Shailen Popat

The aim of the publication is to identify the implications for school leadership of the growing numbers of schools working together, particularly in formal groupings. The authors seek to identify the skills and characteristics needed for effective leaders and leadership in school group contexts. Based largely on, and flowing from, the authors’ own research into schools, primarily in an English context, it also looks at some parallels from other countries and draws on other researchers’ work. Although there is some coverage of the changing nature of school governance, it mainly concentrates on the implications for operational leadership. The book follows a logical progression, with part one setting the context, part two describing specific models and part three identifying common issues and suggesting courses of action as well as speculating about the future. The concept of the ‘self-improving system’ in England remains a hotly debated topic and, within that, the rise of groups of schools as a means of achieving improvement even more so. ‘What works best’ in terms of leadership is clearly a pertinent topic. The authors are clear that their intention is not to promote, or indeed comment on, the desirability of any particular model, but simply to look at each one, identify the leadership characteristics and skills being deployed, whether there is common ground and how this might be used for the future recruitment and development of senior leaders. In its stated aim of looking at the implications for school leadership, the book provides a useful dissection of the effective characteristics of leadership in partnerships and groups. Much of what is said is probably known already (not least from the authors’ previous work) but, in gathering together the models in one place, it is easy to see the synergies and divergencies across the various models. Having said that, while it may not be earth-shattering to hear that moving from leading a single school to a group of schools requires a ‘change of mindset’, there have been sufficient failures of leadership in groups (both operational and governance) for it to be worth repeating, often. Indeed, the final section and specifically chapter 9, where the authors identify the aspects of effectiveness that seem especially crucial in collaborative school leadership, may be a useful read for those governing boards seeking to recruit an individual to head their group and for those who think they have what it takes to lead a group. I have some quibbles with terminology (I probably spent too long working with education regulations) but it is slightly jarring, regardless of whether the individual institutions use the wrong description, to see the authors describe a MAT as having a federation within it. The two are legally very different entities. Especially so, when they start the relevant section by describing what a federation is. Finally, although chapter 10 is the penultimate chapter, in many ways it is the most interesting, possibly because it is the most speculative. Which comes first: the chicken or the egg? – or, in this case, the community or the school? The authors consider a possible future where schools are not just situated in a community but are instruments of the community and in which the leadership’s vision for the school is intrinsic to achieving the community’s vision. They conclude that: ‘The focus at some point in the future, however, may need to be on the community’s development and the extent to which schools can contribute to that, and this may be the issue for the future in terms of how we think about a school and what it does for its clients’. Their title for this chapter – ‘Collaborating communities: a realistic vision?’ – acknowledges its speculative and possibly ‘overidealistic’ nature. Some would say a flight of fancy but, in the United Kingdom in 2019, possibly a fancy that has never been more needed.

The objective of the PIRLS for Teachers project was to engage with teachers and increase both their assessment literacy and their capacity to use data and information provided by PIRLS. It also aimed to increase researchers’ understanding of the challenges teachers face in dealing with PIRLS findings and identify their specific needs and interests. Specifically, teachers and researchers acted as co-producers of relevant new knowledge, by jointly interpreting the PIRLS findings, addressing new research questions, and finding ways in which results could be used to improve teaching practice.As Conroy et al. (2013) point out, during the last three decades bodies such as the OECD and the European Union (EU) have had increasing influence on national and regional policy. Together with supranational actors, philanthropic bodies, think-tanks and both for- and non-profit businesses have provided a catalyst for the exchange of ideas for reforming school systems and redesigning teacher education. This review highlights the diverse range of actors that have been involved in actions aimed at delivering teacher training interventions in response to results on ILSAs. Some initiatives have been led by government bodies, others by research councils, or non-profit organisations. Interestingly, universities do not seem to be playing a significant role other than in partnership with other agencies who act as the lead. Perhaps this is due to large differences in political and academic perceptions of the purpose and content of teacher education and ILSA activities. Conroy et al. (2013) argue that the term partnership is a rhetorical concealment for such differences. As outlined above, very few journal articles relating to the topic of this review were found and none where an academic appeared to have developed a pedagogical resource stemming from ILSA outcomes. Only Constantin (2014) evaluated part of an intervention developed by a third party. This is the sole peer-reviewed article included in this review.

In October, former Education Minister, David Lammy MP shared that nearly one in three Oxford colleges failed to admit an ethnically Black British A-level student in 2015.  The data shows that 10 out of 32 Oxford colleges did not award a place to a black British pupil with A-levels in 2015.  Similar data released by Cambridge revealed that six colleges failed to admit any black British A-level students in the same year. By focusing on Oxbridge, the more important question that Lammy is distracting us from is why only 4.7% of ethnic Black pupils attain 3 A*-A grades at A Level compared with 10.8 of ethnic White pupils.  Other minority groups such as Irish (15.1%) and Indian (13.7%) and Chinese (23.9%) perform considerably better.

