top of page

Forum Posts

David Jaffa
Nov 22, 2023
In Public Forum
Does anyone have any views on this? Innovate-ED Responsible Policy-Advocacy Framework This Responsible Policy-Advocacy Framework aims to balance the interests of commercial providers and other educational stakeholders involved in education policy-making. Commercial providers can experience conflicts of interest when advocating for policies that may affect their businesses. However, commercial providers can also bring significant value to education policy-making and drive innovation, through:  • Industry Insight: Commercial providers offer deep insights into sectoral needs, often spotting opportunities for enhancement through innovative products.  • Policy Impact Experience: They understand firsthand the effects of policy shifts on product adoption within schools and its implications.  • Proprietary Data: Commercial entities sometimes possess unique data on product usage and adoption, which can aid policy-makers.  • Investment and Risk: These providers invest and take financial risks in pioneering novel solutions.  This framework offers a method to address potential conflicts of interest. While Innovate-ED will use these guidelines, we hope they serve the wider sector.  Guidelines  1. Generic Advocacy: Innovate-ED’s policy advocacy will focus on categories of products and services rather than individual products, services or companies. 2. Alignment with Innovate-ED’s Innovation Framework: Any policy suggestions will align with Innovate-ED’s Innovation in Education framework by classifying product and service categories into one of the following Phases of Innovation.  • Phases of Innovation: • Early-adopter Phase: • Current scale for secondary: Revenue <£1m; <£300 secondary schools at a sustainable price. • Notable buzz exists around the category. • Termed 'Stage 2 - Operating Model' in the current think-piece doc ('Stage 1' is Product Development). • Mainstream Phase: • Current scale for secondary: Over 400 schools, including non-early-adopters. • Perceived as routine but the majority of schools remain non-adopters. • Termed 'Stage 3 - Scale-up' in the current think-piece doc. • At Scale Phase: Often dominated by major providers. • Policy Recommendations for Each Phase: • Early-adopter Phase: • Avoid government-sponsored top-down solutions. • Don't accept compelling narratives and assume 'every school should do this' when schools aren't yet adopting in sufficient numbers. • Eliminate unnecessary rules impeding innovation or adoption. • Mainstream Phase: • Implement rules to foster wider adoption. • Consider dedicated funds for faster, consistent adoption. • At Scale Phase: • Adjust rules and funding to achieve policy objectives. • Facilitate entry for smaller providers. • Encourage the emergence of new product categories. 25. Product Examples and Transparency: • We will illustrate with real products/companies. • Disclosures will be made for any Innovate-ED sponsor affiliations. • Sponsors can suggest examples, but competing products might also be considered. • We will reconsider classifications if needed. Final decisions will rest with Innovate-ED. • We prioritise our trustworthiness within the sector over sponsor relationships. By adhering to these guidelines, Innovate-ED aims to serve as a trustworthy voice in policy-making, balancing the interests of commercial providers and other educational stakeholders.
0
0
1
David Jaffa
Sep 06, 2023
In Public Forum
Date: 06/04/2022 Your Name: Samantha Hornsby Position: CEO Solution Name: ERIC Legal Structure: Private Limited Company Main Funding Source: Private investment Phase(s) of Education: 14-19 Number of Students: 5,000 Purposes of Education supported: Career education Solution Description: The ERIC App is a free career content platform for students & schools. We save students and schools time by doing the online searching for career resources and tools for them and then providing them with a data-driven feedback loop of what content, messages and methods their students are responding to best. We scan the internet for all the best career guidance content, categorise it and link/embed it all on The ERIC App and make it easy to find, compare and choose the right content for any specific need and situation, within seconds and track what students are responding to, spending time on and interacting with so schools can learn how to improve and waste less budget and time. The ERIC App also hosts a directory of employers who want to connect with schools and students. Solution Origin: The ERIC App was founded by Mae Yip and Samantha Hornsby. Through their experience running career fairs (pre- pandemic), they noticed how much time students and career advisors/leaders spend searching the internet, trying to find relevant career guidance content, opportunities, industry information and employer contacts. They also realised how little schools knew about what career education techniques work best as there is such limited data being collected in the space. They realised that both of these issues can be eliminated and the solution standardised, simply by creating a product that organises the chaos of career content and opportunities that are currently spread across the internet and tracks what students are interacting with. Potential for systemic impact (EXCLUDING Equity)? Success for us would be to reduce the time students and schools spend trying to find relevant career resources, tools, employers and content by 50% and for schools to be provided with an option of learning how to improve on a daily basis. If this solution were widely adopted, we would see a more structured career education system, with more budget and time being spent on quality one-on-one time with students to give them a better career education experience. We would also see continuously improved career education techniques, as the data we are collecting acts as a feedback loop for schools to be able to learn how their students are responding to different methods, messaging and strategies. Does the solution improve Equity? How? This app is a free product for any student or school across the UK to be able to use. The quality of your career education is currently a lottery, depending on what school you go to and how much access you have as a student to a variety of adults around you who are in different career paths - which means that the majority of students are only exposed to a very limited number of industries and job roles. This app is a way for any student in any location and from any background to explore their career options in a way that is inspiring and presents opportunities in an accessible way. This democratisation of career accessibility will change the way future generations see their career options forever - no career will be off-limits. Barriers to adoption relating to Accountability Rules and Funding Formulae: N/A Other barriers to adoption: We are currently starting in a specific selection of industries (the 16 different creative industries), so the app has a response barrier based on that. We are planning on eventually spanning across all industries. The app is currently for 16+, however we are working on a website version which will be available to under 16s.
