Teach First and diversity in the teaching workforce
Written by Jenny Griffiths
Jenny is Teach First’s Research and Knowledge Manager. She is an expert in research related to teacher development and educational inequality, with a particular interest in understanding teacher retention. Prior to working at Teach First, Jenny achieved a BA (Hons) and MPhil from the University of Cambridge, and an MSc from Birkbeck, University of London. She taught History and Sociology and was a Head of Department in London schools for nearly a decade.
The proportion of postgraduate trainees reporting their ethnic group as belonging to an ethnic minority, has increased from 14% in 2015/16 to 22% in 2022/23 (UK Government, 2023). This is similar to the diversity of the working age population (21.8%) (UK Government, 2023). However, research by the National Foundation for Educational Research (NFER) shows that 60% of schools in England have no teachers from ethnic backgrounds other than white, and pupils – 35.7% of whom are from a minority ethnic background – are less likely to encounter teachers from black, mixed or other ethnic backgrounds (NFER, 2022). In fact, a significant number of the pupils in of schools will have no experience of a Black teacher throughout their time in school (Tereshchenko, Mills & Bradbury, 2020). We believe that this lack of representation, particularly in STEM (science, technology, engineering, maths) subjects, may make it harder for young Black pupils to engage with these subjects and pursue related careers.
Over the past 20 years Teach First have screened approximately 120,000 applications and assessed over 50,000 candidates for a place on our training programme. We are committed to increasing diversity in the teaching workforce and we’ve learnt a lot about how to root out bias in our application and assessment process, but we are committed to continuing to learn and improve.
As part of that work, along with Ambition Institute, we supported the NFER to carry out research looking at racial equality in the teacher workforce. This research showed that the most significant ethnic disparities are seen at the early stages of teacher’s careers, starting with ethnic minority people being over-represented among teaching applicants, but having a lower acceptance rate compared to other groups. We are pleased that Teach First are the only ITT provider where an ethnic minority group, those of mixed ethnicity backgrounds, has the highest acceptance rates. We also have less disparity in acceptance rates between ethnic groups than other providers, but we are continuing to work to reduce this gap still further (NFER, 2022).
Our recruitment strategy is designed to identify potential and reduce the risk of bias in our decisions, first by removing personal details in applications. The most significant change however was the introduction of contextual recruitment at the application stage. This allows us to take greater account of the different backgrounds of applicants in order to attempt to offset the impact of socioeconomic disadvantage. Applicants complete a short survey about the type of school they attended, whether they were eligible for free school meals, socioeconomic background and any significant disruption such as time in care, refugee status, or being a young carer. Whilst applicants must demonstrate clear evidence of our competencies, this screening helps us to understand where grades that are lower than our traditional entry level requirements are not necessarily reflective of potential. This approach has led to a 15% increase in offers to join the training programme overall and Black, Asian and Ethnic minority representation increase from 12% in 2017, to 18% in 2018 (after the introduction of contextual recruitment), and to 22% in 2019 with changes to our selection day processes.
This improvement notwithstanding, we know there remain particular challenges in attracting Black and other underrepresented groups into teaching, especially in STEM subjects. To address this we are working in partnership with Mission 44 to recruit and train Black STEM teachers to work in schools serving disadvantaged communities in England. Our initial research specifically looked at how to attract more STEM graduates from Black and mixed Black ethnic backgrounds into the teaching profession. Motivation to enter teaching varies individually, but also differs between social groups. A discrete choice experiment enabled us to test elements of our programme where we felt changes might have the biggest impact on recruitment.
What we found was that Black and mixed Black STEM graduates saw salary as being of high importance. We also found that location mattered: respondents indicated a clear preference for a guaranteed placement in London or within 60 minutes of their home address. Perhaps more interesting in terms of understanding changing work and lifestyle priorities, was the interest in lifestyle benefits, such as restaurant or gym discounts, as being likely to motivate more graduates to apply. Focus groups elaborated on some of these responses, indicating the importance of financial and societal pressures in decision making. In teaching where starting salaries are perceived to be relatively low, the importance of career progression was clear. Another finding central to our understanding and future work, was the concern of Black graduates about the level of diversity and inclusion in the schools where they would be working. There was a wariness of being in a school with an exclusively White teaching workforce, and despite clear desire to be a positive role model, these concerns posed a perceived risk to their wellbeing which needs to be addressed if we want to address ethnic inequalities in the teacher workforce in a sustainable manner.
You can download our report on this work to read the findings from the research in full and the recommendations proposed.
Despite some gains, we know that disparity remains and we remain committed to reviewing, re-evaluating and improving our practices to support diversity and inclusion in our education system, for teachers, schools and pupils.
How Well Do You Know Your Governance Professionals?
On International Women’s Day (8 March) 2023, GovernorHub, part of The Key Group, released a research report delving into the salaries and working patterns of 1,298 governance professionals working in schools and trusts.
It sheds light on the often-hidden roles of governance professionals, who this research reveals are indeed predominantly female, and explores how their salaries fare against those in comparable roles in other sectors.
See the key findings of the report below, and some recommended actions to help overcome pay disparities to support the recruitment and retention of talent in these important roles.
Key findings
The survey of 1,055 clerks, 100 governance co-ordinators and 143 governance leads found that:
- Around 90% of governance professional roles in schools and trusts are filled by women, making this one of the most female-dominated careers in the education sector and beyond
- The majority (85%) of clerks surveyed reported working part time – for governance co-ordinators it’s 49%, and for governance leads it’s 37% – which is far higher than the government’s national employment data at 23% of working-age people working part time in 2021
- Almost a third (30%) of all female governance professionals surveyed reported having taken a career break due to caring responsibilities, compared to 4% of male respondents
- Clerking roles in schools and trusts appear to have the largest salary discrepancies, with a median salary of £25,000 pro-rata, which is substantially lower than the median salary for equivalent roles in the local government (£33,782), public services (£33,636), and not-for-profit (£31,620) sectors
- Over half (54%) of clerks surveyed reported feeling ‘underpaid’ or ‘extremely underpaid’; comments from some respondents suggest this is often caused by needing to work more hours than are allocated to each task or meeting
- A lack of visibility and understanding of clerking roles, combined with their increasing complexity, might be contributing to the stagnation of pay felt by many clerks surveyed
A quote from one part time clerk respondent illustrates a lack of awareness, in some cases, of this role:
“Having worked for 10 years with the school, I had to ask for my salary to be reviewed a couple of years ago and the rate was upped. I checked my letter of appointment and it said my salary would be reviewed every year – I pointed this out, but it isn’t reviewed every year. I think my role falls through the cracks. As a part time employee, I don’t know if I am missing out on any other work benefits, pension etc., and whether I’m entitled to equipment to help me to do my job.”
