I recall Sir Kevan Collins saying when he was at EEF that much education research explicitly excluded SEND children as they, and I quote, “contaminated the data”. I wonder how often we ask who were the subjects of the research (i.e. undergrads)?

There is still time to book tickets for my online talk about what we can learn from autistic teachers about neurodiversity-affirming practices in schools. Monday 9th September at 6.30pm. Hosted by autistic-led charity @autangel.bsky.socialwww.eventbrite.co.uk/e/autism-and...

www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle...

‘The ceiling only took me five minutes’: if Michelangelo had used AI – the Stephen Collins cartoon

The Sistine Chapel – ‘a quick job, no probs’

She or he is a keeper.

A central point here - “As a country, we currently reward social segregation…” We prioritise the highest attainers and instinctively assume that the presence of lower attainers or those with SEND puts those high grades at risk.

What if.. there were no special schools? As part of a new series, Seamus Murphy uses this question to highlight how inclusion is much further from reality in mainstream schools than many think and what it would take to fix that. A fascinating read.⬇️ www.tes.com/magazine/lea...

What if...there were no special schools?

As part of a new series, trust leader Seamus Murphy conducts a thought experiment to offer a new view on SEND and inclusion

Thanks so much. Didn’t seem right, but sounds like the kind of thing that is assumed to be right because of, as you say, lack of visibility.

Saw some safeguarding training material from The Key today that said that home educated children are more likely to be abused. Instinctively I thought it was wrong. Anyone confirm or deny it? cc @learnwhatyoulive.bsky.social

Will look at this with interest. Thank you. (Typo in image for Isle of Wight.)

Looks beautiful.