In the Age of AI, Teachers are More Important than Ever

When ChatGPT was first released, panic spread across classrooms worldwide as educators feared that students would use AI to shortcut learning. And they did. How would already-stretched educators struggle to keep up? Soon, businesses integrated AI into their operations and began demanding AI‑literate graduates. Policymakers followed, asking what future‑ready skills should look like. Pressured by business use and student abuse, many started to wonder, how long will educators remain relevant?

As a business professor and a director of an MBA program, I am on the front lines of this question. I need to teach students how to use AI and then to teach instructors how to evaluate students’ use and misuse of AI. This, in turn, required me to figure out how to effectively use it myself. Over the course of this experience, I have come to a surprising conclusion. Unlike educators who fear that AI is about to make us redundant and will rob students of critical thinking, I have come to believe that AI has made teachers more important than ever. 

AI Pitfalls and The Attention Span of a Goldfish

Because of my work on pedagogy and my ongoing integration of AI into master’s business programs, I was invited to give a few talks to faculty at different universities and organizations.  I thought it would be funny to consult AI on my presentation, so I doubled down on the concept: I challenged AI to write a “meta” presentation for me, one that I could share with my audience and simultaneously deconstruct. In that way, I hoped to explore the ways that it could be helpful and discuss its limitations. I had a rough outline of the information I wanted to share.  To frame the conversation, I used a Wizard of Oz theme, posing the question, “Should AI be revered like the mighty Oz or approached with caution as a possible charlatan?” 

Based on the data and the theme, I asked ChatGPT to produce an outline for me. It did a reasonable job of organizing the ideas, and immediately offered to produce a PowerPoint with thematic images. Of course, I agreed. ChatGPT never produced the images it promised, and after much prodding, it eventually referred me to other AI platforms including Gamma, Canva, and Gemini. In general, all of the AI platforms I used often added unsolicited and incorrect information, failed to follow my directions, produced ridiculous images that incorporated nonsensical words, and sometimes failed to produce anything at all. Most of the time, AI promised more than it could deliver. I had to push it to correct flawed information and produce a quality presentation, and it never really got there. My conclusion was that I could have built a better presentation more efficiently without it.

On another occasion, I was preparing a presentation on student engagement for a faculty meeting. I wanted to emphasize the importance of being sensitive to students’ attention spans, so I sought data on the subject. As most students do, I started with a Google search. Google’s AI-enhanced search offered the first results, which at the time answered that “the average human attention span is about 8.25 seconds” and linked me to a study concluding that human attention span is shorter than that of a goldfish. Every link on the first results page referenced this study. I was dubious, so I followed up with this question: “Is average human attention span really less than a goldfish?” Google AI replied, “No, while the claim that humans have a shorter attention span than goldfish is commonly cited, research suggests it’s not entirely accurate…The idea…is a widespread myth.” That led to a link explaining how the “8.25 second” study had been debunked. 

In both cases, the wizard behind the curtain proved unreliable, and challenging the bot was necessary to produce accurate data or improved outcomes. This is consistent with the “garbage in/garbage out” mantra that nearly every AI expert repeats at training and professional development events.  In short, these experts argue that asking an AI bot “trash” questions lead to trash answers. This framing subtly shifts responsibility onto users, as if the technology’s shortcomings are simply user error. But even well‑crafted questions can yield false or misleading answers when the underlying data are flawed or the model is overconfident. If I ask an AI engine a clear question and it gives me a false answer, I should not have to challenge it with a follow up: “Are you sure?” 

However, the openness of the internet and its inability to determine what is real is a huge limitation. Multiple sources have documented how government-sponsored actors have attempted to manipulate data by seeding false narratives for AI engines to perpetuate false information. I recently dealt with a course developer who used AI to write a syllabus that included invented sources and recommended readings from predatory journals. 

Because many AI systems are optimized for user engagement, they often prioritize sounding helpful over being correct, creating a built‑in bias toward confident but inaccurate responses.  This can also perpetuate bad information or frustration when bots over-promise what they can deliver. Students, professionals, and even educators should trust AI results at their own peril.