Recommendations
To help improve working conditions for governance professionals and, in doing so, help recruit and retain valuable talent for the sector:
- Employers – should use annual appraisal meetings as an opportunity to review and benchmark pay, and follow government guidance on reducing your organisation’s gender pay gap
- Self-employed individuals – should negotiate hourly rates in line with benchmarked salaries, as well as hours assigned to each task
- Everyone working in governance professional roles – should set and share a working-time schedule to help improve work/life balance, and join a union, to help give them a voice and professional advice
Conclusion
GovernorHub’s research report gives governance professionals in schools and trusts the evidence to show what they’re worth, and to look to align their pay with equivalent roles in other sectors.
The report recommends that employers and individuals take action to overcome the pay disparities, and ensure that governance professionals are recognised and rewarded appropriately.
By taking these actions, the education sector can strengthen its workforce of governance professionals who play such a vital role in supporting our schools and trusts. Championing these key roles will only serve to support the best possible educational outcomes for our children and young people.
Why Don’t We Talk About Intersectionality in Schools?
Written by Dr Jo Trevenna
Dr Jo Trevenna has over 20 years' experience of educational leadership from early years to post-graduate level. Her ongoing academic interests centre on Leadership and EEDI. Her company, Potential Education, offers leadership reviews, support and training and EEDI-focused school support.
There can’t be many of us still thinking that human identity is singular. Right? Aren’t we a combination of diverse characteristics that create and impact on our existence? Expectations and assumptions around combinations of characteristics are increasingly illuminated in societies, with light thrown on those who experience multiple discrimination and shade thrown on those who discriminate against those with different combinations of characteristics. The complexity around identity is foregrounded in explorations of intersectional discrimination. Yet intersectional disadvantage is not generally a focus for English schools.
Why?
Is it a lack of understanding and awareness or the lack of external accountability?
The Law
Critical awareness of the vulnerabilities faced by those with exact combinations of identity characteristics was first associated with the legal work of Kimberlé Crenshaw which looked into the discrimination experienced by African-American women in terms of ‘intersecting patterns of racism and sexism’ (Crenshaw 1991, p1243). Crenshaw asserted that anti-discrimination legislation in the United States did not actually protect African-American women because, when making legal claims against an employer, this particular group had to choose between a focus on either their race or gender, even though the discrimination they faced came at the ‘intersection’ of these two identity characteristics.
Section 14 of The Equality Act (2010) recognises the potential for discrimination pertaining to ‘combined discrimination: dual characteristics’ (Legislation.gov.uk 2010). The focus here is limited to direct discrimination against the combination of only two characteristics. More significantly, Section 14 has never, in fact, come into force. It just sits there in provisional status.
As it stands, therefore, the law does not adequately protect against intersectional discrimination and, in terms of English schools, there is no legal imperative to tackle intersectional discrimination.
Publicly Available Data
Published performance table data is hugely significant for schools. The first stage of the high profile ‘school and college performance measures’ website offers only a single-axis approach to pupil data. Some basic intersectional data is available on the ‘Explore Education Statistics’ section of the platform relating to ethnicity and disadvantage, disadvantage and gender, SEN and ethnicity. However, the data remains on cohort numbers and does not provide any information which may indicate the impact of those intersections on pupil academic performance, exclusions/suspensions and attendance. FOI requests can be made and the GOV.UK website also offers the facility for researchers through its new Grading and Admissions Data for England (GRADE) service. This service may be a significant step forward in terms of higher level transparency but it does not provide readily accessible data to the public on intersectional discrimination affecting pupils.
Data revealing the intersectional factors affecting pupils is available to school leaders and governors, local authorities and Ofsted via the ‘Analyse School Performance’ (ASP) secure access platform. Filtering mechanisms enable reports combining specific pupil characteristics, eg: boys with SEN, and scatterplot graphs make it relatively easy to identify patterns of underperformance because of key combinations of protected characteristics thereby highlighting potential impact of discrimination and flagging up need to address. Another school performance document is the Inspection Data Summary Report (IDSR), which is accessed on the secure ASP portal. The IDSR is a key document for Ofsted Inspectors when preparing to inspect a school and informs initial discussions with headteachers. Like the ASP tool, the IDSR does provide schools and Ofsted with a retrospective mini intersectional tool in its coding on scatterplots of the progress and attainment of pupils by binary gender classification and SEN status and deprivation status. However, there is no public access to this data.
To sum up: disadvantages experienced by pupils with specific combinations of identity characteristics in English schools are not readily flagged in publicly published school data. Perhaps Ofsted, which does have access to this anonymised intersectional data via the ASP and IDSR, has the potential to be the driving force in helping schools engage with intersectional discrimination.
Taking a sample of 68 Ofsted Section 5 inspection reports published in a six month period (not including those which inspected an already ‘Good’ school), there are only references to single-axis identity characteristics. In this sample, Ofsted, as the key inspection mechanism for schools, does not engage with the impact of intersectional discrimination on pupils. The lack of referencing in this sample of reports is not surprising given that Ofsted’s School Inspection Handbook only relates identity characteristics on a single-axis framework.
As it stands, then, there is no legal accountability, no easily accessible public data to enable transparent exploration of the impact on pupils and little Ofsted engagement with intersectional discrimination and disadvantage. Right now, without the external accountability structures, it is the choice of school leaders whether or not to adopt an intersectional approach to their schools. Given that most of us agree that identity has multiple components, it is surely time to explore how an intersectional approach can throw light on intersectional disadvantage and discrimination and therefore help schools to tackle it head on despite the lack of an external accountability framework.
