulation has widened.

However, the test remains:

  • that it relates to a person who has been employed or engaged to carry out teaching work in England; ……
  • that the alleged conduct is capable of amounting to unacceptable professional conduct, conduct that may bring the teaching profession into disrepute or conviction, at any time, of a relevant offence and that a prohibition order may therefore be appropriate.

Will the relevant offence list be the same for someone teaching in a further education setting as for an early years’ setting? I suspect that it will be, since certification as a teacher or lecturer in further education allows anyone to teach anything to anyone or any age.

In my opinion, this makes the need for a definition of a ‘teacher’ or ‘lecturer’ as a reserved term more important. Government could, for instance. Require anyone ‘teaching’ on-line to hold the appropriate ‘qualified’ status. A new qualification for tutoring, both in person and on-line, could be devised to help regulate the industry, at least as far as UK companies are concerned. It would then be up to parents whether they wanted to use a service on-line from overseas and using unqualified staff.

Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Act 2026

Posted on by
Reply

Hurrah for Section 61 and 62 of this new Act of Parliament. These two sections extend control over in-year admissions by local authorities to include academies. This has been achieved by inserting new clauses in the existing legislation, in order to widen the reach from just non-academy schools, historically controlled by local authorities, to now include academies and, I assume, free schools.

Regular readers will know that I started a campaign for this change way back in 2017, after I discovered how long it was taking to place children taken into care in a new school on some occasions, if that school was an academy. See Support ‘Looked After’ young people’s education | John Howson and Don’t forget Jacob | John Howson along with various other posts over the years on this blog.

The previous Children’s Commissioner also campaigned on this issue, and I raised it in November 2024 in questions to the Minister of State at the DfE when he spoke to the ADCS conference in Liverpool that year.

I hope the relevant sections of the new Act will be swifty enacted, rather than just sitting on the statute book.

There is then the issue of selective schools and children that would have attended them if taken into care before the selection process took place.

I hope that local authorities with selective schools in their area will ensure that such children are able to be placed in such schools. After all, a child should not go from the top set in a comprehensive school to a school that will not stretch their abilities to the full.

Now that education is expected of all up to eighteen, it is also important to discuss whether local authorities should have similar powers over the 16-18 age-group and education? This would include further education colleges and the 14-18 sector and studio schools and UTCs that might be a bit of anomaly under some readings of the new clauses in the 2023 Act? Hopefully, some one will tell me that I am wrong on this point.

Here is Section 62

62Power to direct admission: extension to Academies

(1) In section 96(8) of the School Standards and Framework Act 1998 (schools subject to local authority powers to direct admission of individual pupils), for “a maintained school” substitute “—

(a)a maintained school, or

(b)an Academy school, other than one specially organised to make special educational provision for pupils with special educational needs.”

So, my thanks to all that have made this change come about. It has taken too long, but hopefully it will help to reduce the break in schooling for those taken into care that have to move school because of the distance of their new placement from their existing school.

There is much else in the Act to welcome, but where is the Curriculum Review and the need to teach citizenship now the government ahs reaffirmed its intention to reduce the voting age from 18 to 16?