Recently, the government has announced an acceleration of the decentralisation of state-funded schools in England. In 'Educational Excellence Everywhere' 2016, the Department of Education (DfE) argue that a school system in which all state-funded schools are academies will deliver better results for all children through empowering teachers and leaders with autonomy from local government, and responsibility for accountability. They believe that this will create greater reflexivity and efficiency through eliminating the role of local government in maintaining schools. Before May 2010, there were 203 academies, but after 'The Academies Act 2010' (DfE 2010) opened up academy status to every school in the country, 3,516 schools voluntarily converted to academy status by December 2015. In this time, another 1,346 schools became sponsored academies, all-of-which has resulted in the majority of English secondary schools and almost all new schools now enjoying academy status (including free schools, free school presumption projects, university technical colleges (UTCs), alternative provision and special schools) (DfE 2016, 4.2). By 2022, all primary and secondary schools are expected to have converted (although there is now the possibility of schools rated 'Good' and 'Outstanding' from opting out of this). More than half of all academies are already part of a Multi-Academy Trust (MAT), and the majority of new academies are created by MATs rather than by standalone academies (DfE 2016, 4.16). The DfE claim that there are benefits of joining a MAT both for high-performing schools and for those in need of support, such as small schools and primary schools, which they say can "call on the expertise of the MAT for better governance and back-office arrangements, and to increase and improve the breadth of their curriculum and extra-curricular activities" (DofE 2016, 4.17). They intend MATs to replace local authorities in the maintenance and oversight of schools. The DfE argues that localised support within a county is unimportant and envisage huge national and regional chains running schools. They believe this will enable pooling of educational, business and financial expertise for the benefit of all schools in the chain. The leaders of MATs will possess powers and control funding for schools without being accountable at local elections or to locally elected representatives. The DfE justify their approach on the basis that in 2015 primary sponsored academies open for two years have improved their results, on average, by 10% since opening, which they claim is more than double the rate of improvement in local authority maintained schools over the same period; and that in the same year GCSE results show that secondary converter academies are performing 7.2% above the national average, with 64.3% of pupils achieving five or more good GCSEs, including English and maths (DfE 2016, 4.3). However, this is queried by analysis published by Price Waterhouse Coopers which showed that only three of the biggest academy chains achieve a positive value-added rating, and just one of the 26 biggest primary sponsors achieved results above the national average (Kirk, 2016). Some lessons can perhaps be learned from social development literature. The government's drive to decentralisation is supported within development strategies. Disappointed with conventional aid approaches based on a hierarchical relationships between donors and beneficiaries, there has been a growing emphasis on the importance of ownership of aid budgets and decisions by the recipients. Such a move has been reflected in the rapid

A focus group with three girls and another with three boys confirmed conclusions reached in larger studies that adolescents were image managers and that learning was secondary to establishing positions within the peer system. Among boys, behaviour detrimental to learning often attracted the highest social status. Appearance, attractiveness, sporting ability and humour were all deemed to be important factors in determining popularity. Seating plans had a significant impact upon learning experience, and the boys were annoyed at anyone answering questions in the classroom. The girls' felt that students without friends would have poor academic performance due to feelings of loneliness and depression.

By reviewing literature in the USA and UK, this article questions whether the test scores of Special Educational Needs and Disabled (SEND) students are valid and reliable. It is argued that accommodations tend to either make no difference or create a bias, making them unreliable and incomparable. Furthermore, teachers are often not trained in how to select appropriate accommodations, and schools often only provide accommodations that their resources allow. Introduction The central question being examined in this article is " whether assessment is serving the best interests of the individual child, the school, and wider society " (Pettifor and Saklofske 2012:90). Access arrangements (or accommodations as they are referred to in the USA) are often described as an equitable way of giving students with Special Educational Needs and Disabilities (SEND) the opportunity to demonstrate their knowledge of the content being tested. However, this article questions whether the system really accesses the understanding of such pupils, and if it is indeed fair to require SEND pupils to sit the same summative tests as non-SEND pupils. Fairness and equity invoke discussions of power and so this review argues that any system must empower 'access' if it is not to be regarded as inadequate. It is argued that there is no conclusive evidence that access arrangements in general, or particular accommodations, result in higher attainment; nor is there consistent evidence that access arrangements benefit all students all of the time. The data presented suggests that benefits vary according to the type of accommodation, the suitability of the accommodation for the pupil, and the type of test to which it was employed. If it is accepted that tests have had to compromise on validity in order to be more reliable, and as much of the literature suggests, the reliability of accommodated tests is uncertain, then the argument for using them weakens. This is underscored by evidence that suggests that the best accommodation is not always selected due to resource and knowledge constraints. This leads one to query as to whether legal obligations under the Equality Act (2010) to make reasonable adjustments are being fulfilled.

This paper has been written for a five minute speech at the British Education Leadership, Management and Administration Society (BELMAS) Conference in July 2015 as part of an IGNITE session.  It aims to stimulate debate upon the merits of education professionals and academics forming think tanks with the aim of influencing policy. The idea of think tanks connecting researchers and decision makers resonates throughout the mission statements of numerous organisations, however, too often, academics research in-order to write articles rather than to influence policy.  It is argued that a focus should be placed upon creating ‘tipping points’ and a framework from the discipline of business that could be employed is suggested.

To flourish in education and indeed in life, it is necessary to  ensure that all areas of life are balanced.  In this talk that was hosted by Brahma Kumaris Barcelona, I argue that maintaining a balance in spiritual, relationships, emotional, financial and health are essential but that at different points of the year, one may require more time that another.  Thus balance does not mean giving attention to all areas to the same extent at all times.
In English and Spanish.

This paper views the apocalypse through the lens of the Hindu philosophical concept of eternal cyclic time.  From this perspective, there is no singular point of commencement of time, and no end to it, but rather a circular continuum, that is, a cyclic concept of time.  The hijacked and much maligned Hindu swastika, actually depicts a cycle of 4 equal segments representing four ages of humanity, namely Satyug, Tretayug, Dwapuryug and Kaliyug.  The features of each age differ, as does the confluence of each age.  It is argued that the current apocalypse is a feature of the confluence of Kaliyug and Satyug and thus although undoubtedly calamitous, is not an end.  Humanity will continue and rebuild a civilisation from scratch harbouring in Satyug.