Desire to study diverse drama and playwrights in schools not matched by current educational landscape
Written by Margaret Bartley
Editorial Director for Literary Drama at Bloomsbury. Since 2002 she has been the Publisher of the Arden Shakespeare and now has editorial responsibility for Bloomsbury's digital platform Drama Online, the Methuen Drama imprint, and the Arden Shakespeare. She is Bloomsbury’s representative on the Lit in Colour Advisory Board and sponsor of Bloomsbury Academic’s Diversity, Equity and Inclusion working group.
90% of drama texts taught at GCSE and 96% at A Level English Literature are written by white playwrights
New research released today by Bloomsbury Publishing, through its Methuen Drama imprint and as part of its Lit in Colour programme, illustrates the popularity and contradiction of teaching drama texts for English Literature at GCSE and A Level in today’s secondary schools in England and Wales.
Drama (excluding Shakespeare) is not compulsory in the GCSE English Literature specification, yet 93% of teachers who responded to Bloomsbury’s survey choose to teach a drama text to a GCSE class. Under 2022 curriculum specifications, drama texts by white playwrights account for 90% of drama texts taught at GCSE and 96% at A Level English Literature. This contrasts with 93% of teachers who said they would like to see a more ethnically diverse range of writers offered by exam boards. This desire from teachers is met with student demand. Of the teachers surveyed, 65% said there was a demand from their students to study more ethnically diverse writers.
Launched in 2020 by Penguin Books UK, alongside race equality think tank The Runnymede Trust, the Lit in Colour campaign aims to support UK schools in diversifying the teaching of English and to increase students’ access to texts by writers of colour and from minority ethnic backgrounds.
Bloomsbury’s Methuen Drama imprint has a world-class play portfolio and playwright relationships that complement and expand on the original Lit in Colour campaign. The programme’s aim is to introduce new plays to the curriculum, offering students access to more diverse, representative and inclusive work, opening up the ways in which all drama texts can be studied, creating new ways to explore plays and contributing to wider discussion and representation in the classroom.
Other findings from the research illustrate the important role drama plays within English Literature at secondary school study:
-
- There are currently just 2 drama set texts by Global Majority writers available at A Level English Literature
- With the right support and resources in place, 84% of respondents said they would be likely to choose a new drama text for GCSE English Literature
- We asked teachers about the support they need when teaching drama set texts: the top three resources listed were recordings of performances (67%), model student answers to exam questions (65%) and resources on social/cultural context (57%)
- 66% of survey respondents said they would like more support to teach texts that tackle issues relating to race or ethnicity
-
- 0% of students answered an exam question on a play by a Global Majority writer in England in 2019*
- In England in 2019*, 79% of GCSE English Literature candidates answered an exam question on a drama text, 349,337 students (65%) answered a question on An Inspector Calls in 2019 assessments
Margaret Bartley, Editorial Director for Literary Drama at Bloomsbury, commented: “The landscape of teaching drama in English schools has remained largely unchanged. Our research shows that there is real appetite for change and that publishers, theatre makers, examiners and teachers need to work together to deliver change to the curriculum. If we empower teachers to switch texts with confidence, students can continue to benefit from the positive impact and influence of studying plays. In the future, those plays will better reflect the student cohort and ensure students see themselves represented in the texts they study. Bloomsbury is committed to playing our part in delivering this change through our proactive programme of new play text publishing, supported by the resources teachers and students need to study and enjoy them.”
Change is coming – what should the future look like?
Real change is coming. Just two years on from the Lit in Colour campaign, efforts are being made by all five major awarding bodies in England and Wales to diversify the set texts within both GCSE and A Level specifications for English and Drama. By 2025 English Literature students in England and Wales will have the option to choose from 10 new modern play texts by writers of colour at GCSE and A Level.
The importance of live performance
Drama can be more accessible than other genres and many enjoy the interactivity that the format brings. A 2015 curriculum change to English Literature removed the necessity for a student to watch a live production, leading to systemic changes in the teaching of drama texts as part of the English curriculum, which are difficult for teachers to counter.
Teaching drama as an experience through live performance is critical in the successful introduction of new plays. When diverse texts are performed in theatres and included on the school curriculum, more could be done to engage with the playwrights themselves. There needs to be more opportunity for playwrights to talk about their work and context, and for schools and teachers to engage with playwrights directly.
Having access to staged performances through services such as Bloomsbury’s Drama Online, which has collections of filmed live performances including those from the National Theatre and Shakespeare’s Globe, is vital to bringing teaching to life, inspiring debate and illustrating what the author or playwright is trying to convey.
Empowering teachers to take a different approach
The research shows a clear desire among teachers to expose pupils to a diverse range of literature, driven by the need to reflect the student cohort and ensure students see themselves represented in the texts they study. There is also a desire to share diversity of thinking and hear voices other than their own. Importantly, this needs to represent a variety of backgrounds and to portray a range of lived experiences including, but not limited to, race-related issues.
Introducing new play texts to the classroom is a big undertaking and requires time and energy from teachers who are already stretched and time-poor. It is clear that teaching a new text is a significant undertaking for teachers who need to create new schemes of work and lesson plans, and research the text’s critical and performance history. Research responses show that teachers prefer to refer to past papers and evidence of the approach taken in assessment for benchmarking their teaching plans. This understandably means teachers often choose to teach the familiar and reliable options with which they have had positive learning and exam outcomes in the past.
Giving teachers the tools they need will empower them to teach new texts and approaches with greater confidence, helping them achieve the success they want for their students.
Teachers also told us that they have more freedom at Key Stage 3 (KS3) to choose diverse texts, as the curriculum is not limited by exam specifications. Teachers can therefore introduce drama texts from diverse writers at KS3 and build confidence in the teaching of these texts, before being limited by exam specifications at higher key stages.
There is also an opportunity to teach the familiar set texts differently, while they remain on the syllabus, by reframing how they are taught. Alongside new texts from diverse writers, existing texts can be taught through a different lens that resonates more with today’s students, such as gender, identity or class. Given the predominance of plays like this, reframing the way established canonical texts are presented offers teachers and students enriching ways to engage with them alongside newer texts.