0
0
7
David Jaffa
Aug 07, 2023
In Public Forum
Hi David I think there is a brilliant initiative here with significant upside. The opportunity to facilitate the development, identification and scaling of the best innovative products in tech Ed should undoubtedly be pursued. However, it's possible the paper spends too much time arguing against the bogie of national policy, without sufficiently explaining how we mitigate against the down-side of innovation.   The question is, in these innovate hot-spots, how many students might be disadvantaged because they have been using new edtech products which are inadequate, which do not succeed in percolating to the top? As a rather extreme analogy, we would not allow hospitals to innovate in heart surgery, for example by using organs from different animals, because of the unacceptable consequences. Should we allow experimentation in schools, with the risk that some products are sub optimal or worse? If there are ways of managing this, I wasn’t sure it came across clearly enough in the paper.   How much failure is necessary to create success? You say we might “wait three to five years for 1000 flowers to bloom”, that “widespread adoption might take place when 300 schools are using a system” but what about all of the common failure within this process?. After all the private set sector is based on creative destruction. The weaker products go to the wall. But we have here more than dissatisfied consumers, we have children and teachers who spent valuable time on products that are not only less than the best, but they may also be a very poor use of time.   Who are the innovators and what are their motives? Your model is based on “hundreds or thousands of solution providers”. You refer to an example, based on a teacher, whose motivation and integrity we can rely on. But who else will be introducing these products to schools? Are they all teachers, or perhaps private companies, or not for profit? Allowing private companies into the market can change the dynamic considerably, as we see in other public sectors, time and time again.   These problems all come back to the quality of the initial products. To encourage unbridled innovation with all types of providers could lead to deep troughs before the high peaks. Is there a gatekeeper to control entry to the market i.e. to assure some base level of product quality and supplier integrity? Is this the reason to restrict experimentation to certain academies and city projects? If so, would they ensure that products which are suggested to schools are of sufficiently high quality and the suppliers have been vetted against agreed standards? If this is the case, can I suggest it’s made more overt?   I hope that’s helpful Regards Patrick
0
0
5
David Jaffa
Aug 07, 2023
In Public Forum
Hi David,   Really interesting, thanks!   Some comments / thoughts: Could do with explaining Top Down vs. Bottom Up (just what they are…) early on – maybe in a sidebar or sidebox. At present you get into the benefits of Bottom Up without explaining what you mean by it, or what the alternative is. By the way, I think that the vast vast majority of school spend and provider selection is done bottom-up. I’m not sure that your report recognises that (or maybe I’m defining it differently to you). I reckon (back of fag packet) that in our addressable market which includes back office spend, assessment, teacher development and training, tutoring and recruitment that: Around 50% is truly bottom-up (no restrictions) Around 30% is mainly bottom up (i.e. there’s a selected list of approved suppliers but it’s >100 – this is mainly the supply teacher CCS framework) Around 10-15% is sort-of top-down (i.e. there’s a selected list of approved suppliers but it’s between 5 and 100 names so there’s a reasonable level of choice, e.g. ITT or NPQ or ECF) About 5-10% is properly top-down (i.e. single source or <5 providers, or a longer list but <5 at the local level – e.g. OAK, Careers, some SEN provision). I think that this will make a lot more sense with some examples for each of those 7 mistakes and how the downside manifested. Similarly, I think you would benefit a lot from listing out some good examples of 300+ bottom-up organisations. I’m not sure that 300 is the right threshold – at £5k a pop (which is a decent amount) that’s a £1.5m revenue business. Those sort of businesses are generally (not universally!) kind-of screwed without their founder. At £2k a pop you are genuinely in pain-land, and there are secondary services (wellbeing springs to mind…) at that level. There are some valid reasons to embrace Top-down planning, albeit with longer-term costs in the variation and choice available to schools. One trade-off to assess is: A rich landscape with lots of small providers that give you tons of creativity and choice that aligns them to your own (as an educator) and your classes needs / preferences, but where they are all tiny, a bit fragile, and can’t invest; vs. A more consolidated landscape with fewer, larger providers that give less choice but which are more likely to be able to invest in fixed assets well (like content, technology), where there are fewer bankruptcies but when they happen they are more disruptive, and where there may be the temptation for too-commercial investors to over-milk. What is MAT central buying? Bottom-up? Top-down? Middle-out? When you say: “My contention is that if we allow bottom-up innovation to flourish, in 3-5 years we will have a pipeline of low-risk investible decisions for incoming Secretaries of State, indefinitely, into the future.”  isn’t this the exact opposite of what you are asserting i.e. that secretaries of state shouldn’t be picking winners?? Or is your point that the zero-to-300 segment should be organic and the 300+ segment people can pick out their favourites (and presumably let the others who got 300 wither on the vine… but that would also stop new providers emerging)? If the point is that there should be a c.2-4 year process to establish who is sustainable (300+ secondaries, 1.5k+ primaries) and then you declare winners and let them grow to a larger level… then what do you do to repeat the process and when should you? What’s the cost of incubating challengers? Is it that you should spend c.£1-5m to attract and incubate start-ups? Interesting (maybe) case study – there was a competition for the KS1 SATS (iirc) where a bunch of providers got through a DfE gate for quality, and then had X months to find and sign-up customers. Ones that got to a certain scale (1k schools??) were allowed to remain and operate the SATS for the duration of the contract, others had to shut up shop. I think a few missed the threshold. What is the cost of developing a solution and getting it to 300 secondary or 1500 primary schools (in cash terms and sacrificed earnings from the founder(s))? I reckon it’s generally around £500k-2m depending on the product. How many of these investments can the ecosystem (in terms of investor wallets and founder passion) tolerate?   Obviously happy to discuss; it may be that some of this would be more palatable in debate than in a screed! Best wishes, Ian Ian Koxvold Head of Education, Strategy and Corporate Development Supporting Education Group M:  07715 487627
0
0
8
David Jaffa
Aug 07, 2023
In Public Forum
Hi David, I think this is really insightful. I particularly like the common mistakes list, and then following it with recommendations. I think it’s helpful that you’ve added example case studies and the point you make about Naace v BECTA is a useful practical example of how things can go wrong and bottom up’s benefits over top down. I can’t think of anything else that I would add in. Thanks very much for sharing this. Best wishes Caroline Caroline Wright (she/her) | Director General | @cjpwright 81 Rivington Street | London EC2A 3AY | +44 (0)20 7537 4997 | besa.org.uk | @besatweet |
