News Continued from page 1 Readers’ views


If you would like to comment on any article in Headteacher Update, get in touch by emailing the editor (see below).


Free e-bulletin


Register for free to get regular email updates from Headteacher Update (email the editor). For an archive of all our articles and back issues, visit www.headteacher-update.com


HU on Twitter


You can now fi nd Headteacher Update on Twitter. Follow @headteachernews


Get in touch


Editor: Pete Henshaw pete.henshaw@markallengroup.com 020 7501 6771


Sales: Abdul Hayee abdul.hayee@markallengroup.com 020 7501 6767


Circulation Director: Sally Boettcher sally.boettcher@markallengroup.com


Managing Director: Matt Govett Chief Executive Offi cer: Ben Allen


Subscriptions: subscriptions@markallengroup.com 01722 716997


MA Education Ltd is part of the Mark Allen Group


than preparation for the secondary phase. Mr Coe feels that this perception


is having a profound effect on the primary system: “It has led to a narrowing of primary learning and an insistence on core subjects in preparation for secondary education. ‘More earlier’ is the damaging message from ministers who don’t understand that young children are not simply smaller versions of 18-year-olds. They have needs which are unique to their earlier stage of life.” The Cambridge Primary review


(CPR) had no doubts about the unique value of primary education. The most comprehensive inquiry into English primary education for 40 years took very seriously the need to begin with an investigation of what primary education is for – and not just as a lead into secondary school. In his response to the national curriculum proposals, Professor Robin Alexander, director of the CPR, notes that we should “address the perennially neglected question of what primary education is for”. He added: “The Mrs Beeton approach – fi rst catch your curriculum, then liberally garnish with aims – is not the way to proceed.” In the meantime primary


www.markallengroup.com


Headteacher Update is published by MA Education Ltd St Jude’s Church, Dulwich Rd, London, SE24 0PB


www.markallengroup.com


MA Education Ltd also publishes SecEd, Primary Teacher Update, Early Years Educator, Practical Pre- School, and Fundraising for Schools.


HU Extra


Subscribe to HU Extra for access to premium tailored information, free supplements, resources and discount offers. Details on your address sheet


© MA Education Ltd, 2012. All rights reserved. No part of Headteacher Update may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise without prior written permission of the Managing Director.


ISSN 1478-5307. Printed by Pensord Press Ltd, NP12 2YA


The paper used within this publication has been sourced from Chain-of-Custody certifi ed manufacturers, operating within international environmental standards, to ensure sustainable sourcing of the raw materials, sustainable production and to minimise our carbon footprint.


2


schools are perhaps less worried by the curriculum to come than the support that has gone. However, while many primaries are exploring their natural tendency to cluster and co-operate rather than compete, an increasing number are under threat of being “swallowed”. All-through schools and primary


and secondary partnerships are blossoming. Primary schools involved in such partnerships benefit from the availability of additional services and support. However, it could be argued that the main beneficiaries of such arrangements are the secondary schools themselves. These cross- phase partnerships might be seen as more of an effort to eliminate a dip at year 7 than a real commitment to the uniqueness and broad aims of quality primary education. Nansi Ellis, head of education


policy and research at the Association of Teachers and Lecturers, warned: “Transition projects are often focused on getting pupils into secondary school early so they can prepare for the change, or getting pupils to do secondary school projects.” There are benefi ts to both phases


of recognising the strengths of the other. It is getting the balance right that remains a challenge for our leaders of education.


Virtual schools hit by budget cuts


Virtual schools have a hugely positive impact on the education of children in care, but there is “little evidence” that they are able to reduce the attainment gap, Ofsted has reported. Inspectors also found that budget


cuts have led to a “significant reduction” in the capacity of virtual schools in some areas. Virtual schools are established


by many local authorities and work across all schools to support achievement and track progress of looked-after children. In a report focusing on the


approach, inspectors praised virtual schools for raising the profile of educational attainment for look-after children, promoting better communication between professionals, and increasing the involvement of carers in children’s education. They also reported that virtual


schools do help to improve attendance and reduce exclusions. However, the report found “little


evidence that the gap in attainment between looked after children and other children was narrowing”. Inspectors, who visited nine


local authorities for the report, also found that financial constraints had resulted in several authorities reducing the number of dedicated posts within their virtual schools. It found that three of the nine


local authorities had reconfi gured their virtual school teams as a result of budget constraints, two had reduced the size of the service and were now running small operations with “a much-changed focus”. The report continues: “In the


local authorities where virtual school resources had been hardest hit by budget cuts, there was an acknowledged concern by senior managers that the reduced resources represented the greatest threat to educational outcomes.” The Impact of Virtual Schools on


the Educational Progress of Looked- After Children can be downloaded from www.ofsted.gov.uk


Pupils still shun FSM


A quarter of youngsters who are entitled to free school meals (FSM) take packed lunches instead because they are afraid of being stigmatised. A study by the Institute for Social


and Economic Research has found that around 300,000 out of more than 1.1 million UK children who qualify for FSM do not take them. The research, Take-up of Free


School Meals: Price effects and peer effects, found two over-riding reasons. In many schools, lack of space means that children eating school dinners sit separately from those who bring packed lunches, so pupils on FSM often have to sit apart from their friends. Also, some


schools have cash payment and FSM children feel embarrassed at having to hand in vouchers instead. The fi nancial cost to parents if a


child does not take up FSM is £400 a year. Schools themselves lose their Pupil Premium funding of £600 per child (rising to £900 from next year). Researchers point out that the


Scottish government’s 2007/08 experiment to give FSM to all children between the ages of fi ve and eight in areas of high deprivation raised take-up. So did anonymous payment schemes, where parents pre-registered to pay or to receive the payment online.


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40