The Week in Education: What mattered for STEM teachers

An educator-facing long-read that joins the dots across Schools Week, Tes, FE Week, Sky News and the EEF. Duplicates removed; links included so you can dig deeper.

Quick look (if you only have two minutes)

• Maths grouping is back in the spotlight (sets vs mixed attainment) – with fresh evidence and plenty of nuance.
• Inclusion and accountability are rubbing against each other (how inspection judgements interact with SEND and disadvantage).
• Behaviour data points upward (record exclusions; primary suspensions rising) – with implications for safety in practical STEM.
• Workforce stressors keep stacking (supply agency fee caps; falling rolls; union action chatter).
• Post-16 is full of “plumbing” changes (funding rate debate, green skills quality, VAT, provider stability).
• Early years and home habits still matter (screen use in the under-2s) – the long tail into attention, language and learning.

1) Sets vs mixed attainment: the maths debate just got better evidence (and still isn’t “solved”)

Few topics create stronger staffroom opinions than whether to set pupils by prior attainment or teach mixed-attainment classes. This week, the debate shifted because we got robust, England-based evidence rather than “it worked in my last school” anecdotes. The Education Endowment Foundation (EEF), working with UCL, published new findings suggesting pupils in mixed-attainment maths classes made slower progress on average than those grouped by attainment – with the biggest impact on higher prior attainers. Importantly, the same research suggests low prior attainers and disadvantaged pupils did not make significantly less progress in sets.

The useful bit for teachers is the nuance: whichever structure you use, the quality of teaching, curriculum sequencing, and the expectations for stretch/support matter. Mixed attainment demands intentional “stretch routes” so the ceiling doesn’t drop; setting demands flexibility so pupils can move between groups based on learning, not identity. If you lead maths (or support maths across science and computing), it’s a helpful moment to revisit how you monitor progress, how you challenge high attainers, and how you avoid narrowing the curriculum for “lower” groups.

2) Inclusion meets accountability: are inclusive schools more likely to be marked down?

This week’s inclusion headline wasn’t “a new SEND policy” – it was a question about what happens when school systems are asked to be more inclusive at the same time as they are judged against national averages. Both Schools Week and Tes reported NAHT analysis of inspection reports suggesting schools with higher proportions of pupils with SEND (and schools with higher disadvantage) are more likely to receive ‘needs attention’ judgements for achievement and attendance/behaviour under the new framework.

Whatever view you take, this matters for classroom staff because it shapes leadership priorities and pressure. For STEM teams, it also affects the practical realities of inclusion: safe practicals, adult support, predictable routines, sensory load, and assessment formats that allow pupils to show understanding rather than just stamina.

3) Behaviour data: exclusions hit a record, and primary suspensions keep rising

Two Tes stories give a clear sense of direction: the spring term saw the highest number of permanent exclusions on record, and primary suspensions are rising even as secondary rates soften slightly. The through-line leaders point to is “complexity of need” (including SEND and mental health), plus capacity pressures.

This is not just a behaviour-policy story; it’s a safety story for STEM. Labs and workshops add risk when routines aren’t consistent: movement around the room, equipment issue, sharp/hot/chemical hazards, and practical instructions that require attention. If behaviour volatility is increasing, it’s worth making practical routines simpler, more predictable, and more scaffolded – not as a concession, but as a safety-and-learning upgrade.

4) Workforce pressures: supply fee caps, falling rolls, and “who pays for stability?”

Schools Week reported details of a new framework and fee caps for supply agencies (with daily agency fees capped within a set range from September). This is partly about value for money, but it’s also about stability: where schools are leaning on supply heavily, they need cost control and clearer procurement routes.

Meanwhile, Tes explored the quieter, longer-running force reshaping staffing: falling pupil rolls. The impact isn’t uniform: some schools face acute budget squeezes and staffing decisions; others see opportunities to reduce class sizes. In STEM, the risk is that “efficiency savings” cut technician time or specialist teaching capacity, which disproportionately affects practical learning and subject breadth.

5) Trust finances and leadership moves: a reminder that governance affects classrooms

Schools Week published analysis showing a mixed financial picture across trusts: more than before in significant deficit, while others have improved. This kind of story can feel distant, but it lands in very close places: staffing structures, CPD budgets, technician capacity, and whether practical subjects get protected when savings are required.