Methodology
This report draws on research from multiple sources: a quantitative survey, in-depth interviews, roundtable discussion and desk research. Participation was entirely voluntary. Research was carried out by independent research company Oriel Square Ltd and supported by Insightful Research. The online survey, carried out in June 2022, targeted teachers of GCSE English Literature in England and Wales. Of the 141 respondents, 16.3% identified as Black, Asian or of Multiple Ethnic background, compared to 10.4% of teachers in England. Interviews were conducted with a sample of four teachers, selected either because they were taking part in the Lit in Colour Pioneer Pilot programme, ran in partnership with Pearson Edexcel, or because they had responded to the survey and agreed to take part. As a response to the teacher research, Bloomsbury, the National Theatre and Open Drama UK hosted a roundtable discussion with stakeholders from publishers, awarding bodies, theatre organisations, and practitioners, authors and playwrights to discuss how the drama and theatre community could support schools with the teaching of diverse drama texts.
*2019 assessment data was used in the research as the most reliable data, as COVID-19 interrupted live exams data and 2022 data is just being published
Media enquiries: to Ginni Arnold, Head of Corporate Communications at Bloomsbury on ginni.arnold@bloomsbury.com or 07968730247.
Editors’ Notes
Bloomsbury English and Drama for Schools list includes:
- The popular Student Edition series and GCSE Student Editions and Guides featuring plays for more than 14 core set texts for GCSE and A Level English Literature and Drama such as Blood Brothers, A Doll’s House, DNA, The Crucible, and An Inspector Calls.
- The Arden Shakespeare Third series for A Level and beyond, and Arden Performance Editions for performance and study.
- The RSC Shakespeare series, including The RSC Shakespeare: Complete Works and 36 individual play editions.
- New Mermaids series for classic play editions including Doctor Faustus and The Duchess of Malfi.
- The ever-growing Plays for Young People series which offers age-appropriate plays by a diverse selection of contemporary playwrights for young people to perform and study.
Find out more at Bloomsbury.com/DramaForSchools and @MethuenDrama
About Bloomsbury
Bloomsbury is a leading independent publishing house, established in 1986, with authors who have won the Nobel, Pulitzer and Booker Prizes, and is the originating publisher and custodian of the Harry Potter series. Bloomsbury has offices in London, New York, New Delhi, Oxford and Sydney.
About Lit in Colour
Lit in Colour was launched by Penguin Random House and The Runnymede Trust in October 2020. The campaign aims to ensure English literature better reflects contemporary culture and society, to increase understanding around racial equality and to give students access to a diverse range of authors and books.
Lit in Colour published a major piece of research: https://litincolour.penguin.co.uk/ Diversity in Literature in English Schools in June 2021 which reviewed the current state of play in English Literature education and made practical recommendations for change, carried out by an independent team at Oxford University’s Department of Education.
Find more information at penguin.co.uk/litincolour and @PenguinUKBooks
About The Runnymede Trust
The Runnymede Trust is the UK’s leading independent race equality think tank. We generate intelligence to challenge race inequality in Britain through research, network building, leading debate, and policy engagement.
Runnymede is working to build a Britain in which all citizens and communities feel valued, enjoy equal opportunities, lead fulfilling lives, and share a common sense of belonging.
In order to effectively overcome racial inequality in our society, we believe that our democratic dialogue, policy, and practice, should all be based on reliable evidence from rigorous research and thorough analysis.
@RunnymedeTrust |runnymedetrust.org
Class Dismissed? The importance of the intersection of social class in educational research
Written by Dane Morace-Court
Education Leader, Sociologist and PhD Candidate at the University of Chichester. Research explores the intersection of class, gender and ethnicity in the formation of identities. Associate Fellow of the Higher Education Teaching Academy. Member of the British Sociological Association.
Narratives around developing students’ Cultural capital is en vogue in contemporary education. Few educators, however, have had the opportunity to explore the term in its relation to social-class, education and, in particular, working-class underachievement in schools.
The term cultural capital was coined by French sociologist Pierre Bourdieu, to describe the education levels, hobbies and interests of individuals within a particular social group and, in turn, how these experiences conflate to create a schema (or habitus) through which the individual interprets and navigates their social world. Cultural capital is, then, a conduit through which working-class underachievement in schools can be considered and explored.
As a sociologist, and one who identifies as a ‘working-class academic,’ my research focuses on the construction of identities for white, working-class boys within the neoliberalised (secondary) education system. Accordingly, I often have the opportunity to share my work with a range of educational professionals, academics and researchers. In doing so, I can usually count on the following two questions being asked of me: ‘how do you define social class?’ and ‘what can I – a white, heterosexual male (with all of the obvious privilege that comes with this) – contribute to discussions on diversity in education?’ Both fair questions.
Before I answer them, however, allow me to set out my stall with the following statement: any exploration into students’ experiences in education, be they based on ethnicity, gender, disability, religion or sexuality, must consider social-class as part of its framing. To dismiss social class (or any other characteristic that could impact on an individual’s perception-of-self) from discussions around equality and diversity is to argue for a homogenous experience of any and all members of a social group. Thus, social-class should, as Block & Corona (2014) note, be one of multiple intersecting factors considered when looking to understand the educational experience of any and all social groups.
So how are we to define and contextualise social class? this complicated, mercurial term, which seems to paradoxically explain so much and nothing at all. Indeed, the history of academia is littered with researchers offering us definitions, models and paradigms through which to offer clarity to the term. Marx and Engels (1848) famously offer us examples based on ownership of economic production. Goldthorpe (1992), meanwhile, directs us towards a schema (unsurprisingly known as the Goldthorpe Schema) which asks us to consider social positions in relation to occupation. More recently, Savage (2015) fractures the issue further, arguing for a model of no less than seven different social classes. Meanwhile, some postmodern scholars, such as Beck (2004, cited in Atkinson, 2007, p.354), argue that class, as a concept, is no longer relevant (Beck famously described class as a ‘zombie characteristic… the idea lives on even though the reality to which it corresponds is dead.’)
It is, however, Bourdieu to whom we can once again turn, in order to offer us the critical lens through which to consider social-class in relation to educational experiences and achievement. For Bourdieu, class can be considered as the intersection of three different types of capital: economic (wealth and assets), cultural (education level, hobbies and interests) and social (who one interacts with socially and the advantages this may offer). When conceptualised in such a way, the notion of social-class becomes intrinsic in informing not only students’ educational experiences but also their opportunities for success.
