Education News

Schools have decided not to sing the anthem for One Britain One Nation Day, despite the government encouraging them to celebrate the event.Headteachers told The Independent their pupils did not sing the song – which ends with chants of “strong Britain, great nation” – on Friday, due to Covid guidelines, logistical issues and because it “feels like propaganda”. The Department for Education encouraged schools to celebrate One Britain One Nation Day on 25 June, during which they said children could “learn about our shared values of tolerance, kindness, pride and respect”. But the government was criticised after the event’s patriotic anthem was shared widely on social media. Lyrics include “we are Britain and we have one dream, to unite all people in one great team” and references to Britain having “widened our island’s shores”. Headteachers told The Independent their schools skipped the song on Friday.One school leader in Liverpool said their school did not participate as they were not officially told about the event and they did not get enough warning to learn and sing the song in time.The headteacher, who wished to stay anonymous, also said schools were being advised not to sing unless it is distanced and outside. “And, frankly, it was awful,” they added. Matt Davies, a headteacher in North Yorkshire, said his school also did not sing the song on Friday, when One Britain One Nation Day took place.“Firstly, our current risk assessment dictates that whole school or whole class signing is not permitted due to the increased risk of potential transmission,” he told The Independent. “Secondly, I couldn’t agree that the wording of the song was impartial. It certainly comes across as potentially divisive which is not consistent with our school values and ethos.”Hildi Mitchell, the head of Downs Infant School in Brighton, told The Independent they did not participate in the song due to logistics, saying they had other things going on like school trips, and any performance would take several weeks for her pupils to master. Speaking about another reason why they chose not to sing the song, she said: “I don’t think the government have demonstrated any of these values through their actions so this feels like propaganda, my parents have emailed me to say they agree and don’t want their children singing it.” Ollie Williams, a deputy headteacher in southeast England, said their primary school also did not participate, telling The Independent: “It wasn’t mandatory and we have a full rich curriculum that the children are accessing until the end of term.”Amid backlash over the song, the founder of One Britain One Nation, former policeman Kash Singh, told GB News it was seven- to 10-year-old children who wrote the song.“They wrote that song because they wanted to bring unity, they want to celebrate pride, they want every child to feel part of this country,” he said. “And I don’t know how – and I still havent comprehended it – how it has had a negative reaction.”He added: “This is the children of our country, writing those words, wanting to celebrate our country, and bringing each other together. And they want to do that because they want to elimate hate. “One Britain One Nation is a group that says it wants “to create, a strong, fair, harmonious and a proud British Nation, celebrating patriotism and respect for all our people”.A Department for Education spokesperson said: “Our schools should promote fundamental British values including tolerance and respect. As such, we support One Britain One Nation’s broad aims to help children learn about equality, kindness and pride, and it is for schools to decide how they teach these important values.They added: “The department has not asked people to sing songs or endorsed any specific materials for One Britain One Nation day.” More

Headteachers have said the “culture war” over the term white privilege is unlikely to serve the disadvantaged pupils at the heart of the debate. A new report has claimed the phrase undermines educational chances and may have contributed towards a “systemic neglect” of white working-class children.This stance has sparked backlash among politicians, with Labour MPs on the education committee distancing  themselves and claiming the report was being used to stoke “culture wars”.Headteachers have also questioned whether the attack on the phrase would benefit disadvantaged pupils.Jonathan Mountstevens, a deputy headteacher, told The Independent: “I think the prominent focus on terminology such as ‘white privilege’ is divisive and diverts attention from the rest of the report.” “I agree that schools should exercise caution over the use of controversial terms and should avoid stigmatising any students on account of their ethnicity, but it is stretching the bounds of credibility to suggest that this is a significant cause of the underachievement of white students from low income backgrounds.” In a new report, the Tory-dominated education select committee said white working-class pupils have been “let down” for decades by England’s education system and “divisive” language can make the situation worse.The report suggests schools should consider whether the promotion of “politically controversial terminology, including white privilege” is a breach of equalities duties. “I cannot think of a single example from my experience of ‘white privilege’ being taught to students and certainly not used to label them,” Mr Mountstevens from Hertfordshire told The Independent.