0
0
6
David Jaffa
Aug 07, 2023
In Public Forum
Hi David,   It was great to meet you as well!   Thanks for providing a soft copy of your draft paper.   For what it's worth, here are some quick reactions and comments:   I don't disagree with your calls for a more 'bottoms-up" approach, and your analysis of the challenges posed by 'top-down" approaches to innovation.   Where is a 'top-down" approach useful? If one concedes that the compulsion for top-down decision making will remain, how/where might this be most useful? In other words: people in charge like to demonstrate that they are in charge. Are there recommendations that could take advantage of his compulsion in useful ways? Top-down approaches aren't in an of itself a bad thing; nor are they necessarily a good thing; nor are they neutral.   After reading your paper, I understand what you mean with the use of the term "innovation from the inside", but I must confess that upon initially seeing it, I thought you would be talking about something different: innovation from inside the system. (You are talking about that with your hypothetical discussion of Suhail, who is a teacher in the system, but in that case, 'inside' means 'from the perspective of an innovator, I think.)   I see that your reference Geoffrey Moore. One challenge I see for much 'bottom-up innovation' in education is, to adopt Moore's terminology, is in crossing the chasm. Might there be a role for 'top down' decision making here? I am thinking about guidelines and approaches to procurement, in addition to the potential role of centralized purchasing itself. I take your point that, for example, "A government provided or recommended solution prevents alternative solutions from creating a successful operating model or scaling up because (in practice) it’s too difficult to expand to more schools and they can’t secure investment." But is this indictment of top-down decision making, or just of bad decisions? Or are you saying/implying that (for reasons of self-preservation, conceit, arrogance, inertia, ignorance, or some combination of these and other factors) central government can't play a useful role in supporting innovation in education, other than perhaps to get out of the way?   One area where top-down decision making and control might be useful, and warranted (if not mandated) relates to guidelines and protections around data privacy and information security. Related guidelines and guardrails (and auditing) will necessarily inhibit innovation in various ways -- but one might argue that (done well) related guidelines and guardrails serve very useful purposes. As might centrally funded studies of e.g. efficacy and impact or various solutions.   A big (and often quite valid, imho) argument against top-down decision making is that it usually rewards large incumbents. (Most regulation, including related to privacy and security, does as well.) Would it be correct to say that this is an underling theme that animates key elements of this paper? If so: What role might there be at a central level for 'leveling the playing field' to catalyze and enabling innovation from smaller or newer actors in the system? What role might a 'middle tier' play, given the current scope for action within the English school system?   I totally agree with your point that "Being able to demonstrate that a solution works for students is necessary, but not sufficient." Is it worth considering (or proposing) what other necessary elements might combine so that a sufficient number of factors / elements of an ecosystem are at hand?   I must confess I do not know the English schooling system all that well. Let's assume I agree with you your points about Naace and Becta on page 7 -- does calling out these organizations by name help or hurt your larger argument in this paper? By which I mean to say: Does calling them out by name risk people responding to your assessment of those two groups, in ways that become a distraction from the larger points you make in your paper? (More broadly: Do you see no role at all for gatekeepers? Or just for bad ones, or ones at the wrong place in the English educational bureaucratic hierarchy, for lack of a better term?)   You state that policy-makers "must avoid endorsing particular groups or creating in-house solutions." Ok ... but might some see large scale procurements as implicit endorsements? (and presumably there is some validity and usefulness to large scale procurements of some things, no?) Might it be useful to unpack what it might mean for an 'endorsement' to be made within the system by a certain body, and how/where/why this might or might not be a good thing? (I concede that it is possible that the useful of the term 'endorsement' here has very specific connotations within the English education system that I might not be aware of; if so, I apologize if I have misunderstood things here).   Your recommendation about not supporting the development of in-house systems is a good one, of course, and is supported by heaps of evidence. (That said, there are often specific dynamics at play / specific conditions that lead to decisions to develop solutions in house, and addressing those dynamics and conditions might be what is needed to make decisions to go in house in the future less likely -- this is perhaps a topic for a different paper.)   I understand your intention in using widespread adoption as a key metric that can be used to determine whether a particular innovation has entered the 'Scale-up season', but I am a bit skeptical that this is a sufficient proxy for demonstrating that something 'works'. (I often observe that it is marketing prowess, and not a product's value, that drives adoption of edtech solutions in some circumstances.)   You briefly suggest on p.8 a high level rubric outlining where a strong case can be made for government investment. It might be useful to explore this in a little greater detail, as this might be an area where a paper like this can have tangible impact on the way decisions are made (i.e. by suggesting a related rubric that can be adopted, and then influencing the content of this rubric).   The seven mistakes are potentially powerful. You might want to consider exploring these in a separate paper. In my experience, doing so can be impactful.   The high level recommendations are good. That said, while I don't disagree with "Invest in categories that are already starting to be adopted at scale, and not before", might there be a role for investment or a policy change to catalyze bottom-up innovation in categories that are legitimately new? Or should such investment be left entirely to the private sector?  (related: Is there a role for government investment to help catalyze such private investment?)   Thanks a lot for circulating this, David. Hopefully something I have said here is helpful to you -- even of only to provoke violent disagreement that helps you further refine your thinking in some way!   Hopefully our paths will continue to cross in the future.   Best, Mike Michael Trucano Visiting Fellow, Center for Universal Education (CUE) Global Economy and Development The Brookings Institution bio: https://www.brookings.edu/experts/michael-trucano/ email: mtrucano@brookings.edu BROOKINGS | 1775 Massachusetts Ave NW, Washington, DC 20036 USA Center for Universal Education - Brookings - Quality. Independence. Impact.