The Clever Intern Needs a Teacher: AI Literacy and Expertise

Despite my challenges, I remain optimistic about AI’s potential. At a recent conference, a presenter offered a helpful analogy. “When you use AI,” he said, “you should pretend you are working with a very bright, very ambitious, very enthusiastic intern. When you ask it to do something, it will do it very comprehensively and very quickly. But you may have to review its work, because it may not all be accurate or up to the quality you expect.”  Thinking of AI in this way—as a student rather than an expert—is probably a healthier and more realistic way to incorporate the tool into your work.

My mantra to students learning AI is this: you have to be smarter than the AI. There is no AI literacy without subject‑matter expertise. You can’t evaluate an AI’s answer if you don’t understand the subject yourself. As an experienced educator and expert on educational games, I know what makes a good class and a good activity. I know what is accurate and what is not. If I ask AI to construct an active learning activity for me, I can see right away whether it will be effective. 

However, this is a problem for students and even for many businesses that have blindly adopted the technology. If businesses lack adequate checks, they may damage their credibility.  Likewise, many students do not have the skills to determine whether their finished product is faulty. If I have to wrestle with AI for good results, the match will be even more difficult for students—or they may blindly accept the results and pay the consequences.

In short, people cannot effectively use these instruments without expertise, and educators possess it. Thus, educators have two important roles. First, we must teach students how to properly and ethically use these tools. When teaching about AI, assignments should require students to not only produce something, but to describe the production and verification processes and the challenges experienced. In short, AI can be a tool to achieve higher-order learning levels on Bloom’s Taxonomy. Second, we must sell students on the importance of education. AI is an excellent tool, but using AI will not serve those students who cut corners.  Those who gain expertise will avoid looking foolish and continue to differentiate themselves in the workplace. As AI becomes more integrated into education and industry, our greatest opportunity lies not in replacing expertise, but in elevating it—ensuring that future learners can work wisely, critically, and creatively with intelligent tools.

About the author. Dr. Mark Harvey is a Professor and Director of Graduate Business Programs at the University of Saint Mary. He is the author and editor of Simulations in the Political Science Classroom: Games without Frontiers, Beating the Clock: The Power of Short Games and Active Learning, and Celebrity Influence: Politics, Persuasion, and Issue-Based Advocacy.

We are inviting education stakeholders from across the South to attend the National Education Assembly (NEA) South meeting where we will discuss ‘Strengthening schools in the South region: building resilient, inclusive and future-ready learning environments’.

The National Education Assembly (NEA), powered by the Foundation for Education Development (FED), provides a space for people with day-to-day experience of the education system to share insights that can help shape national policy. Its purpose is simple: your voice – heard, shared, amplified.

FED & NEA South, delivered in partnership with FED and The Edwin Group and Co-Chaired by Phil Hedger (CEO, LEO Academy Trust) and Dr Nicole Ponsford (Founding CEO, Global Equality Collective), launched in Spring 2026.

Date & Time: Tuesday 9th June 2026, 11.45am-3pm
Location: Delta Hotels Bristol City Centre, 2 Lower Castle Street, Bristol BS1 3AD
Format: Working lunch – informal and collaborative throughout

12pm: Welcome
John Faulconbridge and Louise Martin – Executive Team at FED
Welcome to our NEA South meeting and intention of our time together. Introduction to key people for today’s meeting.

12.15pm: Scene-Setting for the meeting
Sarah Monk – Chief Strategy Officer at EDWIN Group
Introduction to the day’s themes, framing the policy context around education priorities in the South of England and the White Paper.

12.30pm: Keynote Address: Raising Ambition in Our Schools
Neil Blundell – AMPLIFY MAT, Bristol
Drawing on the White Paper’s central ambition of Every Child Achieving and Thriving, Neil Blundell explores what raising ambition means in practice, particularly for schools serving coastal and under-resourced communities in the South.

1pm: Lunch
Working lunch. Continued informal conversation and networking.

1.30pm: Address from Carl Ward, Chair of FED
Dr Carl Ward — Chair of The Foundation for Education Development
NEA’s role and priorities for the journey ahead.

1.50pm: Collaborative Discussion
Led by the NEA South Co-Chairs, Dr Nicole Ponsford and Phil Hedger of Leo Academy Trust
What are the long-term shifts we want to see across the South and what needs to happen now to make those shifts possible?

• What promising practices already exist across the region that could be amplified without waiting for national policy change?
• How can FED best balance responding to immediate policy opportunities with shaping a longer-term vision for the system?
• If this network is to grow successfully over the next five years, what do we envisage our roadmap for growth to look like?

