Blogs

The Week in Education: What mattered for STEM teachers

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)

• Technical education moved further down the age range, with ministers considering new or reformed GCSE-level qualifications alongside planned technical pathways from age 14.
• SEND reform hit another implementation warning, with councils highlighting shortages of specialist staff, teacher burnout and the risk of losing parental confidence.
• Disadvantage dominated the evidence conversation, with new EEF analysis showing literacy and attendance at the top of schools' Pupil Premium priorities.
• Pupil Premium is increasingly plugging wider gaps, with schools using the funding for basics such as food and core staffing as well as targeted educational support.
• Behaviour research challenged one-size-fits-all approaches, linking suspension risk to SEND, disadvantage, belonging and relationships as well as behaviour itself.
• Regional attainment inequalities remain stubborn, with northern areas disproportionately represented among places where top A-level grades have fallen since 2019.
• School accountability is back under scrutiny, with the new education secretary calling for a more supportive system while debate continues over Ofsted's new report cards.
• FE faces its own inclusion and accountability questions, from SEND reform to new T Level performance measures and delays to adult skills provision.

1) Technical education from 14: new GCSE-level qualifications could be on the way

One of the clearest STEM stories of the week came from education secretary Lucy Powell, who said new or reformed GCSE-level technical qualifications may eventually be needed to support the government's planned technical pathways for 14-year-olds.

The pathways are due to begin in 2028 and will initially use existing qualifications such as technical awards. Longer term, however, ministers will work with schools, employers and local authorities to explore whether the qualification landscape needs to change.

This could be significant for STEM. Applied engineering, digital, construction, health, manufacturing and environmental routes can give pupils a strong reason to use science and maths knowledge in context. The challenge will be avoiding an early divide between supposedly "academic" and "technical" pupils.

High-quality technical education should be intellectually ambitious. It should deepen rather than narrow knowledge, retain progression options and make it easier for pupils to see where STEM learning can take them.

2) SEND reform: councils warn of 'critical' implementation risks

Tes reported that early council implementation plans have identified significant risks to the government's SEND reforms. These include shortages of specialist professionals, teacher burnout, increased demand for statutory support and the possibility that families interpret changes primarily as a cost-cutting exercise.

That matters because the reforms depend heavily on mainstream schools meeting a wider range of needs earlier, supported by national inclusion standards and greater access to specialist expertise. If the expertise is not available, the pressure falls back onto classroom teachers.

STEM subjects make some of those capacity questions particularly visible. A pupil may need adaptations to practical instructions, equipment, sensory demands, transitions or recording methods. These changes are achievable, but they require planning, technician involvement and sometimes additional adult support.

The most sustainable approach remains strong universal teaching combined with specialist support where it genuinely adds value. Inclusion cannot simply mean asking teachers to absorb more complexity without time, training or resources.

3) Disadvantage: literacy and attendance dominate schools' Pupil Premium priorities

New EEF analysis of more than 1,200 Pupil Premium strategy statements found that nine in ten schools identify literacy as a major challenge for disadvantaged pupils, while around eight in ten identify attendance.

The findings are particularly relevant at the start of a new academic year because they show where schools themselves believe the biggest barriers sit. Literacy matters across the curriculum, not only in English. In STEM, pupils need to interpret unfamiliar vocabulary, decode complex questions, distinguish relevant from irrelevant information and explain reasoning precisely.

Attendance creates a different but connected problem. STEM curricula are cumulative. Missing an early lesson on variables, proportional reasoning, forces, algebra or practical safety can make later content considerably harder to access.

The EEF also refreshed its Pupil Premium guidance and added monitoring and reflection tools. The useful message is to begin with diagnosis rather than interventions: identify the specific barrier facing your pupils, select an evidence-informed response and then check whether it is actually working.

4) What Pupil Premium is actually paying for: food, staffing and wider gaps in support

A Tes investigation of more than 500 Pupil Premium strategies found schools frequently using the funding not only for targeted academic interventions, but to provide food, support basic needs and maintain core staffing.

This raises an uncomfortable policy question. Pupil Premium is intended to improve educational outcomes for disadvantaged pupils, but schools increasingly operate as the final safety net when families cannot access sufficient support elsewhere.

For STEM departments, disadvantage can present in less obvious ways too: inability to pay for trips, lack of a suitable device or internet connection, limited access to enrichment, missing equipment at home or no family experience of STEM careers.

A useful department-level question is therefore not simply "who is Pupil Premium?" but "what is preventing these pupils from participating and succeeding here?" The answer may differ substantially between science, computing, maths and design and technology.

5) Suspensions: why blanket behaviour approaches are unlikely to work

New University of Manchester research reported by Tes suggests pupils can arrive at suspension through very different pathways. Factors associated with increased risk included disadvantage, SEND, bullying, peer pressure, relationships with school staff and substance use.

Importantly, pupils who felt a stronger sense of belonging at school and were more satisfied with their academic progress were less likely to be at risk. Positive relationships with adults and stronger emotional regulation were also associated with lower suspension risk.