0
0
4
David Jaffa
Aug 07, 2023
In Public Forum
Hi David,   Your article really struck a chord with my thoughts on why many EdTech initiatives have stalled over the years.  Many companies would come to my Havering colleagues and me seeking schools to help them trial their products.  This wasn’t always easy, although we did try our best to find them partners.   My LA felt like a Pacific island surrounded by other islands of EdTech advisers rapidly disappearing under the rising seas of change.  So, where could these innovators go to share their ideas, trial their products and get feedback from the schools that they needed?  It wasn’t easy.  The (London ‘Fronter’ and other such) MLE was an example of a top-down model that was pushed out far too early, before teachers were ready, without a reason to use it – it was rooms of weblinks and resources, hardly used and soon like a collection of digital wallpaper in a Homebase of EdTech.  Teachers faces at the mere mention of MLE stays imprinted on my mind – eyebrows raised, and lips curled.   Whereas the pandemic showed the power of bottom-up innovation (look at Mote as an example of this) and implementation when a requirement for *Remote Education/Learning grew from a need to provide an approach for home education, where eventually a government diktat that schools had to abide by was implemented.  Yes, the DfE provided platform support via Google and Microsoft, but ultimately it was the teachers who were sharing the effective practice when it mattered.  The best we could do for schools was provide a platform with help videos and teachers sharing effective practice in webinars…      Keep-up the positive work.  More thinking like this is needed.  Thank you for sharing.  Like Caroline, I have nothing to add.   Best regards, Dave *There was no compunction to use a digital platform – but many schools did. Dave Smith (he/him) | Head of Content | @davesmithict | LinkedIn |  81 Rivington Street | London EC2A 3AY | +44 (0)20 7537 4997 | besa.org.uk | @besatweet |
0
0
5
David Jaffa
Aug 07, 2023
In Public Forum
Page 1 - in box. A better mechanism for change, based on bottom up innovation strategy in education is available, if we choose to take it. I think that at the top of page 2, there should be be a summary box comparing current top down to proposed bottom up.  A bit like an exec summary but in a small table.  Maybe could even be at the bottom of page 1?                                         Current                                Proposed                                       Top Down                          Bottom Up Change                        Unwanted by majority        Welcomed by innovators Failure                          Often and costly                Low cost and low impact Speed of change          Slow                                  Fast How many innovations  Few each taking long    Many with shorter timeframes Funding                        Central and high Cost      Private and Low Cost  Long term exports          Low as seen as Govt        Many driven by VC Page 3 Headline perhaps as a summary of this section.  Something like - "Our current approach to innovation is education policy is centrally driven, top down and too costly." Also think that something mentioning that Funding follows policy targets.  So when funding is tight, innovation is left out as schools have to spend what money they have on products that allow them to meet historic targets.   Page 5 - mention perhaps the "tipping Point"  as Tipping Point is well understood to explain adoption by mainstream schools. Perhaps define what you mean by early adopter, mainstream and laggard.  Perhaps use the take up of academy status as a bottom up example of innovation to explain this? Academy status has been around since 2002 or so so its taken 20years cycle for secondary schools to convert.  What drove early ones, what held back laggards? Trying to put a frame of actual fact around concept? If a top down approach had occurred, all schools would have been made academies on day 1.   The rest to me is fairly self explanatory. I just think you need to be more upfront with explanations at the begginng and headline exec summaries of a sort.   Hope this helps, Jonathan Jonathan Wells 07753 822393 SAM Learning Limited. https://www.samlearning.com Main Phone: 0845 130 4160
0
0
4
David Jaffa
Aug 07, 2023
In Public Forum
Hi again David! Thanks again for sharing this and for asking for my thoughts. I figured the most helpful thing I could do was to go through, as if in conversation, providing my skeptical replies and questions - see attached. I hope that's ok.  Overall, for me what wasn't very clear was whether you're argument boiled down to "be more laissez faire and trust the market"? If that's the case then I think you need to acknowledge that to some extent, this has been the government's stated preferred approach since 2010 given policies around autonomy and the ending of lots of initiative-specific funding streams. You might therefore need to distinguish between where they have been true to this approach and where they haven't, and what the problems have been. I'd also like to see some recognition of what the problems with the 'invisible hand of the market' might be, and some consideration of how your model might mitigate that. I think back when we spoke about this you had an idea (which you allude to in the paper) for sort of, test bed schools.  Alternatively, it sometimes seems like your argument is actually that government should back and scale up new ideas at some point, but that it should do so later in the innovation process than it currently does. If so it'd be handy to lay out some way of discerning when the right moment is - with examples of when they've come in too early (and how that's been a problem), and when they've got it right. It's hard to avoid applying your arguments to current controversies about Oak - does a solution which has been so widely adopted by 'thousands of schools in the market' and adapted to different contexts count as an example of where innovation has happened and government has then backed a winner, or does it count as an eg of getting involved too early and distorting the market? .  Given the possible tension between this and your 'leave it the market' argument it'd be helpful to acknowledge that tension and make some suggestions for how to reconcile the two.  Hope that's helpful and thanks again for sharing it! Loic --------------------- Loic Menzies Visiting Fellow  // Sheffield Institute of Education Senior Research Associate // Jesus College Intellectual Forum, Cambridge Associate Education Specialist // Cambridge University Press and Assessment   +44 (0)7793 370459 // @LoicMnzs
0
0
7
David Jaffa
Aug 07, 2023
In Public Forum
