Bumper half-term catch-up: What mattered for STEM teachers

This is a “join-the-dots” round-up for busy teachers: the headlines, what they might mean in classrooms (especially science, maths, computing, DT), and a few prompts to take into department time. Duplicate coverage has been consolidated so you’re not reading the same announcement five times.

The big picture: SEND + the Schools White Paper took centre stage

If you only read one “system” story this half-term, make it this: the Schools White Paper landed with major proposals on trusts, admissions, disadvantage and accountability — alongside a significant reshaping of SEND support, including a new layered model and new responsibilities for schools. This matters in STEM because it affects class composition, the practicality of lab work, resourcing (including technician time), and how assessment evidence is gathered for pupils who may not show what they know in standard formats.

SEND in practice: what the proposals could mean day-to-day

A clear thread in this period is a move toward “earlier, more local, more consistent” support — with schools expected to capture needs and provision for many pupils through new plans (distinct from the most complex cases). If you’re a STEM teacher, think in practical terms: what adjustments do pupils need to access instructions, equipment routines, safety briefings, and assessment that requires extended writing, speed, or graph interpretation?

Schools Week also reported the government expects all secondary schools to have “inclusion bases” to bridge mainstream and specialist provision — a signal that more support will be delivered on-site, not off-site. That can be brilliant when it’s resourced properly — but it can also create timetable and staffing complexity if the “base” becomes a catch-all holding space.

FE Week also flagged what SEND changes could mean for colleges: new duties around staff training, accountability agreements and tailored support plans for learners. If you teach 14–19 or work closely with FE partners, this is worth reading for transition planning.

Safeguarding meets technology: KCSIE 2026 (draft) and what’s new

Draft updates to Keeping Children Safe in Education (KCSIE) landed mid-February. The strongest “STEM adjacency” this time is the way safeguarding is keeping pace with technology: expectations around online filtering and monitoring, new clarity on deepfakes as a form of peer-on-peer abuse, and explicit framing of misogyny as harmful sexual behaviour. It’s also a reminder that safeguarding is not a pastoral bolt-on — it shapes how we teach digital literacy, how we handle AI tools, and how we respond when learning moves online.

One “soft” but important companion piece this period: Schools Week on misinformation and the burden placed on teachers to referee reality. If you teach science, maths or computing, you’re already on the front line of this — climate, vaccines, AI-generated content, data misinterpretation, and “viral facts” that aren’t.

Buildings, equipment and opportunity: estates + apprenticeships

Here’s a story with a properly tangible “STEM teacher” angle: the education estates strategy and capital funding decisions don’t just affect roofs and boilers — they affect whether labs are safe, whether workshops can run, and whether pupils have access to modern equipment. Schools Week reported changes to capital repair processes (including what replaces CIF-style bidding for some settings), and FE Week reported a related pledge: construction firms working on school and college building projects will need to provide apprenticeship and T Level placement opportunities.

If you’re doing careers work this half-term: this is a golden “local employer” hook. Estates projects are visible. They can become authentic case studies for materials, structures, surveying, CAD, data logging and sustainability — plus real placements.

National Apprenticeship Week energy: what shifted in the conversation

Mid-February coverage had a strong “apprenticeships are changing” tone: funding pressure, concerns about non-compliance, and the push to widen access — including for learners with SEND and for early years workforce routes. For STEM teachers, the practical question is how confidently you can help pupils compare: A-levels, T Levels, apprenticeships, and applied qualifications — with honest messaging about what’s stable and what’s in flux.

Two linked “design” critiques also did the rounds: whether a one-size model works for foundation apprenticeships, and the broader anxiety about a system changing faster than employer confidence. Even if you’re not in FE, these help you coach pupils to ask smarter questions about the experience they’ll actually get (training time, support, assessment model, progression).

Phones, workload and the “hidden admin” of behaviour systems

Even when schools broadly agree on a direction (phone-free), the implementation cost is real. Tes reported research suggesting schools spend significant staff time managing phones. That matters because those are hours that could be going into feedback, practical prep, intervention, or just keeping adults well enough to teach. This is a useful prompt to check whether your policy is “simple enough to run” — especially in labs where safety and attention are non-negotiable.

STEM identity, sustainability and “what we signal matters”

Two thought-provoking “culture” pieces landed in Schools Week: one on why sustainability so often slips down the priority list under accountability pressure, and another on how to make tech jobs feel reachable — particularly for students from disadvantaged backgrounds. These aren’t quick wins, but they’re powerful because they point to what pupils notice: what we celebrate, what we display, who gets invited in, and which career pathways feel “for people like me”.

If you want a neat “classroom bridge” between these themes and curriculum: try pairing a computing lesson on data or AI with a sustainability question (energy, carbon, infrastructure), or a science lesson on materials with a careers link to modern construction, retrofitting, or green engineering — and then actively broaden who gets to see themselves in that story.

One more: Sky’s “explainer” strand on SEND and school reforms

Sky’s education topic page collected explainer videos and short pieces during the White Paper/SEND rollout (including explainers and parent perspectives). If you need a short, accessible way to brief colleagues or governors — or to anticipate parent questions — it’s a handy scan.

Evidence culture: a small EEF item with big long-term impact

On 10 Feb, the EEF launched a “Research Evidence Champion” opportunity in Scotland aimed at strengthening evidence use to improve outcomes for pupils experiencing socioeconomic disadvantage. Even if you’re not in Scotland, it’s a useful model: building local capacity so evidence doesn’t live only in reports — it lives in routines, CPD choices and implementation habits.

Reflections & prompts for STEM teams

• SEND + practical entitlement: If “more support in mainstream” becomes the direction of travel, what’s your department’s minimum practical entitlement? What has to stay hands-on, and what can be simulated without losing meaning?
• Assessment that measures understanding (not stamina): Which parts of your assessments reward speed and writing volume? What alternative evidence can you accept for the same learning goal (oral explanation, annotated diagrams, practical demonstration, structured response frames)?
• KCSIE + AI: Do staff have a shared script for AI-related incidents (deepfakes, image sharing, harassment)? Where does your computing curriculum explicitly teach the “how it works” and the “how it harms”?
• Phones policy as a workload issue: If your policy is consuming staff time, what could simplify it (consistent storage, fewer exceptions, clearer escalation)? What would you stop doing to make it sustainable?
• Estates and careers: Is there a local school/college build or retrofit nearby? Could you build a unit around it (materials, energy, forces, data, design) and attach a real encounter (site visit, contractor talk, T Level placement awareness)?
• Sustainability that survives accountability: What’s one “hard-wired” change you can embed (procurement choice, project theme, display, student leadership role) so sustainability doesn’t depend on one enthusiastic teacher?
• Tech jobs feel reachable: Look at your examples and displays: whose stories appear? Whose pathways are explained? Try one deliberate change this month that widens “who belongs” in STEM.