Because, of course, students are not operating within neutral classed territory. As Archer et al. (2010) argue, the education system values, above all else, a middle-class habitus, middle-class culture and middle-class aspirations. In doing so, many working-class students are operating within an education system in which they are not valued and their own culture is not reflected back at them. This, argues Archer et al. (ibid), is an act of symbolic violence.
So, to our second question, what can I, as a white, heterosexual male offer in relation to discussions on diversity in education? The answer is simple, let us not dismiss social-class as a lens through which to consider the experiences of students. Let us consider students in all of their intersecting complexities and in doing so, offer classed-identities the same gravitas we offer to more prominent conversations around protected characteristics. It will be to the benefit of all stakeholders in education; teachers, leaders, researchers and, most importantly, the students we serve.
Class dismissed? Not for me.
References
Archer, L., Hollingworth, S. and Mendick, H. (2010). Urban Youth and Schooling. McGraw-Hill Education.
Atkinson, W. (2007) Beck, Individualization and the Death of Class: A Critique. British Journal of Sociology 58, 349–66.
Block, D. and Corona, V. (2014) Exploring class-based intersectionality. Language, Culture and Curriculum, 27(1), pp.27-42.
Goldthorpe, J.H. (1992). Individual or family? Results from two approaches to class assignment. Acta Sociologica, 35(2), pp.95-105.
Marx, K., & Engels, F. (1848). The Communist Manifesto. Selected Works by Karl Marx and Frederick Engels. New York: International Publishers.
Savage, M. (2015). Social class in the 21st century. Penguin UK.
Accessing the voices of students with SENDs: barriers faced by a PhD researcher
Written by Klaudia Matasovska
Former SEND teacher. She worked for 16 years in London, specifically in the areas of autism and sight impairment. She is currently working as a researcher at Goldsmiths, University of London.
I am really enjoying my PhD journey and I wanted to share some of my key experiences here. In particular, I wanted to talk about the issue of access to students with Special Educational Needs and Disabilities (SEND) which I encountered during my recent data collection. My PhD research interests centre around LGBT inclusion with pupils with SEND. For those who have an interest in intersectional research regarding inclusion and equality in education, this blog might be of use.
Based on my previous practice as a former SEN teacher, the barriers to disabled students’ voices being heard are often there because of the attitudes of others. Sometimes the barriers are (openly) presented via the attitudes of those who are supposed to be on their side. I once had an ex-colleague, a senior leader in one of the schools I worked at, confiding in me that she did not regard disabled students’ right to information about LGBT as ‘important’ because she expected them to have no romantic lives due to their disabilities. Other barriers can be presented via fear rather than stigma. Research shows that there does appear to be a deep-rooted fear amongst educators that talking about non-heterosexual intimacy and relationships with students with SEND is somehow risky.
Research involving the actual voices of students with SEND is limited and I wonder if this is partially due to restrictions imposed on researchers by students’ gatekeepers. This has been my experience, too. Earlier this year, I organised a series of research trips for the Year 1 evaluation of the ‘Equally Safe’ anti-bullying project of the EqualiTeach charity. I worked with a sample of eight mainstream primary and secondary schools including faith and church schools across a range of areas. During my interviews with staff and focus groups with students, I asked about aspects of the Equally Safe programme, such as creating inclusive policies and tackling identity-based bullying using a whole-school approach. I was viewing this research project via an intersectional lens and therefore, the evaluation was also seeking to elicit discussions about the LGBT and SEND intersections amongst other things. The gatekeepers, members of the leadership teams, were asked to select focus group student participants representing a wider selection of the protected characteristics of the Equality Act (2010) and involve student participants who traditionally might not have a voice, such as students with SENDs. Unfortunately, as it turned out – there were no focus group participants present who had any recorded SEND.
I understood that this type of research project can feature sensitive information and there is a need to protect any vulnerable students, ethically speaking. Despite this, the gatekeepers’ efforts to deny those from the under-represented groups an opportunity to have a voice in a research project on identity-based bullying was surprising. In sharp contrast, the focus groups included other types of under-represented pupils. For example, they often (but not always) featured pupils who had come out as LGBT. This is an interesting phenomenon given the fact that the controversial Section 28 of the Local Government Act (1988) is still impacting school culture in England. This is evident in misconceptions about what is suitable and ‘appropriate’ to teach which some educators can still struggle with. Often when I interview teachers about LGBT RSE topics or the SEND/LGBT intersection regarding their school policies and inclusive practice, I notice a hint of anxiety in their responses. They tend to stress that they follow the Equality Act (2010) and often mention having a considerable number of students with SEND. My experience with having no access to this category of students in these schools makes me question the cause behind this. Is this all happening because these schools just do not see these intersections? If that is the case indeed – why don’t they see them? Could the cause of this phenomenon be partially the result of the influence of Section 28? Do educators find dealing with certain types of intersections difficult and uncomfortable despite the law?
I will carry these questions into the second year of my PhD studies. It will be interesting to see if these issues with having access to students with SENDs will still be evident in the next sample of schools I am planning to visit. I would be interested to hear about your academic experiences in this area and any barriers you may have experienced in collecting data involving those who represent the ‘less heard’ category of students. Please, do not hesitate to get in touch with me.
Sowing the Seeds of Love...
Written by Audrey Pantelis
Audrey Pantelis is an associate coach, consultant and trainer. She is a former Headteacher of a Special Educational Needs and Disabilities school and a current Diversity, Equity and Inclusion consultant and leadership coach.
This blog is inspired by a thread by @msybibi – Yamina Bibi – that I responded to following her attendance at the @ChilternTSH #REND event on July 15th. REND stands for Racial Equity Network Dinner. This wonderful event, amongst other key messages, showcased leadership narratives from people that, on first glance, would not have been considered as leaders. I was struck by the subsequent tweets of appreciation, love and respect from those school leaders and supporters who attended who were inspired by the journeys of others who had made the journey. What exactly does a leader look like? Exactly. There is no formula, no pre-requisite, no ‘ideal’. Yet, the number of Global Majority leaders in schools is still unacceptably low. As Yamina pointed out, listening to stories of challenge, unconscious bias and racism are now a common part of a leadership journey that Global Majority school leaders must navigate. You may argue that all leaders must navigate challenge and unconscious bias – but speaking from personal experience – race is an added layer that hinders talented and very able Global Majority teachers and middle leaders from making the leap. This article on systemic racism published in January 2022 in the Guardian articulates their reality – and mine….