“The disproportionate emphasis on this in the report invites unnecessary controversy and ruins the opportunity to build consensus around making a real difference for young people who have not been well served for an extended period and deserve much better.”Meanwhile Kieran McLaughlin, a headteacher in Durham, told The Independent: “I would say that the effect of multigenerational poverty and a wide range of societal factors beyond the control of schools have contributed to disadvantage.”He added: “Framing this within a narrative of culture wars is unlikely to solve any of the problems affecting the most disadvantage.”Matt Davies, a headteacher in North Yorkshire, told The Independent: “From the outside, the story seems very politicised and is perhaps forgetting that schools need proper funding to meet the needs of all children.” On Tuesday, the education select committee released their report called The forgotten: how White working-class pupils have been let down, and how to change it. It made recommendations to improve white working-class pupils’ outcomes, including finding “a better way to talk about racial disparities” to avoid pitting different groups against each other.The committee agreed with the Commission on Race and Ethnic Disparities that discourse around the term “white privilege” can be “divisive”.But Labour MPs on the committee opposed the criticism of terms like “white privilege” in the report.Jo Grady from the University and College Union said the report will be “remembered for its divisiveness and for what looks and smells like a weaponising of educational inequalities to suit a different agenda”.Robert Halfon, the Tory chair of the education select committee, has denied he was trying to engage in culture wars by bringing up white privilege.”One of the reasons we found that white working-class boys and girls are struggling in education is because the families have disengaged from the education system and we believe this concept of white privilege perpetuates that idea,” he told BBC Radio 4’s Today programme.When asked whether the committee was trying to create a culture war, Mr Halfon said: “I have never engaged in culture wars, all I care about, as our committee does, is addressing the decades of neglect that have led to a situation where white working-class boys and girls from disadvantaged backgrounds are underperforming.”A Department for Education spoksperson said: “Schools play a crucial role in helping pupils understand the world around them and their place within it, and in teaching about respect for other people and for difference.”They added: “Schools have a duty to remain politically impartial and should not teach contested theory or opinions as fact. They must also be mindful of the need to offer a balanced presentation of opposing views.” More

Gavin Williamson has vowed to “drive forward” a change which would see university offers be based on actual exam results.The government announced plans last year to overhaul the current system, which sees universities make offers on predicted grades.A consultation has been carried out over this change, which the education secretary has said would support pupils from disadvantaged backgrounds.Speaking to parliament on Monday, Mr Williamson said the government is currently looking at the results from this and wanted to bring forward a post-qualifications admissions (PQA) system “as rapidly as possible”. “We would like to do that without legislation and in co-operation with the sector,” he said. “But if we aren’t able to have that co-operation, we will drive this forward.”The government launched a consultation into this potential reform of the university admissions system amid concerns about the accuracy of predicted grades.One option being considered by ministers would see students apply to university and receive offers from institutions after A-level results day – and the start of university could be pushed back.The other option would see students apply in the usual way during term-time, but offers would only be made after results day in the summer.A Ucas director said earlier this year the university admissions body would “cautiously” support the second model, but the first option – which would see students apply to university after A-level results day and start courses in January – was “a step too far”. In the consultation document, Mr Williamson said the system using predicted grades is “limiting the aspirations of students before they know what they can achieve”. “We know that this disproportionately affects the brightest children from the most disadvantaged backgrounds,” he said, adding he wanted to “smash through ceilings” stopping students from reaching their potential. Speaking about the proposed reform on Monday, he said: “All the evidence from the Sutton Trust and so many others is very clear than PQA goes to help children from the most disadvantaged families more than any other.”“That is why we will make it happen.”Last year, a survey by the Sutton Trust, a social mobility charity, suggested working-class students were more likely to say they would have applied to a more selective university if they had known their A-level grades first.Previous research from the charity found high achievers from disadvantaged backgrounds were more likely to end up achieving better grades than predictions compared to those who are better-off.Back in 2017, research found the university admissions process relied too heavily on predicted grades and personal statements, which could put poorer pupils at a disadvantage. More