Hello David! Looks good. Just a couple of comments.  OECD learning compass work 2030 promotes bottom up change. It might be useful to reference? Worth stating somewhere that if the gvt could spend it's time defining problems to solve then allow the sector to innovate that would be a good starting point.  Lizzie Watts Director of Accreditation & Standards Pronouns she/her/hers Pearson Working from home 07860 400667
0
0
2
David Jaffa
Aug 07, 2023
In Public Forum
David: Thanks for this. Just back from crazy travels and it’s nice to sit down and review something that someone else has clearly put a lot of thinking into! I broadly agree with your thesis but would have two overarching comments: without a top-down change in incentives, we are never going to get the education system we need. IMHO this means a complete change in terms of what we define as success - so that we think about the whole child - and a move towards all of the things that Andreas Schleicher likes and which we are talking about at Big Change. Peter Hyman et. al.’s work on Rethinking Assessment is also relevant. This does not mean that innovation should be top-down, to be clear - if you change the incentives, then your model perhaps becomes even more powerful as we migrate to a system fit for the future.  A key ingredient in the system should be government-regulated open interoperability standards for education technology. These encourage bottom-up innovation by ensuring organisations compete on pedagogy, not access to data. My age-old view on this is here.  Hope this helps - happy to chat through. And Happy Holidays! Cheers, Nick ------- Nick Kind Tyton Partners | Managing Director Oxfordshire, United Kingdom | Boston, MA, USA | New York, NY, USA M (in UK): +44 7881 788280 | From USA: 617-982-0060
0
0
4
David Jaffa
Aug 07, 2023
In Public Forum
Hi David,   Hope you are doing ok. Thanks for sending this on.   There’s nothing in here I could possible disagree with – it’s a good set of principles, reads well and makes good sense.   I have a kind of contextual comment  – based on Oasis being a MAT. I’m sure the points below describe a situation that is taken as read but your report made me think of it time and again – so here goes but ignore if it is too obvious.   Government is top down  – as you have described – and MAT style is also top down.   MAT style top down’ess  is to do with accountability ( the trust board is ultimately accountable for all schools in the Trust ) and it’s also about infrastructure  ( delivering services to 20 academies is cheaper than 20 academies individually supporting themselves).   However, both the need to be accountable to a trust board and the increasing need for cost efficiency through scaled services are in danger of extinguishing opportunities to be creative and innovative. Why? both of these drivers can create an environment in which the local school is kept in line because of the need for close accountability and is spoon fed with the services they need.   That’s not to say that accountability and cost efficiency through scale are bad but, it’s fair to say that while school leadership and management are supported through being part of a MAT, they can also be stifled for the same reasons ( which is the same situation you describe at a government policy making level).      Recommendation: MAT Leaders need to be masters at managing top down direction while facilitating bottom up leadership     MATs have risen up as new education organisations with many benefits to offer – but require a certain type of leadership to get the best out of them – the  wrong leadership is certain death.   Just a thought … Joy Joy Madeiros (she/her) Oasis 1 Kennington Road, London, SE1 7QP
0
0
2
David Jaffa
Aug 07, 2023
In Public Forum
Hi David, In short, excellent. In slightly longer form, I think it really nicely sets out an agenda, and I like the way to try to show the benefits for schools, learners, and government from the same solution. I think it could say a bit more about the ‘Fail Fast’ approach; you can try something that sounds good, discover that it doesn’t replicate or scale, and stop it, easily. I think it’s worth setting where there is a top-down role - setting baseline limits and rules. These should be aimed to clearly exclude things that are unacceptable, rather than to try to pick what is acceptable - eg data security requirements, or whatever else may be relevant. I hope that’s helpful! Best wishes, Julian --- Dr Julian Huppert Director, Jesus College Intellectual Forum Jesus College, Cambridge CB5 8BL 01223 760558 | 07876 192 177 | if-director@jesus.cam.ac.uk Registered charity no. 1137462
0
0
3
David Jaffa
Aug 07, 2023
In Public Forum
Friday 06th May 2022 The UK has a strong history of supporting commercial suppliers within the education sector, which has fostered small businesses into multi-national, multi-billion-pound organisations giving British teachers and pupils access to globally leading educational resources. The UK’s EdTech sector has continued throughout the pandemic to be a thriving industry, growing by over 71% during the height of the pandemic – outstripping global growth by a factor of four. Resources produced by companies of all sizes across the country continue to be globally sought after, with over 40% of investment in Europe spent in the UK.  The British Educational Suppliers Association (BESA) is supportive of government initiatives which increase the use of high-quality curriculum resources in order to help support teachers and provide improved pupil access to inspirational learning materials. However, BESA is extremely concerned that the DfE’s plans to centralise procurement of curriculum resources through the establishment of an arms-length body will distort the level playing field in-which commercial suppliers currently operate within. BESA believes that such a policy would be disruptive enough to end the commercial viability of this sector, ending the current wealth of choice teachers have over which resources best suit their specific needs. A similar scheme in Poland back in 2014 proved to have devastating effects on the domestic publishing industry and the quality of educational resources. Until the start of the Digital School programme, all textbooks were produced by educational publishers, without direct support from the state. The ministry’s only role was to certify textbooks as compliant with the curriculum. From 2014 however, schools were strongly encouraged to avoid commercial publications and instead choose the ministry’s free-to-use digital textbook platform. This led to a 10% contraction in the publishing sector in the first year alone with many commercial providers leaving the market. This has meant that more teachers are opting for educational resources made for a one-size-fits-all curricular approach which is usually seen as sub-optimal when compared to a variety of choice.  