2.50pm: Close
Led by John Faulconbridge and Louise Martin
Summary of outputs and next steps. Event concludes.

Date & Time: Tuesday 9th June 2026, 11.45am-3pm
Location: Delta Hotels Bristol City Centre, 2 Lower Castle Street, Bristol BS1 3AD
Format: Working lunch – informal and collaborative throughout

Who can attend?

This meeting is free to attend, open to anyone working within NEA South: Berkshire; Bristol; Buckinghamshire; Cornwall; Devon; Dorset; East Sussex; Essex; Greater London; Hampshire; Hertfordshire; Isle of White; Kent; Middlesex; Somerset; Surrey; West Sussex; Wiltshire.

Spaces are limited. Sign up closes on Friday 5th June 2026

Contact: NEA South Queries, Louise Martin/John Faulconbridge at hello@fed.education.

What If Childhood Came First? Part Two: Building an Early Childhood System Around Children, Not Institutions

Why taking 0–6 out of schools might help. It could protect early childhood from accountability creep

Where early years is embedded in schools, it often becomes subject to the culture of schools—even when policy says otherwise. Data expectations drift downwards. “Tracking” becomes normalised. The needs of the institution (consistency, timetabling, performance narratives) can quietly override the needs of children.

A separate phase could develop a different accountability story: one focused on quality of relationships, environments, inclusion, wellbeing and community engagement, rather than early attainment.

It could reduce the damage of premature formalisation

Many teachers and early years practitioners can describe the same pattern: children who might flourish with time, play and relational support instead experience early schooling as a kind of low-level pressure. For some children—particularly boys, summer-born children, neurodivergent children, children learning English as an additional language—early formal demands can produce a narrative of “behind” before they’ve properly begun.

Delaying “schooling” in the narrow sense is not about lowering ambition. It is about shifting ambition: from accelerating outcomes to deepening foundations.

It could strengthen inclusion—if done properly

The early identification of SEND and developmental differences needs care, not panic. Too often families experience early years as an obstacle course of thresholds, referrals and delays, with educators caught in the middle.

A well-funded 0–6 phase could integrate specialist support earlier, reduce adversarial processes, and create environments where difference isn’t immediately read as deficit.

It could tackle inequality upstream

By the time children arrive in school, inequality has already had years to do its work. A distinct early childhood phase—free or genuinely affordable, high quality, community-embedded—would be one of the most powerful equalising investments a society can make.

But—and this is crucial—it only works if it is universal and proportionate: offering more where needs are greater without turning families into “cases”.

The risks and hard questions

Risk 1. Creating a two-tier early childhood system

If we move 0–6 out of schools without guaranteeing quality and access, we risk expanding the gap between families who can purchase “enrichment” and families who cannot.

Any proposal must be anchored in a universal entitlement with strong public investment—otherwise “taking it out of schools” becomes “leaving it to the market”.

Risk 2. Workforce capacity and status

Early years is already under strain. A new phase would require significant workforce expansion, training pathways, and—most importantly—better pay and conditions. Without that, we simply reshuffle scarcity.

Risk 3. Transition at six

Transitions matter. Moving formal schooling to six doesn’t eliminate transition; it relocates it. The question becomes: can we design a transition that is gradual, relational and developmentally appropriate—rather than a cliff edge?

Risk 4. Childcare as infrastructure, not an afterthought

Many families need childcare for work. Any reimagined 0–6 phase must reconcile the tension between care as an economic necessity and care as a developmental and relational practice. The solution isn’t to pretend the tension doesn’t exist; it is to fund provision so it isn’t forced to choose between sustainability and quality.

What could it look like? A sketch of a 0–6 public phase

Imagine a national network of Early Childhood Communities—not “pre-schools” attached to primaries, but purpose-built civic institutions. Some might be co-located with schools, libraries, health services, or community centres—but governed separately, with early childhood as the organising logic. SURE START was a good start for this and below is not rocket science – the principles already exist.

Key design principles

• Birth–3 and 3–6 as a coherent continuum (with flexibility), not fragmented by funding streams.
• Key-person relational care, with staffing structures that prioritise continuity.
• Play, movement, outdoors and creativity as central, not peripheral.
• Integrated family support: health visiting links, perinatal mental health pathways, SEND services, speech and language access.
• Assessment for understanding, not ranking: observational, narrative, child-centred—used to support, not label.
• Workforce parity and professional identity: early childhood educators recognised as educators, not “childcare”.
• Democratic accountability: community governance, transparent standards focused on wellbeing, inclusion and quality, not attainment.