Catch-up money for schools over the next academic year is “only slightly more” than the amount spent on one month of the Eat Out to Help Out scheme, according to a think-tank.It comes after the government announced £1.4bn more would go towards reversing the impact of the Covid pandemic on pupils’ learning, mostly for tutoring, although headteachers claimed this fell short of what was needed.Analysis by the Education Policy Institute (EPI) has found a total of £984m has been committed to catch-up for the next academic year, which the think-tank said was a “key year for education recovery”.In comparison, the government spent £840m on its flagship Eat Out to Help Out scheme to support restaurants, cafes and pubs last summer.The scheme – which gave customers discounted meals – ran for the month of August.David Laws, the EPI’s executive chair, said: “Learning losses over the last year in England have been very significant, and require a recovery package of evidence-based policies supported by adequate finance from the government.”He added: “It is striking that in one month the government spent almost as much subsidising meals in pubs and restaurants as it is now proposing to spend to fund education recovery over one full year for around nine million children.”Geoff Barton from the Association for School and College leaders said the EPI analysis suggests the government considers children’s education to be “less important” than measures supporting the hospitality sector.“It was willing to spend nearly as much on the Eat Out to Help Out Scheme over the course of a single month as it is on education recovery over the course of an entire academic year,” the union leader said.“The only possible conclusion is that the government does not attach the same importance to education as it does to other public spending priorities.”Meanwhile, Paul Whiteman from the school leaders’ union NAHT said: “As EPI point out, the government is not adverse to splashing the cash when they want to.”He said the Eat Out to Help Out scheme was “just part of the support that has been given to businesses that totals tens of billions”.The union’s general secretary added: “Of course, support for business is important, but it shows how far down the government’s list of priorities children and young people seem to place.”The recent £1.4bn package for catch-up – which put the total committed to education recovery so far to over £3bn – sparked backlash this week, with education unions claiming it does not go far enough.The government’s education recovery commissioner also resigned in protest.The EPI said the recent £1.4bn funding boost worked out at around £50 more per pupil every year and called this “a fraction of the level of funding required to reverse learning loss seen by pupils” since March last year.Taken together with a £1.7bn package announced earlier this year, the EPI estimated the government’s overall funding for education recovery works out at a total of around £310 per pupil over three years.This compares with an equivalent total funding of £1,600 per pupil set aside in the US and £2,500 per pupil in the Netherlands over the same period, according to the EPI.Labour has said it plans on forcing a Commons vote on Wednesday over the government’s school catch-up plans, which the shadow education secretary called “totally insufficient”.When asked about estimates the latest batch of catch-up funding works out at £50 per pupil per year, Gavin Williamson told LBC this week: “It is quite unprecedented to be getting this quantum of money outside of a spending review.”Announcing the £1.4bn funding package, the education secretary said it would “go long way to boost children’s learning” in the wake of Covid disruption and “help bring back down the attainment gap that we’ve been working to eradicate”.The Department for Education (DfE) spokesperson said: “We have committed to an ambitious and long-term education recovery plan, including an investment to date of over £3bn and a significant expansion of our tutoring programme, to support children and young people to make up for learning lost during the pandemic.” More

A think-tank has estimated extra funding announced for education recovery works out at around £50 more per pupil every year, which they called “a long way off” what is needed.Earlier this week, the government announced an additional £1.4bn would go towards helping pupils recover from the impact of the Covid-19 pandemic on their education.The Education Policy Institute (EPI) has said this is “a fraction of the level of funding required to reverse learning loss seen by pupils” since March last year.The think-tank said their analysis of the new funding package, which spans over three years, amounts to around £50 extra per pupil every year.Taken together with a £1.7bn package announced earlier this year, the EPI said the government’s overall funding for education recovery works out at a total of around £310 per pupil over three years.This compares with an equivalent total funding of £1,600 per pupil set aside in the US and £2,500 per pupil in the Netherlands over the same period.The EPI estimated the level of funding needed to reverse learning losses due to the Covid-19 pandemic is £500 per student a year.