Blogs

An educator-facing long-read pulling together key stories from Tes, Schools Week, FE Week and the EEF. Duplicate coverage has been consolidated, with links to the original stories.

Quick map (if you only have two minutes)

• AI safeguarding moved firmly into the spotlight, with teachers reporting pupils using AI to create sexual images of classmates and, in some cases, staff.
• Ofsted is testing AI to help analyse parent and pupil survey responses, raising familiar questions about human oversight and context.
• Digital assessment remained contested, with AQA arguing that fears around digital exams do not match the evidence while recent technical failures continue to shape confidence.
• SEND funding could face a major redesign, with proposals to change how mainstream schools receive money to support pupils with additional needs.
• The disadvantage gap remains wider than before the pandemic, particularly in the early years, sharpening the focus on early intervention.
• New EEF evidence identified three promising early years programmes supporting language, communication and self-regulation.
• Technical education demand is growing, but FE leaders argue the wider system still needs to catch up with young people's appetite for vocational routes.

1) AI-generated sexual images: this is now a live safeguarding issue for schools

One of the most serious stories of the week came from Schools Week, which reported survey findings suggesting that a quarter of teachers were aware of pupils using artificial intelligence to generate sexual images of classmates. One in ten respondents also said they knew colleagues who had been targeted.

The rapid improvement of image-generation tools means schools are dealing with a form of abuse that can be carried out quickly, sometimes using an ordinary photograph taken from social media. The technology may be new, but the safeguarding principles are not: consent, sexual harassment, bullying, image-based abuse and the protection of children and staff all apply.

This is particularly relevant to computing and wider STEM education because pupils need more than a warning that "AI can be dangerous". They need to understand how synthetic media is created, why apparently convincing content may not be real, and how technical capability differs from ethical or lawful use.

Schools also need clear reporting routes. A pupil or member of staff targeted by a synthetic sexual image should not have to explain the technology before being taken seriously. Policies should focus first on the harm and safeguarding response, then on how the content was created or distributed.

2) Ofsted tests AI to analyse parent and pupil survey responses

Ofsted is testing artificial intelligence to help inspectors review written responses submitted through parent and pupil surveys. The aim is to help inspectors identify themes across large volumes of text more efficiently.

Sector responses have been cautiously positive about the potential to reduce workload, but there are understandable concerns about human oversight. Survey comments are highly contextual. Sarcasm, conflicting experiences and a small number of repeated complaints can all be difficult to interpret without understanding the school.

This is a useful real-world AI case study for STEM classrooms. The question is not simply whether an AI system can summarise text. It is whether the summary is sufficiently accurate, transparent and appropriately checked for the decision being made.

That distinction is increasingly important for pupils. Low-risk AI use, such as organising ideas, is different from using an automated output as evidence in a high-stakes judgement. The greater the consequence, the stronger the need for verification and accountable human decision-making.

3) Digital exams: AQA says the fears do not 'stack up'

AQA's chief executive has argued that concerns about digital exams are often greater than the evidence justifies. The exam board is continuing work towards digital assessment, with the wider sector considering how on-screen examinations could become a larger part of the assessment system.

The argument lands at an interesting time. Schools have recently experienced technical problems involving Sats results and online marking systems, so concerns about resilience are not theoretical. At the same time, pupils increasingly work digitally in education, employment and everyday life.

STEM subjects raise particularly interesting questions. How should pupils draw diagrams, show multi-stage mathematical working, annotate graphs or manipulate complex scientific notation on screen? Could digital assessment make simulations and data analysis more authentic, or would interface skills begin to influence subject performance?

The useful debate is therefore not "paper good, screens bad" or the reverse. It is about validity. Assessment should measure the knowledge and thinking it claims to assess without creating unnecessary barriers or introducing avoidable technical risk.

4) Assessment reliability remains under scrutiny

Assessment reliability remained in the news as OCR defended its decision not to carry out a full re-mark of a controversial GCSE paper. The story follows a difficult exam season in which mistakes and technical issues across several assessment processes have attracted significant attention.

For teachers, the challenge is maintaining pupil confidence while being realistic about the fact that assessment systems are designed and operated by people. Errors can occur. What matters is whether awarding organisations identify them, communicate clearly and use appropriate processes to prevent candidates being disadvantaged.

There is also a classroom lesson here. Pupils should develop enough subject confidence to recognise when a question appears inconsistent or unexpected without assuming that every difficult problem is wrong. That combination of healthy scepticism and disciplined reasoning is central to STEM.

5) SEND funding: plans point towards a major change for mainstream schools

Tes reported plans for a significant shake-up of how schools receive funding to support pupils with SEND. The proposals sit within the wider move towards greater mainstream inclusion and attempts to address a system facing rising demand and substantial financial pressure.

Funding mechanisms can sound distant from classroom practice, but they determine whether schools can employ specialist staff, provide additional adult support, invest in assistive technology and adapt environments. A poorly designed system can also create incentives for schools and families to pursue formal processes simply to unlock support.

For STEM departments, there is a very practical question: what does inclusive curriculum access actually cost? Adapted equipment, technician preparation, smaller practical groups, specialist software and staff training may all require resource. Inclusion cannot rely indefinitely on individual teachers improvising around structural gaps.

6) What can England learn from other countries trying to reform SEND?

Tes also looked internationally at how other education systems have attempted to improve support for pupils with SEND. The comparison is useful because England is not alone in trying to balance specialist provision, mainstream inclusion, family confidence and rising demand.