This isn’t fantasy. It is what happens when a society decides early childhood is a public good rather than a private problem.

A proposal like this is not just structural; it’s political. And the union role is pivotal, because the first people asked to “deliver change” are usually the workers—often without the resources, voice or protection to shape it.

• No reform without funded pay and conditions uplift for early years staff.
• Qualified status pathways that don’t replicate exclusion or gatekeeping.
• Ratios, time and workload protections that make relational practice possible.
• A rejection of downward accountability—no importing school performance cultures into early childhood.
• Inclusive provision as a right, backed by specialist staffing and training.
• Public investment guarantees to prevent privatisation-by-default.
• Co-produced policy: early years educators, families, communities and researchers shaping the model together.

In other words: if we’re going to reimagine early childhood, it must not become another round of reform done to practitioners rather than with them.

A final thought: the moral test of a society

There’s a line—variously attributed—that you can judge a society by how it treats its youngest. Whether or not it can be traced to a single author, the point stands: early childhood is a moral measure of our collective priorities. The African proverb “It takes a village to raise a child” takes the argument further, locating responsibility not in the individual family alone, but in the wider community. If we truly believed that, early years provision would be designed as civic infrastructure: relational, local, properly resourced—and owned by the village, not squeezed into the logic of school.

Taking 0–6 out of schools is not a technical fix. It is a moral proposition: that the earliest years deserve a phase built around what children actually need—time, care, play, language, belonging, and adults who are supported to support them.

Maybe the real question is not “Can we take 0–6 out of schools?” but: What are we willing to let childhood be, before we turn it into performance?

If we can hold that question open—honestly, collectively, without slipping into panic about standards—we might find ourselves designing something better than the system we’ve inherited.

And perhaps that is the most radical educational act of all.

What If Childhood Came First? Part One: Why the First Six Years Don’t Belong to School

I have spent most of my professional life in early years education, and over that time I was frequently encouraged to move into work with older children—framed as an “opportunity”, as though leaving early years constituted a reward.

Now, in a twist of irony, my role involves working with undergraduate and postgraduate students, helping them to understand both the wonder and the complexity of early childhood education.

During an Erasmus visit to Budapest, I observed a 0–6 phase operating in practice. In Hungary, the stated aim of kindergarten education is to foster children’s multifaceted, harmonious development; to support personality development; and to mitigate disadvantage—while taking account of age, individual characteristics, and diverse developmental stages, including those of children with special educational needs.

A question that has always plagued me since this visit – What if we took 0–6 out of “school”?

There’s a quiet assumption sitting at the heart of English education: that “school” is the natural home for childhood. We don’t often name it, because it feels like common sense. By four, many children are in Reception; by five it’s compulsory; and before that, early years provision increasingly mirrors school routines in miniature—targets, tracking, “school readiness”, timetables that train bodies to sit still before they’ve had time to be bodies.

But what if we dared to disrupt that assumption?

What if we treated birth-to-six not as the runway to formal schooling, but as a distinct public phase with its own goals, workforce, infrastructure and ethical commitments—separate from schools and protected from the gravitational pull of “standards”, “catch-up” and performative accountability?

This is not a nostalgic plea for a softer past. It’s a serious question about what early childhood is for, and about the kind of society that would invest in it properly.

The provocation: education is not always “school”

The UK is unusual in how early we begin formal schooling compared with many countries we like to benchmark ourselves against. In practice, England normalises a school start at four; and even where pedagogy in Reception is play-based, the institutional logic of school—uniformity, timetables, assessment, readiness—often reshapes what happens.

To ask whether 0–6 should sit outside schools is to ask a deeper question:
Should the earliest years be governed by the same purposes as later schooling?

Because the danger is not simply “too much phonics too soon” (though that matters). It is the broader risk that we treat children as future pupils rather than present humans; future workers rather than current citizens; future data points rather than embodied, relational beings.

Early childhood is not a preparation stage. It is a life stage. And if we honour that, we might stop trying to squeeze it into a school-shaped box.

What is truly needed from 0–6?