“At £50 per pupil, our analysis shows that today’s funding package is a long way off what is required to remedy the lost learning seen by pupils over the last year,” Jon Andrews, the EPI’s head of analysis, said.“This was an opportunity for the government to offer significant investment in a range of evidence-based interventions that would help protect against long-run negative impacts to young people’s education and wellbeing. They have decided not to take that opportunity.”In the new funding package, the majority of the extra cash – £1bn – will go towards expanding tutoring available in schools and colleges, while the rest will go towards allowing some Year 13 students to repeat their final year and staff training and support.The Department for Education (DfE) said up to 100 million tutoring hours for children and young people across England under the measures. But Mr Andrews from the EPI said the plans were “an inadequate response to the challenge the country is facing with young people’s education, wellbeing, and mental health”.The think-tank said last month a total of around £13.5bn is needed to help reverse damage caused by the coronavirus pandemic on pupils.During interviews with broadcasters on Wednesday, Gavin Williamson sidestepped questions about reports of a row with the Treasury over the new funding package, but did concede that “there will be more that is required”.Speaking about the latest batch of funding, Mr Williamson also said it was “only part of a process” but defended the money on offer, telling BBC’s Today programme: “Maybe this is being a Yorkshireman, but I always thought £1.4bn was a pretty hefty amount”.When asked about the new catch-up funding working out at £50 per pupil per year, he said: “It is quite unprecedented to be getting this quantum of money outside of a spending review.”Pressed further on LBC Radio on whether he has requested an additional “£5-6bn”, Mr Williamson said: “It is incredibly tempting to get involved in divulging to you private conversations with the chancellor and the prime minister, but I’m going to possibly sidestep this one, if that’s OK?”It is understood the chancellor witheld the recommended £15bn for the catch-up plan unveiled on Wednesday and offered £1.4bn instead. Education unions have said the latest package would fall short of what is needed for pupils to reverse the damage of the coronavirus pandemic on education, which caused most pupils to spend months out of school in total. Sir Kevan Collins, the education recovery commissioner, said the investment offered “evidence-based support to a significant number of our children and teachers” but added: “More will be needed to meet the scale of the challenge.”The £1.4bn – made available on top of £1.7 billion already pledged – has come under fire following suggestions that Sir Kevan called for 10 times as much to be invested.The education recovery commissioner, who is still considering long-term proposals to address the impact of Covid on children, reportedly called for £15 billion of funding and 100 extra hours of teaching per pupil.After the new funding package was anounced, Mr Williamson said: “This is the third major package of catch-up funding in 12 months and demonstrates that we are taking a long-term, evidence-based approach to help children of all ages.”The education secretary added: “The package will not just go a long way to boost children’s learning in the wake of the disruption caused by the pandemic but also help bring back down the attainment gap that we’ve been working to eradicate.”Additional reporting by Press Association More

The National Union of Students (NUS) has criticised Gavin Williamson for “galling” comments after he spoke of “dead-end” university courses.The education secretary has faced backlash over remarks on courses which “leave young people with nothing but debt”.It comes just days after the government launched a consultation that put forward plans to halve a subsidy given to universities for some arts subjects, such as performing arts and archaeologyIn an article published by Conservative Home, Mr Williamson said proposed legislation “will strengthen the ability of the Office for Students (OfS) to crack down on low quality courses, delivering on our manifesto commitment”.He said: “The record number of people taking up science and engineering demonstrates that many are already starting to pivot away from dead-end courses that leave young people with nothing but debt.”Mr Williamson added: “Our reforms will open the way for them to embrace the opportunities offered by degree apprenticeships, higher technical qualifications, modular learning and our flagship Institutes of Technology.”Hillary Gyebi-Ababio from the NUS told The Independent: “The education secretary’s galling comment comes just a week after a 50 per cent funding cut to arts subjects and constitutes an assault on a multitude of hugely valuable disciplines that enrich our society.”The OfS said the proposed cuts related to a subsidy it provides – which is “much smaller” than tuition fees – to help universities deliver subjects that are expensive to teach.Ms Gyebi-Ababio, the NUS vice president for higher education, told The Independent Mr Williamson’s comments come after “a year where we have all relied heavily on creative talent, literature and entertainment to ensure our own wellbeing”.She added: “His limited concept of the purpose of education has once again proven himself to be once completely out of touch with the country.”Universities UK told The Independent: “It is essential that the public has full confidence in the value and quality of a university degree, and the overwhelming majority of courses are high quality and offer good value for students.”The body – which represents 140 institutions in the UK – said in a statement: “Increasing funding for high-cost courses such as medicine is vital but the proposed changes to funding for arts subjects is gravely concerning.