Schools Week also reported that Ark’s CEO Lucy Heller will step down at the end of the academic year after more than two decades. Leadership changes at large trusts matter because they often bring shifts in priorities, structure, and what “good” looks like (curriculum, behaviour, inclusion, accountability).

6) Inspection and pay: NAHT signals escalation (and the sector debates the cost of change)

Tes covered NAHT conference motions backing an indicative ballot on pay (and wider escalation) and separate motions exploring stronger action in response to the new Ofsted framework. There’s a lot of heat in this topic, so it’s worth pulling out what’s useful for teachers: uncertainty adds cognitive load. When schools aren’t sure what will be judged (and how), they can over-produce evidence, over-track, and over-commit staff time.

The practical STEM question is: what will you protect, whatever the external pressure? In most departments that means safe practical work, clear explanations, lots of practice, and targeted feedback – not extra paperwork.

7) Enrichment entitlements: a good idea, tight timeline, big operational questions

Enrichment moved from “nice to have” to “core expectation” again this week. Tes reported school leaders criticising the timeline for introducing enrichment benchmarks (linked to proposals for a “core enrichment entitlement” across categories like arts/culture, civic engagement, nature/adventure, sport and life skills). If enrichment becomes an inspection consideration, schools will need clarity about what counts, how it’s evidenced, and how it’s delivered without squeezing curriculum time.

STEM angle: enrichment is one of the strongest levers for widening participation in science and tech – but only if access is real. Think about the pupils who don’t attend after-school clubs (transport, caring responsibilities, cost) and how you create “default” STEM experiences within the timetable.

8) FE & skills: green jobs, 16–19 funding, VAT, and provider stability

If you care about the “STEM pipeline”, FE Week was packed this week. Three linked messages came through clearly: (1) colleges are under pressure to deliver ambitious outcomes on tight 16–19 funding; (2) green skills demand is rising fast, but quality and safety are inconsistent; and (3) the system still has fragile parts (tax rules, provider collapses, workforce incentives that can create tensions).

The green skills investigation is the most “STEM” of the lot: it highlights concerns about low-quality online training, shortage of tutors, and unclear policy signals. The classroom translation is powerful: when you talk about climate and energy transitions, you can also talk about what high-quality training looks like, how we regulate safety, and how skills systems build trust.

9) Early years: screen use in the under-2s (and why it matters later)

Sky News reported research suggesting more than two-thirds of children under two use screens, with some very high reported daily exposure. It’s not a “schools-only” lever, but it does connect to things teachers feel: attention, sleep, language development, and how confident children are with sustained, effortful tasks. The most useful response in schools is often practical and non-judgemental: build talk, routine, hands-on exploration, and predictable behaviour-for-learning structures that help pupils regulate.

Reflections & prompts for STEM teams

1) Sets vs mixed attainment: If you teach mixed groups, where is your stretch built in (tasks, questioning, extension pathways)? If you set, where is movement between sets protected and normalised?

2) Inclusion and practical work: Choose one lab/workshop bottleneck (equipment issue, noise/sensory load, multi-step instructions, written-only evidence). Trial one universal adjustment for two weeks and collect pupil feedback.

3) Behaviour and safety: If exclusions/suspensions are rising, do your practical routines reduce risk or increase it? Audit entry, seating, equipment issue, and escalation scripts. Pick one routine to simplify.

4) Workforce stability: If supply use is high in your setting, what would reduce disruption most: shared lesson “packs”, clearer routines, better handovers, or timetable design? Pick one action that protects learning when cover is needed.

5) Enrichment access: Which STEM experiences are currently “opt-in” (clubs, trips, competitions) and therefore least accessible? What can you timetable or embed so every pupil gets it by default?

6) Green skills realism: When you teach climate/energy transitions, do pupils also learn how training quality and safety are regulated? Try a short enquiry: “What counts as a good qualification, and how do we know?”

7) Early foundations: What’s one Year 7 routine you can strengthen that supports pupils arriving with fragile attention/language (explicit vocabulary, talk frames, structured note-taking, predictable starts)? Tiny changes compound.