BESA is extremely concerned that to date the DfE has not carried out the relevant independent research or impact analysis necessary to inform the development of their policy plans. We believe that Government curriculum policy should involve the sector as part of the solution and be informed by up-to-date independent research and be focused on addressing school needs and priorities. Any resulting curriculum policy proposals should be subjected to a market assessment impact analysis to identify the likely impact on the commercial market and longer-term consequences for schools and the UK economy. Instead, the DfE, by its own admission, has based proposals for the establishment of an arms-length body and UK-wide online national academy on the basis of a DfE curriculum research paper commissioned in 2018 of just 39 English schools, less than two dozen Ofsted inspection reports of English schools and a handful of additional partisan evidence sources. No up-to-date post-lockdown independent Government research was commissioned or independent research involving the devolved administrations of Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales, despite the fundamental shift in the challenges facing schools as a result of covid. In the absence of any DfE commissioned research on the issue, BESA commissioned an independent survey in February 2022 of English schools. Interim survey findings of responses from 584 schools indicate that while schools reported high use of Oak resources over the past year, only a fifth of primary curriculum leaders and very few secondary equivalents suggest that it will remain important to them for the DfE to create and provide free teaching and learning resources.    The survey also finds that only a quarter of primary and a tenth of secondary schools and academies believe that free content compares well with paid-for content and 63% of all schools responding were against the DfE creating and providing free content once normal classroom teaching resumes with only 14% in favour. BESA believes that the DfE’s failure to carry out vital evidence gathering prior to the announcement of the Schools White Paper risks wasting valuable public funding that could potentially be better spent more effectively support the more urgent priorities and challenges facing schools as they support their pupils and build back from covid. BESA believes this to be in breach of the consultation and relevant consideration and rational decision making elements of the Civil Service Code of Conduct, the Crown Commercial Service’s principles of transparency and equality of treatment, the Cabinet Office’s Open Policy Making guidance and the Cabinet Office’s Approvals Process for the Creation of New Arms-Length Bodies. Despite repeated calls from BESA for the DfE to engage in a proper consultation regarding its acquisition, it has failed to provide sufficient information regarding how this decision has been reached, which BESA and commercial suppliers would legitimately expect to be involved in.   Throughout the pandemic, educational suppliers played and critical role in the continuation of learning whilst schools were still closed, BESA members alone contributed over £36m in free educational resources during the first three months of lockdown. Despite this experience, educational suppliers are still considered by some as separate to the education ecosystem, and the DfE’s pursuit of a centralised curriculum body is symptomatic of that. It would therefore be BESA’s recommendation that the FED’s 10-year plan should recognise suppliers as an important stakeholder group and encourage a strong partnership between educational leaders, suppliers and employers. The FED should therefore setup a new ‘Supplier’s Council’ to enable stakeholders to have input into the system and rename the ‘Business Council’ as the ‘Employers Council’ so that suppliers are not conflated with employers. Thank you  Caroline Wright, Director General
0
0
3
David Jaffa
Aug 07, 2023
In Public Forum
Date: 7th April 2022 Your Name:   David Harkin Position:  CEO  Solution Name:  8billionideas Platform Legal Structure: Private Limited Company Main Funding Source: Cross sector education organization paid for by our B2B clients. Originally funded by angel investment.  Phase(s) of Education: 10-18  Number of Students:  10,000 Purposes of Education supported:  Entrepreneurship  Solution Description: A 24*7 platform which has courses and videos, but importantly access to live mentors and live experiences which are being built in-timetable, after school and at the weekends/holidays.   Potential for systemic impact (EXCLUDING Equity)? A mindset shift that it’s not time a child goes to two schools – a physical one and a virtual one, both serving different purposes but working together.  Does the solution improve Equity? How?  Absolutely – Students are no longer limited by postcode to opportunity.  Barriers to adoption relating to Accountability Rules and Funding Formulae: The main barrier to entry will be the mindset shift to the teaching community to embrace ‘broadcasting’ as something that needs to happen in the classroom. It’s not a competitor but enhancing the learning of a child.  Additional Comments? We believe the most important tool in the classroom in the decades ahead will be the webcam. The webcam can allow world-class speakers and facilitators teach to any classroom across the UK – mind boggling amount of potential and benefits to not just students but teachers.  
0
0
4
David Jaffa
Aug 07, 2023
In Public Forum
Date: 7th April 2022 Your Name:   David Harkin Position:  CEO  Solution Name:  8billionideas SPARK Solution Legal Structure: Private Limited Company Main Funding Source: Cross sector education organization paid for by our B2B clients. Originally funded by angel investment.  Phase(s) of Education: Teaching Community  Number of Students:  5,000 teachers using the platform Purposes of Education supported:  Intrapreneurship – Helping schools create a culture of intrapreneurship.  Solution Description: An intrapreneur by definition is someone who acts like an entrepreneur but within a business or an organization. We embed a training programme with a piece of software to help with a mindset shift and ideation.    Potential for systemic impact (EXCLUDING Equity)? Imagine 1 million people understanding the importance of marginal gains and we’ve put the infrastructure in place to listen to these ideas and act on them. All ideas can be linked to – improving what’s happening in the classroom, employee well-being, productivity, generating income for a school or saving money – Why would we not want to take this seriously?  Does the solution improve Equity? How?  Absolutely – Gives a platform for all to share their ideas and changes our approach to innovation that it should be bottom up and not top down.  Barriers to adoption relating to Accountability Rules and Funding Formulae: A competitive industry focused on exam results and not improving the culture for its employees or indeed for the schools are students operate.   Additional Comments? Ideation and innovation is fundamentally not understood in education. We focus too much on the big ideas and forget that tiny and small ideas matter.   