“Cuts to subjects including drama, music, performing and creative arts could mean a reduction in the number of courses offered.”An OfS consultation with the education secretary earlier this month proposed a cut to a grant for courses in performing and creative arts, media studies and archaeology.Under proposed changes, the OFS said a subsidy provided to universities for help with high-cost subjects would be halved to £121.50 per student per year for some subjects. The UK regulator said the cuts worked out at “a reduction of around 1 per cent of the combined tuition fee and OfS funding”.However, the proposals sparked alarm among musicians, who warned the cut to this channel of funding would be “catastrophic” for most higher education music teaching.The consultation on OfS funding changes proposed an increase in subsidies for high-cost subjects “identified as supporting the NHS and wider healthcare policy, high-cost science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) subjects and/or specific labour market needs”.The OfS said its funding budget “will have to stretch further in the coming years with significant growth forecast in student numbers – particularly in courses that are more expensive to teach.“The government has also highlighted professional shortages in scientists, engineers, medical and dental practitioners, nurses and midwives, and the importance of supporting STEM and healthcare subjects in guidance to the OfS.”It added: “In this context we need to make difficult decisions about how to prioritise our increasingly constrained funding budget.”A Department for Education spokesperson told The Independent earlier this month reforms “are designed to target taxpayers’ money towards the subjects which support the skills this country needs to build back better”. More

The government has been accused of “over-exaggerating” the threat to free speech on campus in order to push through new laws by a university union. New legislation will be introduced in parliament for the first time on Wednesday, which the education secretary said would tackle “the chilling effect of censorship on campus once and for all”. It would place new requirements on universities and student unions and allow a regulator able to issue fines for any breaches, among other measures. But the move has faced backlash from a union representing thousands of university staff in the UK who have been left “incredibly concerned” by the move. Jo Grady, the general secretary of the Union and College Union (UCU), told BBC Radio 4’sToday programme. “We think that this bill itself is a serious threat to freedom of speech and academic freedom on campus.”She added: “We think that it is an incredibly over-exaggeration of issues in order to push this through.”When asked about former home secretary, Amber Rudd, having an invitation to speak at an event at Oxford University retracted due to the Windrush scandal, Ms Grady said there were “far more serious” threats to free speech among university workers.She claimed staff were facing job losses “because their research agendas don’t align with what the university wants” and others on precarious contracts having to “to align their research agendas, again, with what university wants”“These are genuine threats, not people who already have very privileged jobs not being allowed to speak in an event 30 minutes before,” Ms Grady said.UK universities have said they share the government’s commitment to free speech on campus – but said any new measures must be “proportionate”.A spokesperson for the Russell Group, a group of leading universities, said:  “Our universities have always protected the right to have free and open discussion of challenging or controversial ideas.” They added: “It is vital that any further changes or additions to an already complex system are proportionate, protect university autonomy and avoid creating unnecessary or burdensome bureaucracy.”Last month, the group vowed to protect free speech on campus, adding their institutions already facilitate “free and frank intellectual exchanges”.A spokesperson for Universities UK – which represents 140 institutions – said: “It is important that the Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Bill is proportionate – focusing on the small number of incidents – and does not duplicate existing legislation or create unnecessary bureaucracy for universities which could have unintended consequences.”On Tuesday, the Queen’s Speech set out government plans to introduce new laws on freedom of speech at universities.The Department for Education (DfE) said registered universities and colleges in England will be required to promote and defend freedom of speech