‘There is absolutely systemic racism’: BAME headteachers share their views | Race | The Guardian
Why must it be an exception? Why is it not the norm?
Well – we can look at what is happening in the classroom and recognise that the experiences that our Global Majority children have do not necessarily lend themselves to a lifelong love of education. This is not a universal experience – but the statistics show policies rooted in white culture are used to punish Global Majority children for their cultural values and norms. Children from Black African or Black Caribbean descent are more likely to be suspended than their White counterparts.
| Suspension (rate) | Permanent Exclusion (rate) | ||||||
| 2019/20 | 2018/19 | 2017/18 | 2019/20 | 2018/19 | 2017/18 | ||
| Ethnicity Minor Black Caribbean | 7.03 | 10.37 | 10.46 | 0.14 | 0.25 | 0.28 | |
| Ethnicity Minor Black African | 2.95 | 4.13 | 4.08 | 0.04 | 0.07 | 0.08 | |
| Suspension (rate) | Permanent Exclusion (rate) | ||||||
| 2019/20 | 2018/19 | 2017/18 | 2019/20 | 2018/19 | 2017/18 | ||
| Ethnicity Minor Bangladeshi | 1.93 | 1.97 | 1.42 | 0.04 | 0.04 | 0.03 | |
| Ethnicity Minor Indian | 0.75 | 0.88 | 0.53 | 0.02 | 0.01 | 0.01 | |
| Ethnicity Minor Pakistani | 2.52 | 3.10 | 2.05 | 0.06 | 0.06 | 0.04 | |
The statistics, taken from the Department for Education’s publication Permanent Exclusion and Suspensions in England 2019-2020 identify children and young people by characteristic.
Understanding the reasons for suspension and exclusion are complex and I will not unpack all of the reasons within this blog – but we need to recognise that socio-economic factors, alongside
We can see the changes over time and for black children, they are going in the opposite direction to their Bangladeshi, Indian and Pakastani peers.
How do we ensure that these statistics tell a different story? How are we going to grow, nurture and develop future school leaders from diverse backgrounds if we are unable to keep them interested in learning? When exactly does the disconnect happen?
As a keen gardener I am always looking for ways that I can make my plants grow stronger and faster. I have been known to buy the best plant food or read the latest natural solutions to ensure success. If I need to, I will move my plants to a better position in the garden in order to encourage them to thrive.
Do we do this sufficiently well in education? Are we suitably committed to providing high quality education to all so that ambitions are realised? Does our curriculum reflect and enable our diverse cohort within our (school) communities? Are we sufficiently sowing the seeds of the love of education for our Global Majority students? Until every school addresses these concerns with a more holistic and strategic approach and is less reliant on initiatives and carrot-and-stick strategies, nothing will change. It feels like those of us from the Global Majority who enter education as teachers and leaders may approach our roles in one or some of these approaches where we may:
- Choose not to acknowledge our race/ethnicity/visible diversity traits OR
- Fully acknowledge our race/ethnicity and utilise our unique diversity traits OR
- Desire a genuine meritocracy
One does not cancel out the other, as we all belong to the Global Majority, but our identities are many and varied, and therefore we bring our unique perspectives that may well ‘chime’ with our Global Majority young people, seeing us, appreciating our contribution to society and to their understanding of the world. I am committed to supporting school leaders in nurturing ALL children – but especially Global Majority children and young people, because the situation regarding a diverse workforce in our schools will not improve if we are not nurturing our seeds, our future diverse school leaders, with love. To return to my opening comments, what exactly does a leader look like? Exactly. There is no formula, no pre-requisite, no ‘ideal’. We can create what we want to see. Let us do our best to get the best.
Extending our welcome, transforming our schools
Written by Artemi Sakellariadis
(she, her) Director, Centre for Studies on Inclusive Education (CSIE)
Introduction:
Artemi Sakellariadis’ contribution to Diverse Educators: A Manifesto is a detailed look at disability in education, drawn from her substantial experience in working with CSIE. In her sub-chapter, she cited guidance from CSIE that was edited for brevity. Following discussions with Artemi, we have decided to publish the original version of the text, with the edits removed, to ensure that the full meaning of the guidance is clear and evident.
“Any fool can know. The point is to understand.” Albert Einstein
This chapter is a call to transform schools on the grounds of human rights. It invites us to reflect on how we treat disabled people and explores:
- inconsistencies in the implementation of law and policy
- established practices which are incompatible with disabled children’s rights
- perceptions of disability and the impact of stereotypes on children’s life chances.
National laws
The Human Rights Act 1998 brings the European Convention on Human Rights into UK law and asserts people’s fundamental rights and freedoms. It lists 16 basic rights, including the right to an effective education, and specifies that all rights must be secured without discrimination.
The Equality Act 2010 protects people from unfair treatment with regard to nine protected characteristics, including disability. It also places a duty on all public service providers, including schools, to make reasonable adjustments in response to people’s impairments, for equality of opportunity (UK Government 2010). This is an anticipatory duty: organisations must not wait until a disabled person arrives, before transforming their cultures, policies and practices. The aim is to ensure no disabled person misses out or is disadvantaged.
Part III of the Children and Families Act 2014 concerns the education of children and young people identified as having special educational needs or disabilities (SEND). It confirms every child’s right to a mainstream education, as long as this is consistent with their parents’ wishes, the efficient education of other children, the efficient use of resources, and that the education offered is appropriate to the child’s needs. The last three conditions are often cited as reasons why a child cannot be included in a particular school, even though these issues largely depend on the way teaching and learning are organised in school.
The SEND Code of Practice explicitly states in paragraph 1.26 that the UK Government is committed to inclusive education and that the law presumes that all children and young people will be educated in a mainstream school (Department of Education and Department of Health, 2015, p. 25, emphasis added).
International laws
The UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (1990) protects all children (0 – 18) from discrimination (Article 2) and states that all decisions should be in the child’s best interests (Article 3), aiming for the child’s optimal development (Article 6) and taking into consideration the views of the child (Article 12). Article 23 confirms that disabled children have all rights in the Convention and Articles 28 & 29 that every child has a right to an education which develops their personality, talents and abilities fully.