0
0
2
David Jaffa
Aug 07, 2023
In Public Forum
Date: 12/04/22 Your Name:   Harmeet Sahota Position:  Founder and Headteacher Solution Name:  Curriculum Wide (https://www.curriculumwide.co.uk/) Legal Structure: Ltd Company Main Funding Source: Self funded.   Phase(s) of Education: 14-19  Number of Students:  160 Schools currently are registered with our platform. Based on an average of 200 students in Year 10 and 11 the potential impact is 32000. Purposes of Education supported:  Curriculum Development - Creating a curriculum that is fit for purpose for every child.  Curriculum Wide has 10000+ courses available for schools to deliver. Schools use our platform to carry out a curriculum review (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ym-0KFzI-fA&feature=youtu.be)to find the most successful and accessible courses (traditional and non-traditional) to support school improvement.  With the pressure to achieve on school performance tables, effective alternate routes for students are sometimes overlooked. Statistics show that the number of student NEETs (Not in Employment, Education or Training), fixed term and permanent exclusions are unfortunately a rising trend. • The number of 16-18 NEETs recorded in Dec 2019 was 7.5% (133,000) rising from 6.2% (111,000) in Dec 2017 • The number of fixed period exclusions has risen to 438300 (2018/19) from 239,240 (2014/15) • The number of permanent exclusions has risen to 7,894 (2018/19) from 4,785 (2014/15) Post pandemic the number of mental health cases have risen from 1 in 8 to now 1 in 6. One of the contributors to mental health is exam anxiety.  Solution Description: Support schools to create a curriculum that is fit for purpose. We support schools with:  • Improving Progress 8 - school performance measure (by finding the most successful and accessible courses) • Students with exam anxiety (by searching for courses that are 100% controlled assessment) • Support the reduction of exclusions and NEETs (by finding courses of interest for disaffected learners to provide a pathway)  Solution Origin: Between 2010 - 2012, as a school we were able to offer 1 day a week courses (motor mechanics, hairdressing and construction) to students. All of the courses had been extremely successful boasting a 100% pass rate for all participants, including the highlight of a student at risk of exclusion securing an apprenticeship with Ferrari.  Unfortunately, these courses were removed as the Ebacc was introduced. Subsequently, when I was the Key Stage 4 Curriculum Lead it was extremely difficult to find suitable alternative options for students who were struggling with mainstream curriculum. Furthermore, I was faced with moral dilemmas such as: • not allowing students to drop subjects - for example students who has a strong dislike for the subject and did not have the aptitude were being made to study a language (due to the Ebacc) • not allowing students to study Art and Textiles as separate subjects because the school would not get any value added recognition due to having the same discount code. Over the years, hours and hours were spent researching government and exam board websites to find relevant information. When talking to a colleague, we often said that to enable us to make informed strategic decisions, we needed all curriculum information in one place to support students with pathways. Potential for systemic impact (EXCLUDING Equity)? What does success look like? What would we see differently in our education system if the solution were widely adopted? • Broader curriculum offered • Higher course completion rate  • Improved outcomes • We would see increased student success rates for students who struggle with mainstream curriculum  • Students will have less exam anxiety • Schools will have reduced NEET rates  Does the solution improve Equity? How?  Yes, students can potentially study subjects they have an interest in rather than being forced to study courses to improve school Progress 8. For example low ability students could be studying a vocational Travel and Tourism course opposed to Geography, higher ability students could be studying Geology. This will provide clearer pathways for students. With early identification students who suffer with exam anxiety could reduce the number of exams sat by over 20% by studying courses that have no written exam. By being proactive you can find alternative courses for disaffected learners, for example a student at risk of permanent exclusion is studying a horticultural course and now doing work experience with the local ground staff team.  Barriers to adoption relating to Accountability Rules and Funding Formulae: Funding - The platform is not widely known. It would be amazing to have a marketing and sales team that can help spread the word and showcase where we are having impact with students. Other barriers to adoption: Pricing potentially, schools do not have the money for an annual subscription of £600. Time is also an issue, curriculum and pastoral leaders need to find the time to see how this platform can help their students.