International comparisons need care. A model that works in one country cannot simply be lifted into another with different funding, workforce and accountability systems. However, they can help expose assumptions about what is inevitable and where alternative approaches may exist.

At classroom level, the strongest principle remains consistent: pupils should have access to ambitious learning with appropriate support. In STEM, that means adapting access without automatically simplifying the intellectual content of a task.

7) The disadvantage gap: an early challenge that becomes harder to reverse

New analysis highlighted by Schools Week found that the disadvantage gap remains wider than it was before the pandemic. Compared with 2019, the gap was reported to be 17 per cent wider in the early years, 9 per cent wider at key stage 2 and 5 per cent wider at GCSE.

The early years figure is particularly important. Differences in language, communication, self-regulation and early mathematical understanding can shape pupils' later experiences of the curriculum. By secondary school, teachers are often responding to gaps that have accumulated over many years.

STEM teachers should resist deficit assumptions about disadvantaged pupils. The issue is not a lack of ability or curiosity. Pupils may have had fewer opportunities to encounter specialist vocabulary, informal science experiences, coding, enrichment or adults working in STEM careers.

Strong curriculum teaching matters, but so does access. Departments should ask who attends trips, joins clubs, enters competitions and receives encouragement to continue with STEM subjects.

8) Three early years programmes show promising results

The Education Endowment Foundation published new independent evaluations identifying three early years programmes with positive effects on children's development. NELI Preschool, Talking Time and Emotion Coaching have all been designated EEF Promising Programmes.

The programmes focus on areas including language, communication, self-regulation and pro-social behaviour. These may not immediately sound like STEM interventions, but they support many of the foundations needed for later STEM learning.

Scientific reasoning requires pupils to describe observations, compare ideas and explain cause and effect. Mathematics requires sustained attention, confidence with mistakes and the ability to communicate thinking. Practical work requires self-regulation and collaboration.

The wider lesson is that early STEM development does not begin with teaching children advanced scientific facts. It begins with talk, noticing, counting, comparing, predicting, questioning and learning how to persist when an answer is not immediate.

9) Technical education: young people's appetite is growing, but can the system keep up?

FE Week highlighted growing interest among young people in technical and vocational education, while arguing that the wider skills system needs to respond more quickly. This comes during continued reform of apprenticeships, post-16 qualifications and regional skills planning.

For STEM teachers, this is an important careers message. Many pupils enjoy applied problem-solving but still receive a relatively narrow picture of what successful progression looks like. Engineering, digital, construction, energy and technical health roles all include routes that do not begin with a traditional university degree.

Schools should be careful not to present technical education as the alternative for pupils who are "less academic". High-quality technical routes demand knowledge, mathematical confidence, communication and the ability to apply learning in unfamiliar situations.

The practical challenge is keeping careers information current. Qualifications, apprenticeships and local provision are changing quickly, so departments need strong relationships with careers leaders, colleges, training providers and employers.

10) PE and school sport: transition funding increased after schools raise concerns

The DfE increased transitional funding linked to changes to the PE and sport premium after school leaders raised concerns about the timescale. Funding was increased to £150 million and the start of the new school sport partnerships network was pushed back.

Although this sits outside traditional STEM subject boundaries, there are useful connections. Sport increasingly draws on data analysis, biomechanics, materials science, physiology and technology. It can also provide a highly accessible context for pupils who do not initially identify with STEM.

Cross-curricular work is most effective when it adds genuine disciplinary value rather than forcing a connection. Analysing performance data, investigating forces in movement or exploring wearable technology can all provide authentic STEM contexts.

11) Governance, transparency and the infrastructure behind STEM teaching

The updated Academy Trust Handbook brought a series of changes for trusts, including new expectations around financial transparency and governance. For classroom teachers, handbook changes can feel distant from the daily work of teaching, but governance decisions shape the resources, systems and priorities within which departments operate.

STEM provision often depends on long-term investment rather than one-year purchasing decisions. Laboratories need maintenance, equipment needs replacing and digital infrastructure needs planned renewal. Good governance should help trusts understand these costs as curriculum infrastructure.

Subject leaders can support this by making needs visible. A simple three-to-five-year equipment and infrastructure plan is more useful than waiting until a major item fails and requesting emergency funding.

Reflections & prompts for STEM teams

1) AI safeguarding: Does your safeguarding process explicitly cover synthetic sexual images and deepfakes? Check that pupils and staff know how to report concerns without needing to prove how an image was created.

2) AI and high-stakes decisions: Use Ofsted's survey trial as a classroom discussion. When is AI summarisation useful, and when does the consequence of a decision require stronger human verification?

3) Digital assessment: Pick one STEM assessment task and ask what changes when it moves on screen. Does the technology remove barriers, or does it introduce a new skill that is unrelated to the subject knowledge being assessed?

4) SEND funding and practical access: Identify the actual resource cost of one successful STEM adaptation. Technician time, equipment, software and staff training should be visible in inclusion planning.

5) Disadvantage and enrichment: Look at participation in your clubs, competitions, trips and optional STEM activities. Who is missing? Consider moving one high-value experience into the curriculum so access does not depend on opting in.

6) Early STEM foundations: For primary and early years colleagues, choose one routine that develops mathematical or scientific talk: noticing, comparing, predicting, explaining or asking a better question.

7) Technical routes: Audit the language used when discussing apprenticeships and technical education. Are these routes presented as ambitious choices, or subtly framed as alternatives for pupils who are "not academic"?

8) STEM infrastructure: Start a three-to-five-year department equipment plan. Record age, condition, replacement priority and curriculum impact. Make investment needs visible before equipment fails.