If we were designing a birth-to-six phase from first principles—based on what we know about development, inequality, family life and community wellbeing—what would we prioritise?

1. Attachment, emotional safety and relational continuity

Early learning is relational before it is instructional. Secure attachments and stable, responsive relationships are not “nice extras”; they are the foundation for language, self-regulation, curiosity and resilience.

Yet institutional pressures can push early years settings through routines and compliance and you can feel it in the language: “behaviour”, “readiness”, “settling”, “interventions”. Sometimes what is really being managed is not the child’s development, but the system’s anxiety.

A distinct 0–6 phase could centre continuity of care, small key-person teams, and time for relationships to deepen—rather than constantly “moving children on”.

2. Play as the serious business of early childhood

Play is not a break from learning. It is how young children think: through exploration, repetition, imitation, invention, negotiation, risk and joy.

When early years becomes “school-like”, play often survives as a scheduled activity rather than a governing principle. It is permitted, but not trusted. The adult gaze becomes evaluative: What did you learn? Can you evidence it? Can it be tracked?

A dedicated 0–6 phase could treat play not as a method but as a right and a language, supported by skilled adults who know how to extend thinking without colonising it.

3. Language-rich environments—without turning childhood into a programme

We should be unapologetic about language: stories, songs, conversation, vocabulary, multilingualism, narrative, listening, speaking. But there’s a difference between language as culture and language as compliance.

A 0–6 phase could support communication and literacy development in ways that are social, embodied and meaningful, resisting the temptation to fast-forward children into abstract formalism simply because the later system demands it.

4. Whole-family support as part of “education”

If we are honest, the biggest determinants of children’s early experiences are not in classrooms. They are in housing, income security, parental mental health, community safety, accessible healthcare and the availability of time.

A genuine early childhood phase would treat family support as core business: parenting support without stigma, access to speech and language services, SEND identification and support that doesn’t require parents to fight, community health links, and spaces where families feel held rather than judged.

This is the radical move: to recognise that early childhood education is inseparable from public health and social justice.

5. The right workforce—valued, paid, developed

You cannot build a high-quality 0–6 phase on precarious wages and low status. England’s early years workforce has long been asked to deliver increasingly complex work under increasingly fragile conditions.

If we take 0–6 seriously, we must treat early years educators as the specialists they are: with pay parity pathways, funded training, manageable ratios, time for professional reflection, and career structures that don’t require people to leave early childhood to be respected. A phase outside schools could also protect early years pedagogy from being treated as a junior version of “real teaching”.

Your perspective will help shape long-term priorities for education policy.

At the FED, we’ve spent the past six years working with thousands of stakeholders across the system, including our FED Futures Partners and FED Councils, as well as through FEDSpace consultations, to inform our thinking.

This is your opportunity to help build a more sustainable, inclusive, and forward-thinking education system.

Please complete the survey by midnight, Sunday 10th May.

Strong Starts for Every Child: Rethinking School Readiness

The idea of a “strong start” carries weight in education. It speaks to fairness, opportunity, and the belief that early experiences shape life chances. But it also raises important questions. What does a strong start actually mean? And who decides?

At the Maritime schools, working in partnership with the Maritime Children’s Foundation, the answer begins well before children enter school. Through the Strong Foundations programme, the focus is on supporting families from birth. Parenting classes, baby groups, and community networks all recognise that development happens in relationships, not just classrooms. This approach shifts the narrative. A strong start is not about accelerating children. It is about strengthening the environment around them, including families, communities, and early experiences.

Importantly, this work does not stop at the school gate. Maritime’s Strong Foundations approach continues into the Early Years Foundation Stage, known as EYFS, and Key Stage 1. This creates a coherent and connected journey for children. In EYFS, the focus remains on development rather than performance. Language, play, and relationships are prioritised, recognising that these are the foundations on which all later learning is built.

As children move into Year One, this commitment continues through a Developmentally Appropriate Practice. Rather than a sharp shift into more formal learning, the curriculum is designed to bridge early years pedagogy with Key Stage 1 expectations. This is particularly important for the development of executive functions, including attention, self-regulation, working memory, and cognitive flexibility. These are the skills that enable children to manage themselves as learners, and they develop best through structured play, interaction, and carefully scaffolded experiences.

By maintaining this approach into Year One, Maritime recognises that development does not happen in neat phases. Children do not suddenly become ready at five. They continue to grow, adapt, and need support.