0
0
9
David Jaffa
Aug 07, 2023
In Public Forum
Category of Solution: Work Readiness Solution Name:  The Zaian Centre, Croydon  Your Name, Position and Submission Date: Joy Madeiros, Founding Director, Oasis UK Solution Description: (3-5 sentences including educational setting e.g. primary, secondary school, FE college etc.):  2021 was the worst on record for teenage murders in London. There were 30 in total. Five happened in Croydon - more than any other borough in the capital. The fifth was the fatal stabbing of 15 year-old Zaian Aimable-Lina, an Oasis student, on 30th December.  Each of the five young people murdered in Croydon last year was killed by someone who had been excluded from school. The result of being permanently excluded/sent to alternative provision often further distances a child from developing the social, emotional and intellectual capabilities that enable a young person to progress on to further education and employment. 86% of boys in young offender institutions have previously been excluded from school. Oasis has since committed to creating a legacy in Zaian’s memory with the aim of ending the borough’s reputation as 'London's knife crime capital', and creating a model that can be applied across the UK.  The model will focus on providing ‘navigation’: ongoing one-to-one personal support and mentoring for every young person at risk of exclusion.  Potential for systemic impact (EXCLUDING Equity)? (What does success look like? What would we see differently in our education system if the solution were widely adopted?)  Success will be fewer young people being excluded/more students staying in mainstream education with fewer referrals to alternative provisions/also known as Pupil Referral Units, with improved wellbeing and therefore improved attendance and achievement.    (Just 7% of children who were permanently excluded and 18% of children who received multiple fixed period exclusions achieve good passes in English and maths GCSEs. Only 4.5% of pupils educated in AP achieved a good pass in English and maths at GCSE). Can the solution also improve Equity? (explain)  The groups most likely to be excluded include: Children with special education needs or and/or a disability (SEND), particularly children with social, emotional and mental health (SEMH) including in relation to attachment and trauma Children who have been supported by social care including Children in Need, looked after children and those who have left local authority care via adoption, Special Guardianship or a Child Arrangement Order Irish, Black Caribbean, Mixed Race, Gypsy and Roma children. Children eligible for free school meals, boys and older pupils. Barriers to adoption relating to Accountability Rules and Funding Formulae: (e.g. schools don’t get P8 points, Ofsted doesn’t really care, most schools don’t have a budget for the solution)  In order to provide navigators, Oasis is already partnering with a large range of small and local ‘grass-roots’ youth work, youth mentoring, and parent support organisations, that have grown up in Croydon, often out of a particular tragedy. In working with these types of organisations, there will also be hurdles to overcome e.g: Demonstrating to schools that the scheme is safe/the right safeguarding standards are n place, that the navigators are accredited, that the scheme will keep student personal data safe  Once the system is established, that it is worth investing in such a service as there is no time or resource in schools to help run such a service As part of the work of the Zaian Centre Oasis will offer all navigators: Training around contextual safeguarding, attachment and trauma awareness, bias informed understanding and restorative practice, etc.   Supervision and a ‘kite mark’ guarantee of competency and assurance. Inclusion on an easy-to-use website for local schools listing quality assured providers Barriers to adoption (other):  If grass-roots agencies survive, they are normally badly funded, forced to bid competitively for short-term grants and contracts, and measured by equally short-term outcomes rather than any long-term benefit. There is little if any co ordination of these agencies, meaning that some groups get overlooked or there is replication.  The Zaian centre will, and is already beginning to, create an umbrella of inclusion and recognition to these groups. This will require resource and skill to co ordinate local groups and willing volunteers.  Additional comments?: (What haven’t I asked?) 
0
0
1
David Jaffa
Aug 07, 2023
In Public Forum
Date: 12/05/2022 Your Name:   Jez MacDonald Position:  Head of Data & Digital Solution Name:  Compass + Main Funding Source: DfE Phase(s) of Education: 14-19  Number of Students or Users:  2,300 schools using Compass+ increasing by 10-15/week Purposes of Education supported:  Careers education Solution Description: Compass+ helps schools to benchmark their careers provision and to manage, track and report on the school’s careers programme at an individual student level. As well as the evaluation tool and activity management at student level, Compass+ includes a database of careers activity providers, intended and actual destinations tracking, Future Skills Questionnaire to assesses students’ careers knowledge and skills, student profile and an apprenticeship search. Solution Origin: The CEC was tasked by the DfE’s Careers Strategy 2017 to develop and roll out a self-assessment tool for schools to assess how their careers provision compares against the Gatsby Benchmarks and digital tools to support schools in achieving the benchmarks. Compass and Tracker were launched in 2017. Following feedback from Careers Leaders, who wanted to manage activities at individual student level, Compass + was launched in 2019 featuring integration with school’s management information systems (MIS).  Potential for systemic impact (EXCLUDING Equity)? Our aspiration is for all schools to be effectively using Compass+ to improve their careers provision at student level and to provide data that allows CEC and the DfE to target support effectively across England. Does the solution improve Equity? How?  The solution allows Careers Leaders to see which students are missing out on careers activities and to address gaps. New features to make this easier for Careers Leaders to manage will be rolled out in 2022/23. Other barriers to adoption: We are unable to integrate with a small number (3-4%) of school MIS for technical reasons, but the main barrier is the lack of time Careers Leaders have to engage with Compass+.
0
0
4
David Jaffa
Aug 07, 2023
In Public Forum
Date: 4th May 2022 Your Name:   Robin MacNeill Position:  Doncaster Opportunity Area Programme Manager Organization:  Doncaster Metropolitan Borough Council Legal Structure: Local Authority  Funding Source: Opportunity Area Programme Phase(s) of Education: 14-19  Number of Students:  60 Student Context: SEN young people Type of Provision: The Bridge is a learning space for SEN young people in 6th form, reaching the end of their time in school. It provides young people with more independence in a separate setting and a clear focus on preparing for adulthood.  Examples of Solutions Used:  From construction through day to day use the Bridge has provided work experience for SEN young people, delivered in partnership. The build was carried out by Volunteer It Yourself who provided training opportunities including formal qualifications for SEN young people through the construction The café provides a constant source of work experience for SEN young people in the hospitality industry There is a Forest School being developed onsite to offer wider experiences for SEN young people and a whole range of wider partnerships, including local employers and the DWP. The site has become a hub for supporting SEN young people prepare for their next steps. Purposes of Education supported:  Work-readiness, preparing for adulthood Does this improve Equity? How?  SEN young people are less well represented in the workforce, this initiative provides valuable support to correct this. Additional Comments? What haven’t we asked that is important? 
0
0
1

David Jaffa

Writer
Forum Moderator
More actions
bottom of page