This does not mean consistent behaviour expectations are unimportant. STEM practical environments need clear boundaries, perhaps more than most classrooms. But consistency of expectations does not require identical responses to every pupil or every cause of behaviour.

Strong routines create safety. Understanding what sits behind repeated disengagement helps make those routines sustainable.

6) A-level attainment: regional divides remain stubborn

Tes analysis following August's A-level results found that northern areas were disproportionately represented among local authorities where the share of top grades has fallen compared with 2019.

Of the 33 local authority areas where A*/A attainment had fallen since 2019, 21 were in the North. The contrast with London and the South East was particularly striking, with most areas there recording increases over the same period.

This matters for STEM because regional attainment differences interact with access to specialist teachers, post-16 provision, enrichment, university progression and local labour markets. National increases can therefore hide very different experiences for pupils depending on where they live.

The practical response is not to reduce ambition in areas with weaker historic outcomes. It is to strengthen curriculum quality, specialist teaching, pathways and enrichment so geography becomes less predictive of opportunity.

7) Ofsted and accountability: can inspection become more supportive?

Education secretary Lucy Powell said she wants the school accountability system to become "more supportive and understanding" of the work headteachers do, as debate continues around Ofsted's new report-card model.

Tes separately examined what removing single overall grades has actually changed, while Schools Week reported that Ofsted says it cannot reliably separate its analysis of attendance and behaviour judgements despite schools receiving separate grades.

For classroom teams, the risk around any accountability reform is workload displacement: schools respond to uncertainty by creating more documents, trackers and internal checks. The better question is whether inspection encourages leaders to understand teaching and pupil experience more accurately.

STEM leaders should protect what matters: coherent curriculum sequencing, safe and regular practical work, secure assessment, strong technician support and high expectations for every pupil. Those should remain visible without creating an additional "Ofsted version" of department life.

8) T Levels: new college-level scores aim to make outcomes clearer

The DfE is introducing an overall T Level attainment score for individual colleges, with the first results due to be published in February 2027 using 2025–26 outcomes.

The score will convert T Level grades into points and will take account of the core component, occupational specialism and completion of the industry placement. Performance will also be broken down more clearly for individual colleges within larger college groups.

Greater transparency can help pupils and families compare provision, but no single score captures the full quality of a technical course. Employer relationships, facilities, specialist teaching, placement quality and progression destinations remain important.

For STEM careers guidance, the new data could become another useful question rather than the only answer: how well do students achieve here, where do they progress, and what does the industry experience actually involve?

9) 'SEND more to FE': inclusion reform does not stop at Year 11

FE Week examined the government's ambition for more young people with SEND to be supported within mainstream further education rather than specialist provision. The direction is consistent with wider mainstream inclusion reforms, but colleges already face substantial capacity pressures.

Post-16 inclusion introduces its own challenges: larger campuses, different timetables, fewer familiar adults, industry placements, specialist equipment and greater expectations for independent learning. A model designed around school provision cannot simply be copied into FE.

For secondary STEM teachers, transition information is critical. A college needs to know what helps a pupil access a practical safely, manage instructions, use assistive technology and demonstrate understanding. "Has SEND" is far less useful than a clear description of successful classroom practice.

10) Adult skills: procurement problems can delay opportunity

FE Week reported a six-month delay to adult education provision in Tees Valley after the combined authority decided to rerun a procurement process. Up to £21 million of adult skills funding had been expected to support training for unemployed people studying up to level 3.

This is a reminder that skills policy depends on delivery infrastructure. Announcing funding or identifying skills shortages does not automatically create courses, teachers or learner places.

The STEM connection is particularly strong in areas seeking growth in engineering, manufacturing, digital and green industries. Local economies need retraining routes as well as school and college pipelines, and delays can leave both employers and learners waiting.

Reflections & prompts for STEM teams

1) Technical pathways: What would a genuinely ambitious technical route at 14 look like? Check that applied learning still develops secure science, maths and disciplinary knowledge rather than narrowing pupils' future choices.

2) SEND implementation: Which adjustments can your department make consistently without specialist input, and where is specialist expertise essential? Being clear about the distinction helps prevent unsustainable expectations.

3) Literacy in STEM: Identify one recurring literacy barrier this half term: vocabulary, reading exam questions, interpreting practical methods or extended explanations. Teach that skill explicitly rather than simply asking pupils to practise more.

4) Pupil Premium diagnosis: Look beyond the label. What specifically limits participation for disadvantaged pupils in your subject: attendance, vocabulary, equipment, confidence, access to enrichment or knowledge of pathways?

5) Behaviour and belonging: Keep practical safety rules consistent, but identify pupils whose repeated difficulties may be connected to disengagement, SEND, relationships or belonging. Consistency and curiosity can coexist.

6) Regional opportunity: If local post-16 outcomes or progression are weaker, how can your department compensate? Strengthen careers encounters, university and employer links, enrichment and explicit progression information.

7) Accountability without workload: Resist creating evidence solely for inspection. Start with what improves pupil learning and practical access, then make that existing work easy to explain.

8) SEND transition: For pupils leaving Year 11, record the STEM adjustments that actually work. Specific information about practicals, equipment, instructions and assessment is far more valuable than generic statements of need.