This creates a genuinely joined up model. Support begins before children start school and continues seamlessly once they arrive. The Maritime Children’s Foundation and Maritime schools work together to ensure that families, early years settings, and classrooms are part of the same developmental journey.

Traditionally, school readiness has been seen as a checklist. Children should arrive able to sit still, hold a pencil, recognise letters, and follow instructions. These expectations still shape how readiness is understood in many settings. These still have importance, however, a broader view is emerging. School readiness includes communication skills, social and emotional development, physical confidence, and early thinking skills. Just as importantly, it includes a child’s sense of security, curiosity, and willingness to engage.

This wider definition reveals something important. Readiness is not a fixed state. It is shaped by a child’s experiences, relationships, and environment.

Yet the term “school ready” is not without problems. It can suggest that children themselves are lacking if they do not meet certain expectations. This risks overlooking the wider factors that influence development, including inequality and access to support.

The term can also narrow our focus. When readiness is reduced to literacy and numeracy, we risk ignoring the foundations that make learning possible, including language, confidence, and self-regulation.

Perhaps most significantly, it places responsibility on the child. It implies children must adapt to school, rather than schools adapting to children. A more helpful question might be, are schools ready for children? This reframing shifts responsibility onto the system. It calls for schools that are nurturing, language rich, and responsive to individual development. It also highlights the importance of early support for families and strong community connections.

The Maritime Academy Trust’s vision reflects this thinking. A strong start is not something a child achieves alone. It is something created collectively through support, relationships, and opportunity. In this sense, strong starts are about social justice. Children do not arrive at school with equal experiences. Some benefit from richer language environments and more stable routines. Others face significant barriers from the outset.

The challenge is not to label children as not ready, but to ensure systems are equipped to meet them where they are. The Strong Foundations programme offers a model for this. It connects support before school with developmentally appropriate practice during EYFS and Key Stage 1. It builds continuity, rather than fragmentation.

Ultimately, a strong start is not a moment in time. It is a process.

Children are not simply ready or not ready. They are becoming ready, through interaction with the world around them. The real task, then, is to build schools, systems, and communities that are ready for every child.

Because a strong start is never an individual achievement. It is a collective one.

The NEA exists to ensure that voices from across education help shape the future of the system. It is a space where experiences are heard, perspectives are shared, and insights are amplified into the national conversation about education.

As a key sponsor of the Schools and Academies Show, FED is providing space for the NEA to convene and continue this work in a high-profile national setting. This is a unique opportunity to hear from education professionals, engage in discussions, and gain insight into the priorities shaping the sector.

We would be delighted for you to join this session, connect with colleagues from across the education community, and be part of the conversation that informs the NEA’s work.

Event details:

• Date: 7th May
• Time: 10am-3.20pm
• Location: Excel London, Royal Victoria Dock, 1 Western Gateway, London, E16 1XL

For travel guidance, venue details, and accommodation information, please click here.
To confirm your attendance, please use this NEA registration form.
Places are limited, so please do register if you would like to join us.

If you have any questions, please get in touch via email at hello@fed.education.

We very much hope to see you there and continue the work of ensuring the voices of education are heard, shared, and amplified.

FED Theatre: Hosting the NEA

10am-10.10am
Chair’s Opening Remarks

10.10am-10.55am
SEND Reform: Policy Promises into Trust, school & College Reality…have your say!

Panel:

• What are the practical implications of SEND and inclusion reforms?
• How do new support models work in practice and what do schools and colleges need to enact these?
• How do we ensure that broader stakeholders are utilised and engaged in a meaningful and collaborative manner for the best outcomes?

This session relates to a number of FED projects, including the FED Futures Project 2025 to 27: The Future of SEND, The Future of Inclusion, The Future of Funding.

11.15am-12pm
The Gap That Won’t Close? Tackling Persistent Disadvantage in Trusts, schools & Colleges

Panel:

• What are the challenges that have created persistent disadvantage in trust, schools and college communities?
• How can funding reforms drive the closing of the attainment gap?
• How do we create organisations that enable all children to thrive and flourish?

This session relates to a number of FED projects, FED Futures Projects 2025 to 27: The Future of Funding in Education, The Future of Nutritional Inclusion, The Future of Inclusion, The Future of Skills & Careers, The Future of English & Literacy, The Future of Mathematics & Numeracy.