The Committee on the Rights of the Child has issued a number of General Comments (documents clarifying the meaning of the Convention). General Comment no. 9 (2006, on the rights of disabled children) states that disabled children are still facing barriers to the full enjoyment of their rights, that the barrier is not the disability but a combination of social, cultural, attitudinal and physical obstacles which disabled children encounter, and that “inclusive education should be the goal”.
The UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (2008) states that all disabled children and young people should participate in the state education system and that this should be “an inclusive education system at all levels”. General Comment no. 4 (2016) clarifies that inclusion necessitates ‘systemic reform’ involving changes in content, methods, approaches, structures and strategies in education, so that all pupils can have an equitable and participatory learning experience.
Putting laws into practice
It follows from all the above that the legal imperative for including disabled children in ordinary schools is clear and undeniable. To achieve this, it is essential that examples of effective inclusion are shared widely and that educators are better prepared and better supported to work with disabled pupils.
At school children learn more about themselves and others, develop their sense of identity and belonging, and can make life-long friends. All children should have these opportunities together, and learn from and about one another.
Some people argue that disabled children should not be included in local schools because teachers may not have the training, experience or time to respond to their needs. Initial teacher education and continued professional development can, indeed, be improved, as can practical support to make inclusion effective. As for evaluating what time is considered well spent and what not, we may need to pay closer attention to who is valued and on what grounds.
Judith Snow, Canadian Disability Rights Advocate, describes (2001, pp. 53-54) her experience of having a classmate who was an Olympic diver. She lists the support offered when this other girl had to miss school for training or competitions, and compares it to her own experience of missing school for medical appointments. She concludes that adults seemed to find it exciting to support an Olympic diver to achieve in sport, and a burden to support a disabled child to attend their local school.
Recent evidence suggests a twofold benefit of supporting disabled children’s learning and development in ordinary schools: it leads to improved educational outcomes for disabled and non-disabled children, and better supports the social and emotional development of every child (Hehir et al, 2016).
In England the picture is patchy. Latest figures show an almost tenfold difference between the local authorities which send the highest and the lowest proportions of children to special schools (Black and Norwich 2019).
There is much that schools, other settings, or individual educators can do to honour disabled people’s rights and help align education practice with education law. If nothing else, it helps to make disability visible, treat it as an ordinary part of life and ensure our language and interactions reflect this. Here are some suggestions from CSIE’s equality toolkit (2016) and online Knowledge Box (2020):
- Ensure disabled people are represented in positive ways in the curriculum, displays, books and other resources.
- Maintain a positive attitude and ask “How can we …?” (rather than “Can we …?”).
- Ask for the support that you need to make inclusion effective.
- Ensure that disablist bullying and any indication of prejudice or harassment are consistently challenged.
- Help disabled children get a stronger sense of belonging in school.
- Ensure disabled people are treated in ways which confirm they are valued and respected.
Conclusion
A widespread assumption that separate special schools are usually preferable is out of sync with the law, and inconsistent with contemporary values of disability equality and human rights. This chapter invites readers to contribute to the long-overdue transformation by becoming agents of change in their own setting or sphere of influence.
Key Takeaways
- National and international laws call for a transformation in education, so that disabled children can be routinely included in ordinary schools.
- There are likely to be more similarities than differences between any two people. We must not let one striking difference overshadow many similarities.
- We are all of equal value, by virtue of being human, and should all know not to judge a book by its cover.
Key Questions
- On what grounds is it acceptable to exclude disabled children from their local community?
- If we do not question the futility of stereotypes about beauty or intelligence, where does that leave those of us who do not have what society values?
- Are you, or your school, working in ways which breach disabled children’s rights?
Manifesto Statement
Education practices need to be brought in line with education law as a matter of urgency. This is a call to action to challenge inequitable practices and develop more inclusive settings.
References
Black A and Norwich B (2019) Contrasting Responses to Diversity: School Placement Trends 2014–2017 for all Local Authorities in England. Available at: www.csie.org.uk/resources/free.shtml#trends2019 (accessed April 2021).
Children and Families Act (2014) Available at: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2014/6/contents/enacted (Accessed April 2021).
Committee on the Rights of the Child (2006) CRC/C/GC/9 General Comment no. 9 (2006) The rights of children with disabilities. Available at: http://www.csie.org.uk/inclusion/GeneralComment9_Sept2006.pdf (accessed April 2021).
Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (2016) CRPD/C/GC/4 General Comment no. 4 (2016) on the right to inclusive education. Available at: https://tbinternet.ohchr.org/_layouts/treatybodyexternal/Download.aspx?symbolno=CRPD/C/GC/4&Lang=en (accessed April 2021).
CSIE staff and associates (2016) Equality: Making It Happen – A Guide to Help Schools Ensure Everyone is Safe, Included and Learning. Bristol: Centre for Studies on Inclusive Education (CSIE).
Department for Education and Department of Health (2015) Special educational needs and disability code of practice: 0 to 25 years. Available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/send-code-of-practice-0-to-25 (Accessed April 2021).
Equality Act (2010) Available at: www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15/contents (accessed April 2021).
Hehir T et al (2016) A Summary of the Evidence on Inclusive Education. Available at: https://alana.org.br/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/A_Summary_of_the_evidence_on_inclusive_education.pdf (accessed April 2021).
Human Rights Act (1998) Available at: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1998/42/contents (accessed April 2021).
Knowledge Box on Disabled Children’s Rights in Education (2020) Available upon free registration at: https://dlot.eu/course/index.php?categoryid=22 (Accessed April 2021).
Snow, J. (2001) ‘Dreaming, speaking and creating: What I know about community’, in Great Questions: Writings of Judith Snow. Available at: https://resources.depaul.edu/abcd-institute/publications/Documents/Judith_book_1.1%20copy.pdf (accessed April 2021).
Tackling Sexism in Schools Needs to Start with the Curriculum
Written by Rachel Fenn
Co-Founder of End Sexism in Schools and former Head of English.
End Sexism in Schools (ESIS) is a grassroots campaign organisation set up in 2020. Our aim is to support girls and boys to fulfil their potential, without gendered expectations, in a safe and supportive school environment.