and academic freedom under the proposed legislation.For the first time, students’ unions at universities would be required to take steps to secure lawful freedom of speech for members and visiting speakers under the measures in the Bill.This follows controversy over cases of the “no-platforming” of speakers – where they are refused a platform to speak – on campuses, including of Ms Rudd.The new Bill also covers the creation of a free speech champion at regulator the Office for Students (OfS), with the power to issue sanctions.Gavin Williamson, the education secretary, said: “It is a basic human right to be able to express ourselves freely and take part in rigorous debate.”Our legal system allows us to articulate views which others may disagree with as long as they don’t meet the threshold of hate speech or inciting violence. This must be defended, nowhere more so than within our world-renowned universities.”He added: “Holding universities to account on the importance of freedom of speech in higher education is a milestone moment in fulfilling our manifesto commitment, protecting the rights of students and academics, and countering the chilling effect of censorship on campus once and for all.”In a statement, Jo Grady from the UCU said the government was “using freedom of speech as a Trojan horse for increasing its power and control over staff and students”. An OfS spokesperson said: “Free speech and academic freedom are essential elements to effective teaching and research.”Universities and colleges have legal duties to protect both free speech and academic freedom, and their compliance with these responsibilities forms an important part of their conditions of registration with the OfS.They added: “We will ensure that the changes that result from proposals expressed in [the] Queen’s Speech reinforce these responsibilities and embed the widest definition of free speech within the law.”Additional reporting by Press Association More

Gavin Williamson has said the government plans on scrapping face masks in secondary school classrooms as early as 17 May – despite opposition from scientists and unions.The education secretary told The Daily Telegraph the measure is set to be dropped under the third stage of England’s roadmap out of lockdown.Boris Johnson is expected to confirm the change in advice on Monday, according to the newspaper.When schools fully reopened in early March after lockdown pushed much teaching online, new government advice recommended masks in secondary school classrooms in England to prevent the spread of coronavirus.Last month, Mr Williamson extended the advice to run until 17 May – but said he expected to scrap it after that.Since then, unions and scientists have pressed the government to keep masks in secondary school classrooms past this date, telling the education secretary they were “extremely concerned” the measure could be dropped within weeks.In an open letter earlier this week, education unions, public health experts and parents warned the education secretary such a move would “have consequences for the health” of children, their parents and the wider community.But Mr Williamson toldThe Telegraph: “As infection rates continue to decline and our vaccination programme rolls out successfully, we plan to remove the requirement for face coverings in the classroom at step three of the road map.”He added: “Removing face masks will hugely improve interactions between teachers and students, while all other school safety measures will remain in place to help keep the virus out of classrooms.”Deaf children told The Independent the measure had been difficult for them, leaving them struggling to understand what classmates with their mouths covered were saying.Last week, concerns about face coverings disrupting pupils’ learning and wellbeing were raised during the education select committee, during which a Tory MP said she had heard many stories of children “really suffering” from wearing masks.“Particularly as we’ve entered hay fever season and the pollen can lodge in the mask as the extra heat contributes to children who have skin conditions like teenage acne,” Caroline Johnson added.In the open letter to Mr Williamson, scientists and unions said face coverings “minimise educational disruption” by allowing students to keep attending school while protecting their families.The group – which includes members of Independent Sage – said masks help keep those at school safe, allow for wider restrictions to be safely relaxed as soon as possible and are “a critical part of the overall effort to reduce community transmission”.Their letter added: “To strip these necessary Covid protections, when there are already too few mitigation measures in schools, and when rates of Covid-19 are still significant would have consequences for the health of our children and their parents as well as their communities.”A Department for Education spokesperson said: “As infection rates continue to decline and our vaccination programme rolls out successfully, we plan to remove the requirement for face coverings in the classroom in line with step three of the road map.”Virus transmission in schools continues to drop, with the latest data showing a significant decrease in students and staff testing positive and cases isolated quickly thanks to our twice-weekly rapid testing programme.”Additional reporting by Press Association More