12.20pm-1.05pm
Middle of the Road or World-Class? What Needs to Change and How We Might Do It

Panel:

• How will proposed changes to the curriculum shape learning experiences, engagement, and post 16 pathways?
• What do trusts, schools & colleges need to deliver a rich, meaningful education?
• What does a curriculum fit for the middle of the 21st century look like?

This session relates to a number of FED projects, FED Futures Project 2025 to 2027: The Future of Assessment & Accountability, The Future of Skills & Careers, The Future of English & Literacy, The Future of Mathematics & Numeracy

1.25pm-2.10pm
Burned Out or Bought In? Tackling Staff Engagement in Trusts, Schools & Colleges

Panel:

• How do you build an organisational culture that fosters ‘buy-in’ from pupils, staff, parents and carers, while strengthening staff loyalty and morale?
• What strategies most effectively support staff attendance, engagement and long-term retention?
• How can organisations better attract, engage and retain staff, and what are the key drivers of teacher retention across Trusts, Schools and Colleges?

This session relates to a number of FED projects, FED Futures Projects 2025: The Future of Education Workforce

2.35pm-3.20pm
Is The Accountability System Fit for Purpose? What Do We Need to Do to Make It Better?

Panel:

• What does effective and fair accountability look and feel like?
• How can accountability systems offer more worthwhile development experiences for those working in trusts, schools & colleges?
• How can accountability systems improve better serve stakeholders?

This session relates to a number of FED projects, FED Futures Project: The Future of Assessment & Accountability.

Reimagining English – The Human Connection

I went to watch the dance troupe Diversity at Stockton Globe recently and after a flurry of body pops and backflips Ashley Banjo closed the show with:

“We need to re-teach ourselves human connection”

And it got me thinking about the re-imagining of the English curriculum.

At a recent FED event on re-imagining the English curriculum, themes such as empathy, listening, connection, speaking, arguing, critical thought, decision making, explanation, judgement, drafting, process… all came up. Many of which are about human connection. 

So, in a landscape where our young people are leaning into the digital quick fix world, should the English curriculum be the place to reconnect with what makes us human?

The teachers and scholars amongst us know that it is within literature where we learn about ourselves, our past, our present and our future…

As we read and build our minds, the English curriculum should then teach us how to express our minds through writing. Whether creatively or critically.

Also, the English curriculum should then teach us how to articulate our minds, through speech. How to listen, respond, think on our feet, pivot, adapt, re-engage, challenge, question.

The problem with the current English curriculum at secondary school is we expect students to do all of the above and then perform their best work in 45 minutes, with no drafting or proof of progressive thought. So to re-imagine the English curriculum do we actually have to start with re-imagining the assessment?

In our AI ‘fake truth’ world and to get us closer to reconnecting as humans, is an assessment system that assesses process a way forward including: developmentally appropriate practise, drafting, viva voce, qualitative in the moment assessment, leveraging technology, where appropriate, to facilitate the assessment but keeping the human thought at the centre of the process?

We also have to be realistic. A large percentage of students reach secondary school lacking reading automaticity; with some still having gaps in decoding. Reading automaticity and fluency allows for freedom. Freedom in learning, thought, speech and progress. 

There’s a dignity in reading automaticity. It frees up cognitive space to allow for learning, we know all this, yet too often we turn to the English department alone to fix it. The study of English Language and English Literature is a subject specialism and shouldn’t be confused with literacy. Literacy is needed across every aspect of the curriculum, and beyond, whereas only the English classroom needs the skills and knowledge to study literature and language. 

To remove the ‘forgotten third’, having a simple vision that no student should leave school without possessing reading automaticity, the re-imagining of the curriculum will need to include a space for targeted interventions and significant professional learning to develop pedagogy of how to develop the literacy skills that facilitate mastery in the specialist subjects being taught. Not shoe horned into the peripherals of the content, but living and breathing in every aspect of instruction. It’s the old adage “teach them to read, write and think like a scientist”. This knowledge can be supported within the English curriculum, but isn’t the only component of the curriculum.

This is just the tip of the English curriculum re-imagining iceberg. We could talk about banishing key stages, scaffolding English learning from ages 2 – 19, seamless transition, reading for pleasure V’s reading for value, relatable content V’s association content, is what we study as important as the way we study…

The English curriculum is the one space where, through the study of literature, fiction and non-fiction, we can focus on the human connection. It can allow the isolated generation the skills to articulate their own thoughts through speech and writing. It can explore the human condition and through literature, exploring what we can learn from the past to make sense of our present. It can teach us how to form differing arguments and learn how to articulate an informed, educated stance. It can teach the craft. The English curriculum has the potential to teach young people their own minds before they get hacked!

Understanding Difference: Why Empathy Education Should Start Earlier

Across the UK, schools are working harder than ever to support children with increasingly complex needs. Teachers are navigating rising behaviour challenges, growing SEND identification, and classrooms where pupils experience the world in very different ways.

Policy discussions often focus on interventions, support structures and behaviour management. These conversations are important. But one crucial element is often overlooked: the understanding children themselves have of difference.

Many pupils today share classrooms with peers who may have dyslexia, ADHD, autism, anxiety, hearing loss or other neurological or sensory differences. Yet these differences are often invisible. Without context, they can easily be misunderstood.

• A child who needs extra time to read may appear “slow.”
• A pupil who wears headphones may seem “odd.”
• A classmate who struggles to sit still may be labelled “naughty.”

Children are naturally curious. They notice differences quickly. But when those differences are not explained, curiosity can turn into confusion — and sometimes exclusion.

This is why Neurodiversity Celebration Week is so important. It shines a light on the many ways people think, learn and experience the world. Awareness among adults has grown significantly in recent years across education, workplaces and public life.

But a key question remains: how do we translate that awareness into everyday understanding among children themselves?

If pupils are never given simple, age-appropriate ways to understand why someone learns differently, communicates differently or experiences the world differently, the gap between awareness and behaviour remains.

Children rarely intend to be unkind. More often, they simply do not yet have the tools to understand what someone else may be experiencing.

This is where early empathy education becomes important.

Just as schools deliberately teach literacy and numeracy, we can also teach the social and emotional skills that help children navigate difference: curiosity, kindness, patience and understanding. These are not abstract values. They are practical skills that shape how pupils treat one another in classrooms, corridors and playgrounds.

When children learn early that everyone carries their own challenges — sometimes visible, sometimes hidden — something powerful happens. Instead of asking “What’s wrong with them?”, they begin asking “How can I be a good friend?”

One practical example of this approach is The Kindness Crew, a primary school initiative I developed to help children understand differences through storytelling and discussion. Through story and characters, the programme introduces pupils to different ways people experience the world, encouraging curiosity, empathy and kindness toward differences that may not always be visible.

In recent school trials involving over 500 pupils across primary year groups, teachers reported extremely high levels of engagement, with 95% of pupils described as mostly or highly engaged with the content. Feedback also suggested strong impact across key developmental areas including empathy, emotional intelligence, understanding differences, positive behaviour culture and PSHE/RSHE learning outcomes, with average scores above 4 out of 5 across all measures. Among younger pupils in Years 1–3, scores were even higher, reaching up to 4.75 out of 5, suggesting these concepts resonate particularly strongly in early primary years. 

Recognising the pressures schools already face, the initiative was deliberately designed to remove common barriers to participation: it is free for schools and requires no preparation from teachers, with pilot feedback confirming that most assemblies required less than ten minutes of preparation or none at all. 

The goal is not simply awareness. It is about embedding positive behaviour change.

If we want classrooms where all children feel they belong, understanding cannot begin in adulthood. It must begin much earlier.

Because before behaviour policies, intervention strategies and support frameworks take effect, something more fundamental shapes the culture of a school: how children learn to see each other.

And that lesson may be one of the most important we teach.

Beyond national conversations, we want to understand the lived reality in education settings.

• What issues are presenting most often?
• What barriers are schools and colleges facing?
• Where is support most needed?

This short, anonymous survey takes around four minutes to complete and is open to educators working with students aged 11 to 18. The insights gathered will help shape future support, resources and professional development, ensuring the voices of the profession are heard, shared and amplified.

As a thank you, participants will receive access to a live webinar delivered by Thrive, specialists in young people’s social and emotional development, on Friday 27th February. The session will respond directly to the themes emerging from the survey and share practical strategies for schools and colleges. We really appreciate your time and insight. 

Updates from this work will be shared across social channels in the coming weeks.