Over the past two years, numerous scandals have revealed the widespread extent of sexual harassment, sexism and misogyny in schools, with Ofsted’s 2021 report into this commenting on how boys have a sense of ‘superiority’ that makes them feel they can treat girls as they wish. The answer to this has been to overhaul the PSHE curriculum to explicitly teach consent, but we know that this is merely treating the symptoms, not the cause.
The reality is that women are virtually invisible within the content of the academic curriculum, and we draw a direct line between this invisibility, and the sexual harassment boys inflict on girls. Without ever hearing women’s voices, reading and discussing women’s experiences, and learning to value and respect women’s contribution to the world, is it any wonder that boys grow up viewing women as inferior, and worthy of little respect?
When our founder first made this connection and began to campaign to change the curriculum, she was met with a problem: she had no concrete evidence to back up her claims. Research into the content of the curriculum in secondary schools was limited, and little proof beyond anecdotal evidence was available to demonstrate the extent of the problem. As such, ESIS’s first project was to uncover gender bias in the teaching of English Literature at Key Stage 3 (school years 7-9) in England’s schools. English was chosen due to it being a core subject studied by all pupils to the age of 16, and it being straightforward to identify gender bias in the curriculum content by collating data on the sex of authors and protagonists on set text lists.
In 2021, using a small army of volunteers, we researched the English curriculum in nearly a third of England’s secondary schools. With no requirements to teach any specific texts other than Shakespeare, schools have free rein to teach what they like at Key Stage 3. Given this freedom, the lack of diversity we uncovered is shocking. Our key findings are as follows:
- 82% of novels taught feature a male protagonist
- 77% of schools teach one or no whole texts by female authors across the three years of KS3, with 44% teaching none at all and 33% only teaching one; this is out of an average of nine whole taught texts across the three years
- However, the actual number of whole novels taught by female authors is likely to be even less because a larger percentage of male authored texts were mandatory (as opposed to being on a list of choices) than female – 68% compared to 57% respectively
- 99% of plays taught are by male writers, only 1% by female, and only 2% have a lead female protagonist
- A small number of schools account for the majority of female-authored texts taught; 16% of schools teach 50% of those listed in school curricula
Coupled with the fact that only 7% of pupils study a book by a female author at GCSE, this means that most children educated in England will go through their entire compulsory education never having studied a whole text (as opposed to an extract, poem or short story) by a female author. Considering that schools have free choice of the texts they teach, and that 77% of secondary school English teachers are female (the highest proportion of any academic subject), the fact that most are continuing to fall back on the teaching of male authored texts with male protagonists is powerful evidence of how engrained misogyny and patriarchal values are embedded in our society.
English is just the tip of the iceberg; the invisibility of women is evident in every area of the academic curriculum, and it is our mission as an organisation to carry out the research required to prove this, and then campaign for change. PSHE cannot continue to be touted as a panacea for solving misogyny in schools when every other lesson pupils attend teaches them that women have no value. Cultural change will only happen when the academic curriculum is overhauled to create an equal space for women’s achievements, voices and experiences alongside those of men.
You can read our report into the English curriculum here. If you’d like to join our efforts to End Sexism in Schools, we are always looking for new volunteers. Please do contact us at endsexisminschools@gmail.com.
“You never get a second chance to make a first impression.”
Written by Corinna Richards
An avid crocheter, who also happens to teach, train and lead.
“You never get a second chance to make a first impression.”
— Andrew Grant.
Whether Oscar Wilde or Will Rogers said it first, isn’t for this purpose particularly important. What any student or teacher with a facial disfigurement will tell you, is that it’s true. And the experience of that is hugely important. It’s always been true, but in our “beauty bias” society, looking different – whatever that difference may be, is a big deal. Having a facial or ‘visible difference’ can be excruciating. Our physical appearance matters in first impressions. I’m not saying it should, but from my experience it does.
I blog about this from two perspectives. Firstly, as a person with a congenital facial disfigurement who works in Education and secondly as an EdD student. I’ve just turned 50, and “back in the day” plastic surgery wasn’t as developed as it is now. I had my first plastic, corrective surgery at the age of 11, so I spent my primary school years looking very different. My skull fused together in the womb prematurely which caused my eyes to be extremely wide set and for my nose to be virtually flat with two small nostrils. You can imagine…
However, like everyone, I’ve adapted, over-compensated and fought my way back. I always wanted to teach and that’s what I’ve always done. Apart from three terms in suburbia I’ve always taught in inner city London and only once did I have any issues regarding my face from a pupil. I loved and still do, the diversity of the inner-city, the children were remarkably accepting of my appearance, we were all shapes and sizes together, the issue of ‘normal’ just never seemed too prevalent. The same couldn’t be said for the parents! The suspicion of my appearance was always there, in some heated exchanges a name regarding my appearance would slip out (yawn… I’ve never heard that one before…) and I’ve even had some parents ask my secretary what is wrong with my face! (One of the many reasons I prefer children to adults!)
But last year, I had a bit of a shock.
I am in the third of year of EdD at UEL and I am studying the lived experience of Imposter Phenomenon in Teacher Educators. It’s really interesting, but it wasn’t my first choice. Initially, I wanted to study IP in teachers with visible differences. I couldn’t find any. I didn’t know any. I didn’t know any teachers with facial burns, or severe acne, or disfiguring birthmarks or craniosynostosis… statistically they must exist (I am for one)… but where are they? I then thought about all the pupils I have taught over nearly 30 years… lots of differences, but when did I teach a child who was like me? I don’t think I have. Where are these children and where are the teachers?
Recently, in an updated version of Malory Towers, a young actor, Beth Bradfield, with a visible difference joined the cast, but how often do we see actors with facial burns or scars? Possibly in James Bond, but then of course, only as the villain. I attended my first DEI event last weekend, it was brilliant. Representation matters. Yes, it does. So how do I help other people like me have the courage to stand in front of groups of people and teach. I spent decades of my life trying to hide my face. I was desperate to make my visible difference invisible. It seems like I might not be the only one.
For more information visit:
‘Changing Faces’:
The Katie Piper Foundation: www.katiepiperfoundation.org.uk
Headlines: