Research Projects : My College

Building a creative model of education: Examining creative concepts in a primary school setting

This article has been published as part of the Rethinking Curriculum project, kindly funded by The Helen Hamlyn Trust.

Dr Emma Webster, Assistant Head of School, Prendergast Primary School

Context

We are a relatively new primary school, established in 2014 in South East London. From the outset, we knew we needed a curriculum that met the needs of our learners while reflecting our ethos. We are passionate about creativity, cultural capital and the wider, holistic experiences of education that we can offer.

Our first cohort consisted of children with high levels of deprivation, low parental engagement and limited learning experiences beyond the classroom. It was these children that inspired careful consideration of our curriculum, teaching and learning approaches, and an ambition to shift the culture of our school.

Our focus

We aimed to nurture and develop creativity in these children, acutely aware of the challenges they faced in achieving conventional academic outcomes. We recognised the need to invest in the whole child to support their success as 21st century learners and citizens. After an initial pilot study experimenting with different curriculum delivery models, we concluded that it was the teachers we needed to target first, alongside redesigning and implementing a new curriculum.

Drawing on existing literature and our own aims and ambitions, we identified three key areas for development:

The role of the individual teacher
The curriculum as a creative tool
The role of the learning environment(s)

We designed the implementation process (Sharples, Albers & Fraser, 2019) to ensure effective cultural change, recognising that this would take at least two to three years. The implementation process was deliberately flexible, mirroring the creative process we aimed to nurture in the classroom. We also ensured all staff had a clear understanding of how we expected this to work.

Our key questions were:

What is involved in teaching creatively?
How is creativity nurtured in the primary classroom through creative teaching and teacher creativity?

Curriculum and pedagogical approach

Our work aimed to explore how key elements of primary education synthesise to enable creative teaching practice and provide a model of creativity for teachers. These elements included the curriculum as a tool for creative teaching practice, the learning environment as a co-facilitator to creativity and the teachers themselves as creative practitioners. The work sought to establish a practical model for creativity, focused on practice in the classroom.

Creative teaching, or teaching creatively, means taking an active, practical approach. It places teachers and their practice at the forefront, recognising their instrumental role in fostering creativity. We therefore focused on how to address this change across the school. Teachers became active participants rather than passive recipients, applying key literature and research to their own practice.

Key approaches included:

Teacher questionnaires to gather understanding of creativity as a concept, teachers’ perceptions of their own creativity, and noticing shifts in creative teaching practice. These were used at different stages of the three-year journey to ensure the implementation process was effective and to assess whether it needed to adjusted.
Curriculum reviews to establish how curriculum changes worked in the classroom itself. The results of these reviews were used by leadership to make necessary changes within appropriate timescales.
Teacher CPD to ensure there was transparency about the changes being made and understanding of the literature that underpinned it, including key relevant models of creativity (Kaufman & Beghetto, 2009). Findings were shared, opinions were listened to, and honest feedback was encouraged. Subject- and skill-specific sessions also upskilled teachers with creative teaching approaches and encouraged them to take more risks in their practice.
Working parties to enable leaders to work closely with groups of teachers on subject-specific curriculum development, understanding and identifying how creativity was transferable between subject areas.
Learning environment audits to allow teachers to scrutinise spaces around the school, using research as a guide (Davies, et al. 2013), and identifying how they could be used more creatively.

In the first year, we focused on teacher ‘buy-in’ through CPD sessions and working parties as well as formalising the first draft of the curriculum. Skills were the ‘golden thread’ of our curriculum, providing teachers with guidance in developing both subject-specific and creativity-specific skills. The curriculum also allowed for authentic cross-curricular links and made explicit reference of how to use outdoor learning spaces.

Throughout the second and third years, we continued with our CPD programme and working parties, but also undertook questionnaires, monitoring activities, reviews and pupil discussions to understand how the three key elements contributed to greater creative awareness.

Findings and implications

Although our initial aim was to redesign the curriculum, our work highlighted the many interconnected strands that foster more creative teachers and, ultimately, more creative students. It proved vital to first develop effective creative teaching practice, as it holds the potential to nurture creativity in young learners. Teachers, curriculum design and learning environments each play a distinct role in this process. These areas also reflect the various models of creativity and the holistic process involved in nurturing creativity. Below, they are translated and analysed within the context of a primary school, and with potential implications for primary education more broadly.

Teachers as the individual: Teachers are as much the drivers of creativity as they are the individual within whom it should be developed. Teachers are at the very core of education, and for creativity to be effectively nurtured in pupils, their own creative growth is essential.

Curriculum design as the context and process: The what and how of education are fundamental. Domain content is vital as a springboard for creativity. The way in which a curriculum is designed and purposed enables teachers and learners to make connections, challenge, and innovate. Our curriculum placed skills at the heart, established authentic cross-curricular connections, and enabled a range of creative contexts and outcomes to be explored.

Learning environments as the place and motivation: Providing learners with the space to take risks, feel supported and be sensorily engaged fosters intrinsic motivation, connection-making, and celebration of each step of the creative process.

Recommendations

The impact of this study on our setting has been significant, and there has been a cultural shift in how teachers develop their own creativity and nurture it in their learners. Teachers display greater confidence in their practice and in shaping creative experiences for learners. Teacher planning has improved, learning outcomes are more varied and relevant to pupils, learning environments are utilised more effectively and there has been a marked increase in openness of sharing ideas and willingness to take risks. Authentic cross-curricular learning is evident across the school and pupils are more confident to talk about connections between areas.

However, it is important to recognise that the findings of this are specific to our setting, and not all cases would demonstrate the same level of change. Despite this, the lessons learned from it can perhaps help to influence policy and practice in other contexts, from understanding the importance of purpose, to focusing on authentic processes rather than short-lived products, that support the nurturing of creativity in both learners and teachers.

Recommendations for other school leaders:

Creativity should be celebrated in all areas of education and made a priority for teacher development for the purpose of the learners.
The curriculum should be well-designed to facilitate creativity, alongside the synthesis of knowledge and skill, using cross-curricular approaches.
Creativity should be adopted as a leadership style; leaders should be open and flexible in their approaches and demonstrate a strong awareness of the relevance of the creative process to implementing change, supporting colleagues and driving school improvement.
Learning environments should be crafted to support creative learning, e.g. through working walls in the classroom that are actively utilised by both pupils and teachers and celebration of ‘the product’ through displays in shared school spaces.
Teachers should be supported to understand the importance of creativity.

Potential directions for future work in this area:

Teacher training: Teachers are the drivers of change on the ground, but the pressures placed upon them and disparities in the quality of training programmes mean that creativity is often pushed down the agenda. Unifying and prioritising how teachers are trained in creative pedagogies and practices could lead to further success in nurturing creativity.
Curriculum design strategies: Further research is needed into purposeful curriculum design that considers the individuality of school settings, 21^st century priorities and authentic cross-curricular approaches.
Assessment of creativity: In education, assessment leads to value. Building on the work of Torrance (1984), further research into effective assessment of creativity could enhance its status and deepen understanding of how to nurture it.
Psychology of creativity: This work was not driven by psychology but understanding how to achieve creativity in students and teachers could impact on how creativity is effectively nurtured.
Longitudinal studies: There is great potential to carry out longitudinal studies on both the application of recent creativity theory, but also the practical implications emerging from this study.
Subject-specific creativity: In primary education teachers are generalists, but there is potential to explore how the creativity of each subject could be further understood and nurtured.
Creative capital: Building on the concept of cultural capital, creative capital (Florida, 2002) recognises the need to engage students with opportunities that foster creativity, critical and independent thinking, and curiosity from a young age to ensure they can make contributions to creative industries and society. Florida argues that communities thrive economically and socially when creative individuals engage with them, and school leaders should consider how to prepare children and young people to become authentic creative individuals who can make positive contributions to 21st century life.

References

Baer, J. (2010) Is creativity domain specific? In J.C. Kaufman & R.J. Sternberg (Eds.), Cambridge Handbook of Creativity (321–341). New York: Cambridge University Press.

Craft, A. (2001) An analysis of research and literature on creativity in education. Qualifications and Curriculum Authority, 51(2), 1-37.

Davies, D., Jindal-Snape, D., Collier, C., Digby, R., Hay, P. & Howe, A. (2013) ‘Creative learning environments in education—A systematic literature review’, Thinking Skills and Creativity. Elsevier, 8, 80–91.

Florida, R. (2002). The rise of the creative class: And how it's transforming work, leisure, community and everyday life. New York: Basic Books.

Jeffrey, B. and Craft, A. (2004) ‘Teaching creatively and teaching for creativity: Distinctions and relationships’, Educational Studies, 30(1), 77–87.

Kaufman, J. C. and Beghetto, R. A. (2009) ‘Beyond Big and Little: The Four C Model of Creativity’, Review of General Psychology, 13(1), 1–12.

Sharples, J., Albers, B. & Fraser, S. (2019) Putting Evidence to Work: A School’s Guide to Implementation. London: Education Endowment Foundation.

Smith, J. K., & Smith, L. F. (2010) Educational creativity. In J. C. Kaufman & R. J. Sternberg (Eds.), The Cambridge Handbook of Creativity (250–264). New York: Cambridge University Press

Torrance, E.P. (1984) The role of creativity in identification of the gifted and talented. Gifted Child Quarterly, 28(4), 153-156.

Webster, E. (2023) Building a creative model of education: A case study analysing key creative concepts in a primary school setting. Doctorate in Education (EdD) thesis, University of Buckingham.

Rethinking Curriculum through Creativity: A Trust Leader’s Perspective

This article has been published as part of the Rethinking Curriculum project, kindly funded by The Helen Hamlyn Trust.

Olivia Anthony, Governance Officer, Embark Federation

Introduction

As Trust Leader of the Embark Federation (MATMulti-academy trust - a group of schools working in collaboration, governed by a single set of members and directors), I have the privilege of guiding a family of 23 schools -19 primaries and 4 secondaries - united by a shared mission to provide extraordinary opportunities for our young people. Our schools are diverse in character, deeply rooted in their communities, and committed to ensuring that every young person, regardless of background, is given the chance to flourish.

At the heart of our vision lies a simple but profound belief: education should do more than prepare pupils for examinations. It should inspire curiosity, nurture creativity, and instil the confidence, resilience, and skills required to thrive in life. Too often, creativity is seen as an “optional extra,” marginalised by the pressures of accountability and performance measures. At Embark, we reject that view. We have placed creativity at the centre of our philosophy, not only because it enriches learning, but because it transforms lives.

Our approach to Curriculum and Creativity

Embark does not operate a single centralised curriculum. Each of our schools has the freedom to develop its own curriculum, shaped by its history, context, and community. This autonomy enables every school to retain its unique identity while benefitting from the collective strength of belonging to a federation.

What binds our schools together are six global curriculum themes: Identity and DiversityThe recognition of individual differences in terms of race, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, socio-economic status, physical ability, religious beliefs and other differences; Peace and Conflict; Social Justice; Saving Our Environment; Our Heritage; and Our World and Beyond. These themes provide a framework through which pupils can explore big ideas and make meaningful connections between subjects, their own lives, and the wider world.

Creativity threads through all six themes, supported by initiatives such as the Embark Award - a programme of 100 carefully designed activities that encourage young people to explore, imagine, and collaborate. From building dens and enjoying picnics with family, to taking part in arts activities and performance, the award ensures every young person experiences a rich and varied childhood.

We have also developed a wide range of trust-wide opportunities that complement individual schools’ curricula, particularly in the arts. These include annual dance festivals, artist residencies, illustrator visits, and partnerships with West End professionals. Through these experiences, children discover new talents, develop confidence, and learn the power of self-expression.

Rationale for Creative Curriculum

The rationale for prioritising creativity is grounded in both research and lived experience. During my first headship, I witnessed the transformative effect of performance and the arts. Under the leadership of my then-deputy Kathryn Mason, children led assemblies and performances that visibly boosted their confidence and self-esteem, with clear knock-on effects on attainment. Our results placed us in the top ten per cent nationally for progress - a powerful reminder that creativity and academic achievement are not mutually exclusive.

Educational research reinforces this perspective. Robinson (2011) argued that schools too often stifle creativity by prioritising conformity over innovation, despite creativity being a cornerstone of human progress. Studies on arts participation (Catterall et al., 2012) have shown significant associations between engagement in the arts and improved academic, social, and emotional outcomes. Work on cognitive development highlights how learning an instrument or engaging in drama stimulates both hemispheres of the brain, strengthening problem-solving and memory (Forgeard et al., 2008)

These insights align closely with our experience at Embark. For example, rather than providing struggling pupils with additional literacy or numeracy lessons, we introduced opportunities in music and the performing arts. Children who participated in brass orchestra programmes developed greater self-discipline and focus, which in turn translated into improved performance in English and mathematics.

In short, we believe creativity is not a distraction from core learning but a catalyst for it.

Implementation Journey

Our journey towards embedding creativity across Embark Federation has been iterative and collaborative, guided by three core principles: autonomy in the right places, equity of opportunity, and the belief that every initiative should deliver a tangible “MAT dividend” for children and their families.

From the outset in 2017, we set out a clear vision of creating schools that “stand out” at the heart of their communities, with creativity positioned as a cornerstone of our work. One of our earliest actions was to appoint a part-time fundraising and events manager with a background in the arts, ensuring that we had the expertise to design and deliver ambitious creative opportunities for pupils across the trust.

In the first phase of implementation, we piloted a number of several creative interventions designed to enhance engagement and improve attainment. One of the most significant of these was the introduction of a brass orchestra for pupils in receipt of the Pupil PremiumAdditional funding for publicly funded schools in England to raise the attainment of disadvantaged pupils of all abilities. Rather than simply providing additional lessons in English and mathematics, we offered these young people the opportunity to learn a musical instrument, perform together, and develop confidence as a group. The results were striking: not only did pupils demonstrate greater self-discipline and focus, but their performance in core subjects improved. Encouraged by this success, we scaled the initiative to benefit a wider cohort of children across the trust.

As our work developed between 2020 and 2022, we extended our creative offer through large-scale events and partnerships. We brought West End performers into schools, organised workshops at Pineapple Dance Studios in London, and forged a relationship with Hot House Jazz, giving hundreds of young people access to high-quality instrumental tuition. These opportunities provided a level of enrichment that individual schools could not have achieved in isolation, reinforcing our commitment to equity of opportunity.

We introduced the Embark Award, a trust-wide programme of 100 activities designed to encourage children to explore, create, and collaborate beyond the classroom. At the same time, our six global curriculum themes provided a unifying framework that encouraged schools to weave creativity into their curricular design in meaningful ways, from environmental projects to heritage exhibitions.

By 2023, the cumulative impact of this work was becoming clear. Twenty-one of our twenty-three schools were judged by OfstedThe Office for Standards in Education, Children’s Services and Skills – a non-ministerial department responsible for inspecting and regulating services that care for children and young people, and services providing education and skills to be good or better, including several that had never previously secured such a judgement. Academic outcomes improved year on year from 2019 to 2024. Most importantly, we have created a culture where creativity is celebrated, where pupils are given extraordinary opportunities to thrive, and where schools are united by a shared ambition to transform lives.

Findings and Impact

The impact of embedding creativity has been significant and multifaceted. Engagement in creative learning has supported improvements in core subjects by enhancing motivation, memory, and problem-solving skills. Young people who participated in music programmes, including the brass orchestra, reported feeling more confident and capable, and this was reflected in their classroom behaviour and attainment data.

Beyond academic outcomes, young people report greater belief in their own abilities, with many saying that participating in performances or creative workshops was “the best day of their lives.” Creativity has proven to be a great leveller, offering young people from disadvantaged backgrounds access to opportunities that would otherwise be unavailable. Our programmes have also fostered stronger community engagement, with dance festivals, art exhibitions, and performances bringing families together and strengthening the relationship between schools and their local communities.

To evaluate improvements in pupil confidence, resilience, and wellbeing, we utilise an annual pupil voice survey across all schools in the trust. Young people respond to a series of questions regarding their confidence, enjoyment of learning, and sense of belonging using a simple smiley-face scale, ensuring accessibility for all age groups. The results enable clear year-on-year comparisons and help identify areas of strength and development. These quantitative findings are complemented by teacher observations, which monitor changes in engagement, perseverance, and willingness to take on challenges. Further qualitative insights are gathered through informal discussions with pupils, providing an opportunity for them to articulate their experiences of creative projects in their own words. Collectively, this approach offers robust evidence of the positive impact of creative initiatives on self-esteem, resilience, and overall wellbeing across the trust.

These findings are consistent with national research. The Arts Council England (2014) reported that young people involved in the arts are more likely to continue in education or employment, while the Education Endowment Foundation (2019) has highlighted the potential of arts participation to improve both attainment and wider outcomes.

Challenges and Limitations

Our journey has not been without challenges. Balancing creativity with accountability pressures has required careful leadership. In times of financial constraint, ensuring sustained investment in the arts can be difficult, especially when funding formulas prioritise core subjects. Additionally, evaluating the long-term impact of creative initiatives is complex; improvements in confidence and resilience are not always easily measured.

Nevertheless, we have found that creativity strengthens rather than detracts from core academic learning. The key has been to maintain a clear sense of purpose: creativity is not a “bolt-on” but a driver of improved educational and life outcomes.

Recommendations for Practitioners

For those wishing to adopt a similar approach, we suggest:

Articulate a clear vision – creativity must be understood as integral to educational success, not a peripheral activity.

Balance autonomy with collaboration – allow schools to retain individuality while using trust structures to scale opportunities.

Leverage partnerships – collaborations with arts organisations, performers, and community groups add expertise and inspiration.

Focus on equity – ensure that opportunities are accessible to all pupils, particularly those from disadvantaged backgrounds.

Evaluate broadly – measure not only academic outcomes but also confidence, wellbeing, and community impact.

Conclusion

At Embark Federation, we are committed to building schools that stand out as hubs of creativity, aspiration, and community. Our experience has shown that creativity is not a luxury but a necessity - one that equips young people with the confidence, skills, and imagination to thrive in an ever-changing world.

As Trust Leader, I remain convinced that the creative curriculum we are developing is not only enriching the lives of our young people today but laying the foundations for their success tomorrow. By embedding creativity at the heart of our educational philosophy, we are not simply preparing pupils for exams - we are preparing them for life.

References

Arts Council England (2014) The value of arts and culture to people and society: An evidence review..

Catterall J, Dumais S & Hampden-Thompson G (2012). The Arts and Achievement in At-Risk Youth: Findings from Four Longitudinal Studies. National Endowment for the Arts.

Education Endowment Foundation (2019) [Online] Teaching and Learning Toolkit: Arts Participation.
Available at: https://educationendowmentfoundation.org.uk/education-evidence/teaching-learning-toolkit/arts-participation. (Accessed: September 2025)

Forgeard M, Winner E, Norton A and Schlaug G (2008) Practicing a musical instrument in childhood is associated with enhanced verbal ability and nonverbal reasoning. PLoS ONE, 3(10), p.e3566.

Robinson K (2011) Out of our minds: Learning to be creative. 2nd ed. Chichester: Capstone.

Embedding Communication in Creative Learning in a Specialist Setting

This article has been published as part of the Rethinking Curriculum project, kindly funded by The Helen Hamlyn Trust.

Kari Anson, Headteacher at Brays School, Forward Education Trust, UK

Introduction

Brays School is a special school in Birmingham serving 91 children with profound multiple learning difficulties (PMLD), significant learning difficulties (SLD), physical disabilities, and complex medical needs. The primary curriculum is designed around a thematic approach enriched by a multi-sensory drama studio known as The Creative Space. This immersive environment has been a sustainable feature of our school for over 15 years, offering tailored multi-sensory drama (MSD) workshops that complement our curriculum and support holistic development.

The Creative Space at Brays School operates on a half-termly thematic cycle aligned with the wider curriculum, such as themes like "The Body" or "Egypt." Each Friday, a dedicated ‘build team’ creates a multi-sensory immersive theatre environment, led by Creative Consultant, Harry Dawes. This environment is designed to provide rich, sensory experiences that engage children with profound and complex needs in meaningful play and exploration. Grounded in Early Years Foundation Stage (EYFS) principles, the workshops offer learners opportunities to explore through a range of schemas such as transporting and trajectory, supporting sensory regulation, cognitive development, and communication skills.

Harry Dawes provides teachers with detailed weekly overviews including learning intentions, context, and setup instructions supported by photographs. Each child is timetabled for a half-day session weekly in The Creative Space, where adults facilitate play and conduct observational assessments. The workshops evolve weekly within the theme but retain some consistent elements to allow repetition and consolidation, which aligns with research indicating that revisiting content through spaced and interleaved learning supports deeper understanding and mastery (DfEDepartment for Education - a ministerial department responsible for children’s services and education in England, 2023; Ofsted, 2023). The Creative Consultant delivers workshops every Monday and leads a weekly reflective session with staff to review and adjust practice. Funded for three days per week on a rotating basis, this ensures all children access at least ten weeks of facilitated workshops annually. On other days, staff lead workshops using the consultant’s guidance and receive six-week training sessions to embed multi-sensory environment (MSE) principles into classroom practice, fostering staff development and sustainable pedagogy.

This approach reflects key recommendations from the DfE Reading Framework and Ofsted research emphasising the importance of reducing sensory barriers (e.g. noise reduction), providing rich communication opportunities, and embedding high-quality, repeated learning experiences that build foundational skills (DfE, 2023). It also aligns with the EEF’s emphasis on targeted, evidence-based interventions delivered by trained adults, which are essential for supporting children with speech, language and communication needs (SLCN) and closing attainment gaps, particularly for disadvantaged learners (EEF, 2023; DfE, 2025). The Creative Space’s model of combining specialist input with whole-school capacity building through CPD exemplifies best practice in embedding sustained, high-impact support.

Our pedagogical focus is on enhancing communication and interaction skills for children with SEND, particularly through the creative arts. The Creative Space has demonstrated significant benefits for social and emotional learning (SEL), with 2023 research showing skill development and evidence of transferThe processes of applying learning to new situations beyond MSD sessions. Building on this success, we are now focusing on aligning the Creative Space provision more closely with pupils’ Education, Health and Care Plan (EHCP) communication outcomes, ensuring measurable progress linked to individualised targets.

This enquiry is supported by research from Unwin et al. (2021), which highlights improved attention and communication in autistic students within multi-sensory environments (MSEs). It also responds to an identified need within our school: staff were not consistently linking children’s engagement in Creative Space activities to their individual IEP and EHCP targets. Addressing this gap is crucial to ensuring that the Creative Space has a demonstrable positive impact on pupils’ communication skills and overall outcomes.

Our approach is informed by the Ofsted Research Review Series on Music (2023), which emphasises the importance of reducing cognitive load, breaking down tasks, and combining learning modes to enhance clarity and accessibility for pupils with SEND. The report highlights that curriculum adaptations must be contextual, with high expectations and appropriate interventions tailored to individual strengths and needs.

An additional critical focus is the effective use of Pupil Premium funding to ensure equitable access to the creative arts for all children, particularly those in receipt of Pupil Premium. At Brays, 32 per cent of our children are Pupil Premium recipients, and closing the attainment gap is a priority. Research indicates that engagement in the creative arts can foster communication, confidence, and broader personal development, which are key to narrowing disparities in outcomes (Ofsted, 2023; DfE, 2024). Our curriculum strategy aims to ensure that children receiving Pupil Premium achieve outcomes at least in line with their peers, using the Creative Space as a vehicle for inclusionAn approach where a school aims to ensure that all children are educated together, with support for those who require it to access the full curriculum and contribute to and participate in all aspects of school life and targeted intervention.

Curriculum and pedagogical approach

To enhance communication outcomes for children at Brays School, we introduced a targeted intervention deploying a specialist Teaching AssistantAn adult that assists a teacher in the classroom (TATeaching Assistant - an adult that assists the teacher in the classroom) with a Level 3 Speech and Language qualification into The Creative Space. Following pupil progress meetings, children who had not met their termly IEP communication targets were identified, and new SMART targets were set. Over a six-week period, the SALT TA worked closely alongside Creative Consultant, Harry Dawes, funded through the Pupil Premium budget, delivering direct communication-focused sessions and modelling to staff how to effectively use the MSE to support communication targets within a cross-curricular framework. The aim was to upskill staff in harnessing the MSE as a tool for teaching communication, thereby embedding this approach more widely across the school. Impact was evaluated by comparing pupil progress against communication and interaction targets, with a particular focus on Pupil Premium versus non-Pupil Premium children to assess equity in outcomes.

This approach is supported by research highlighting the benefits of multi-sensory environments for improving attention and communication in SEND learners (Unwin et al., 2021) and the importance of explicit, systematic instruction in communication interventions (Ofsted, 2023). The use of a specialist TA aligns with evidence from the ELKLAN framework (2025), which emphasises the value of trained communication practitioners in schools to enhance staff capacity and pupil outcomes . However, a limitation of this intervention is its reliance on a single dedicated member of staff; absence or turnover could disrupt continuity. Nonetheless, the TA’s ongoing ELKLAN Higher Level Communication Practitioner (HLCP) qualification represents a significant benefit, creating sustainable expertise within the school and supporting long-term capacity building.

Findings and implications

Pupil progress meetings following the six-week intervention showed a marked improvement in communication and interaction outcomes across the school. Specifically:

65% of communication targets were fully met,
30% were partially met,
and only 5% were unmet.

This is compared to baseline data where just 28% of targets were met, 47% partially met, and 25% unmet. This demonstrates a significant positive impact on learning outcomes linked to the targeted intervention using a specialist SALT TA within the multi-sensory environment. However, the comparison between Pupil Premium and non-Pupil Premium children revealed a slight disparity, with non-Pupil Premium pupils outperforming in target achievement (28% vs. 23%). This suggests that while overall strategies are effective, there remains a need to close the attainment gap to ensure equitable progress for disadvantaged pupils.

These findings highlight the critical role of targeted, specialist-led interventions in improving communication skills for children with SEND, particularly in the context of limited NHS speech and language therapy provision. The positive impact on pupil outcomes supports research advocating for explicit, systematic communication support delivered within engaging, multi-sensory settings (Ofsted, 2023; DfE, 2023). The intervention underscores the importance of embedding specialist expertise within school teams to build capacity and sustain high-quality provision. However, the persistent gap between Pupil Premium and non-Pupil Premium pupils indicates the need for ongoing monitoring and tailored strategies to promote equity.

Recommendations

Invest in ELKAN HLCP training - Given the increasing identification of children with SLCN and the shortfall in NHS provision, schools should consider investing in staff completing the ELKLAN HLCP This qualification has demonstrated impact beyond direct classroom intervention by enabling staff to identify and support children with SLCN who might otherwise miss out on timely support, and by fostering the development of high-quality communication provision across the school setting (ELKLAN, 2025). Schools could strategically use Pupil Premium funding to support this professional development, thereby addressing both capacity and equity challenges.
Develop SMART target writing - Schools should implement further staff CPD focused on the writing of SMART targets to ensure communication goals are clear, measurable, and achievable. This will enhance the precision and effectiveness of planning and monitoring pupil progress.
Broaden communication interventions - Evidence-based speech and language interventions recommended by the EEF (2023), such as targeted small group work and language-rich classroom environments, could be delivered by HLCP practitioners to extend the reach and impact of communication support.

Together, these combined approaches will strengthen whole-school capacity to meet the diverse communication needs of pupils, particularly those from disadvantaged backgrounds.

For further reading, see:

You may also be interested in reading this Impact article written by Farzana Chowdhury, Assistant Headteacher at Brays Special School, who expands on this case study, offering further insight into the implementation and impact of multi-sensory drama in this setting.

References

Chowdhury F (2024) Understanding the Use of Multi-Sensory Drama to Promote Social and Emotional Learning in Young People with Special Educational Needs and Disabilities. Master’s dissertation. [Birmingham City University]

Department for EducationThe ministerial department responsible for children’s services and education in England (DfE) (2023) The Reading Framework. Non-statutory guidance. Available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/the-reading-framework (Accessed: 1 September 2025).

Department for Education (DfE) (2024) Initial Teacher TrainingAbbreviated to ITT, the period of academic study and time in school leading to Qualified Teacher Status (QTS) and Early Career Framework. Available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/initial-teacher-training-and-early-career-framework (Accessed: 30 August 2025).

Department for Education (DfE) (2025) Using pupil premium: guidance for school leaders. Available at: https://www.gov.uk/guidance/pupil-premium-information-for-schools-and-alternative-provision-settings (Accessed: 1 September 2025).

Drama and Theatre (2024) The Creative Space – Drama Theatre Editors’ Award Winner 2024. Available at: https://www.dramaandtheatre.co.uk/content/features/the-creative-space-drama-theatre-editors-award-winner-2024 (Accessed: 15 September 2025).

Early Years Foundation Stage Statutory Framework (2025) Department for Education (DfE) (2025) Early Years Foundation Stage Statutory Framework for Group and School-based Providers. Available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/early-years-foundation-stage-framework--2 (Accessed: 1 September 2025).

Education Endowment Foundation (EEF) (2023) Evidence-based interventions to support pupils with speech, language and communication needs. Available at:
https://educationendowmentfoundation.org.uk/education-evidence/teaching-learning-toolkit/speech-language-and-communication-approaches (Accessed: 30 August 2025

Education Endowment Foundation (EEF) (2025) The EEF guide to the Early Years Pupil Premium. Available at: https://educationendowmentfoundation.org.uk/news/new-guidance-to-help-early-years-settings-make-the-most-of-the-increase-to-the-early-years-pupil-premium (Accessed: 1 September 2025).

ELKLAN (2025) How the HLCP Award is Transforming Communication Support in Schools and Early Years. Available at: https://elklan.co.uk/Blog/How_the_HLCP_Award_is_Transforming_Communication_Support_in_Schools_and_Early_Years (Accessed: 30 August 2025).

Ofsted (2023) Research Review Series: Music. Available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/research-review-series-music (Accessed: 30 August 2025).

Unwin K, Powell G and Jones C (2021) A sequential mixed-methods approach to exploring the experiences of practitioners who have worked in multi-sensory environments with autistic children. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 118, p.104061. DOI:10.1016/j.ridd.2021.104061

Empowering students: Why skills, self-awareness, and reflection matter more than ever

As education practitioners and experts in learning, we share a mission: to equip young people not only with academic knowledge, but with the enduring personal and employability skills that empower lifelong learning and positive transitions to further study, work, and life. At ASDAN, this belief shapes everything we do – from our refreshed core skills framework to the carefully structured learning cycles that scaffold learner growth.

Six core skills for a complex world

In a VUCA world – volatile, uncertain, complex and ambiguous – ASDAN is reimagining curricula to meet learners where they are, ensuring that inclusion is not simply about access but about reshaping learning so that every young person has the agency, equity and sense of belonging they need to thrive.

At the heart of ASDAN’s curriculum are six core skills, each supported by complementary abilities that enrich learning. These skills are universally applicable across personal and professional contexts and form the foundation of ASDAN’s Personal Effectiveness Qualifications:

Learning is gaining knowledge, skills and understanding through practice, experience and reflection. Learners set goals, plan, use feedback, and reflect to progress and celebrate success.
Communicating means sharing thoughts, ideas and feelings clearly through speech, writing or other expression. Learners shape their message, refine it with feedback, and deliver it effectively.
Decision making involves evaluating options, considering consequences and taking informed action. Learners organise information, assess outcomes, and apply lessons in familiar and new situations.
Thinking is understanding information, solving problems and exploring ideas. Learners consider perspectives, identify what matters, and respond thoughtfully to challenges.
Team working fosters collaboration, deep listening, and empathy to achieve goals together.
Self-awareness develops emotional literacy, personal strengths and wellbeing. Learners recognise their thoughts, feelings, and actions and their impact on themselves and others.

ASDAN's six key skills

These skills are at the core of The ASDAN Way – our pedagogical model that emphasises iterative, co-constructed learning, formative feedback, and young people as active agents in their own educational journeys.

Introducing PEQ – our reimagined pathway to personal effectiveness

This year, ASDAN is proud to unveil the renewed Personal Effectiveness Qualification (PEQ) suite, developed in collaboration with our school and college members. The updated suite includes Award, Extended Award and Certificate levels across Entry 3 to Level 3.

PEQ builds on ASDAN’s 30+ years of working with education practitioners to sculpt relevant, engaging and forward-thinking qualifications. PEQ provides a clearer, more flexible framework focused on the six core skills and features self-awareness as a central element. This suite remains firmly grounded in ASDAN’s well-oiled approach of prioritising iterative learning cycles, goal setting, reflection and learner agency.

One of PEQ’s most powerful elements is how it draws learners into learning about their learning. Through explicit metacognitive tasks, as defined by the Education Endowment Foundation, students articulate their thinking, analyse what helps them succeed, and experiment with new approaches. Evidence suggests that this doesn’t just boost grades, it equips young people with a lifelong toolkit for self-directed learning.

Plan–do–review – reflective learning in practice

Central to ASDAN’s pedagogical model is the plan–do–review cycle, a structured yet flexible learning loop that encourages intentional learning, implementation, and reflection – a pattern found across our qualifications.

In our Personal Effectiveness Qualification suite, learners use portfolio-based evidence, plan–do–review process, and reflective logs to capture progress and build metacognitive awareness. Young people learn to plan strategically, monitor their own performance, adjust strategies when things aren’t working, and reflect meaningfully on outcomes. In other words, they become managers of their own learning.

Our Employability qualification, Short Courses, and Extended Project Qualification (EPQ) similarly embed this cycle to support learners in setting goals, executing tasks, and critically evaluating outcomes. Over time, learners begin to see patterns in their approaches – understanding, for example, that they learn best through visual mapping, discussion, repetition, or practical application – and can make informed choices about how to tackle new challenges.

A call to educators: embrace reflective, skills-rich learning

For school leaders and teachers committed to fostering equitable, impactful pathways – especially for learners outside traditional academic trajectories – ASDAN offers a trusted, principled curriculum approach.

Use the six core skills as a shared language and framework to articulate personal growth across all learners.
Leverage the Gatsby-aligned programmes like Employability, Short Courses, and PEQ to create meaningful transitions into adulthood.
Incorporate plan–do–review cycles consistently across lessons and qualifications to develop learner agency, metacognition, and adaptability.

As the landscape of education and employment continues to evolve, these enduring skills and reflective practices offer a beacon of hope and clarity. By centring our curriculum around them, we not only meet the benchmarks set by policy – we transform lives.

Where the Wild Things Grow: Rewilding a Primary School in Birkenhead for Community, Compassion, Communication & Curriculum

This article has been published as part of the Rethinking Curriculum project, kindly funded by The Helen Hamlyn Trust.

Charles Hewitt, Headteacher, Fender Primary School

Overview

Born from a desire to radically change our approach to curriculum and pedagogy, and rethink what schools can and should be, we transformed an unused, boggy two-acre playing field into a vast Forest School. Over the last six months, we have planted 3,500 trees, dug a pond, and planted huge wildflower meadow. This space has become integral to both our curriculum and our approach to teaching and learning, as well as a crucial space to support the mental health and wellbeing of our children.

Context, rationale & pedagogical approaches

Fender Primary School is located in the very middle of the Woodchurch Estate, a large estate in Birkenhead, Merseyside. Deprivation indicators suggest we are an area of high deprivation (decile one for almost all indicators) (MHCLG, 2019). Over 65 per cent of our children receive pupil premium funding, with many families facing the daily realities of economic hardship. This situation is compounded by years of government cuts to youth services and the loss of our local library.

Local media would have you believe the estate is an unpleasant place to live; violent crime and county lines are very much a constant presence on the estate. However, this deficit model of thinking around ‘disadvantage’ very much skews the joyous reality of this community. The estate is made up of hard- working and dedicated families there is a palpable sense of community, something often lost in many leafier areas today.

Why did we decide to invest so much time and energy in our outdoors provision? Post-pandemic life, along with the terrifying age of unregulated screentime has led to a crisis in youth mental health (Haidt, 2024), something keenly felt by many other school leaders I speak to. To add to this, a significant number of children at our school have lived through adverse childhood experiences and it is no surprise that many are experiencing emotional distress, with rising incidents of anxiety, low mood, low self-esteem and dysregulated behaviour. Again, we are not alone as a school in facing these issues.

Against this backdrop, and as a new senior leadership team, we identified the need to radically rethink the curriculum – our content, pedagogical approach, and delivery - to ensure it was more inclusive, responsive, and emotionally attuned to our children. A large part of this was writing our own bespoke curriculum that answers the question: what does it mean to be a young person living on the Woodchurch Estate in 2025?

One major facet of this vision was to increase access to nature by turning an unused, boggy two-acre playing field into a fully formed Forest School. The research around the benefits of outdoor learning and the Forest School approach is extensive and compelling. There is strong evidence for the positive impact it has on cognitive development, motivation, attitude, and achievement, particularly when it is well-planned and integrated into wider curriculum life (Rickinson et al., 2004). It is also reported to foster emotional resilience, engagement, especially for boys and those with SEND, whilst also enhancing critical-thinking and collaborative modes of working (Mannion, Fenwick & Lynch, 2013). Outdoor learning can also contribute to an increased level of student exploration, risk-taking and autonomy, as well as enhancing communication skills and language development (Waite, 2011). There is also evidence that it can improve social skills and pupil behaviour (Natural Connections Demonstration Project, 2016). Furthermore, outdoor learning can have significant mental health benefits, reducing anxiety, stress and depression, whilst also supporting metacognition (The Blagrave Trust & Forest School Association, 2019).

From a curriculum perspective, we are also deeply committed to oracy being a thread that runs through absolutely everything we do. Alexander’s (2010) vision of a dialogic, expansive primary curriculum that values collaboration, dialogic oracy, and open enquiry has always resonated with me. The traditional subject-based, classroom-bound curriculum can often feel abstract for our children, many of whom struggle with emotional regulation, language development or sensory processing needs. Our Forest School offers an integrated, embodied learning experience where the curriculum emerges through discovery, collaboration and authentic interaction with the natural world. Whilst our outdoor learning approach is only one small part of our oracy offer, it feels like a significant means of bolstering and promoting authentic and confident communication.

The implications for Fender were clear: this new approach would complement academic learning by increasing motivation, resilience, metacognition, and executive function, using approaches which provide critical pastoral benefits, especially for children affected by adversity, trauma or poor mental health. It could also be implemented in a sustainable, relatively low-cost and impactful way. Our rationale was underpinned by the belief that nature-based pedagogy is not an add-on, but a core entitlement, especially for our most vulnerable learners.

Implementation, challenges, limitations and joys

Within a few months, with the help and generosity of Mersey Forest, Tree Council and Woodland Trust, we had planted 3,500 native trees, dug a pond and planted a vast wildflower meadow. All our trees were either donated or grant-funded, which gave the project legs to get moving quickly.

One of our major challenges was getting so many trees into the ground so quickly during one of the hottest springs on record. Thankfully, we had no end of volunteers - every child planted their own tree, we had parents spend days supporting our efforts, alongside volunteers from the local community and friends and family of staff members. It took a lot of time and energy, but seeing the results of things growing around us galvanized everyone and the Forest School has become a source of local pride in the community.

We have had to continually refine the space, ensuring equity and access for all, regardless of needs. We have worked closely with families, therapists, and specialist staff to make adaptations where necessary. For example, we have made sure that the space is wheelchair accessible and worked with a child development consultant to identify possible sensory issues.

Another limitation we hope to overcome is the lack of knowledge and confidence to deliver outdoor-based education. Whilst our Outdoor Learning Lead is Forest School trained, our goal is to have all teachers and teaching assistants trained to this level over the next five years. In the meantime, we are using pupil premium funding to employ a Forest School expert one day a week, who is collaborating with teachers to begin building confidence, whilst ensuring there are high-quality outdoor learning opportunities for our children.

Curriculum integration is another ongoing challenge. Our ambitious plan for staff development will ensure Forest School is not seen as an added extra, but as an integral part of our bespoke curriculum. Within this, we have mapped-out opportunities for using the outdoors across all subjects, alongside distinct sessions focused on developing Forest School skills.

A final challenge has been the decision making around how (and if) we assess the impact of this new space. For me, the only measure that really matters is joy and engagement and this is readily apparent on any visit to the Forest School - to measure anything with metrics seems antithetical to the ethos and values of such an important space. However, from September, we will be undertaking case studies with a wide variety of our children to get a real sense of its impact, as well as undertaking a range of research projects with universities and charities interested in the project.

Looking ahead

Our Forest School, and resulting adaptive pedagogical approach, is just getting started. However, it already represents more than just a physical space - it represents how we are always striving to better understand learning, relationships, disadvantage and equity.

We are eagerly awaiting the results of our second biodiversity study, which we know will be dramatically different to our baseline study. The space is now home to foxes (who seem to enjoy destroying whatever we have worked on each week), a plethora of birds, insects, butterflies, pond life and even a rumoured grass snake! We are also pleased to have become a Beacon school for the Tree Council and have received the Eco-Schools Gold Award.

At its heart, the initiative reflects our belief that education should be joyous and liberatory—not simply preparing children for tests, but for life. A real hero and friend of mine, Khawla Badwan, describes education as, “a practice of hope” (2024) and that line always circles around my head when I walk through the Forest School. In places where the world feels small, unkind, and powerless, the Forest School has helped it feel wide open again. For Fender, it has offered a unique space to promote holistic development and redefine inclusion as equitable participation in joyful, meaningful learning and togetherness.

References

Alexander, R (2010). Children, their World, their Education: Final Report and Recommendations of the Cambridge Primary Review. Routledge.
Badwan, K (2024). Oracy for voice, identity and wellbeing: how can oracy contribute to personal development and communal connection at school and beyond?
Forest School Association and The Blagrave Trust (2019) Forest School Research Summary. Available at: https://www.forestschoolassociation.org/research (Accessed: 29 July 2025).
Haidt, J. (2024) The Anxious Generation: How the Great Rewiring of Childhood is Causing an Epidemic of Mental Illness. London: Allen Lane.
Natural England (2016) A Review of Nature-Based Interventions for Mental Health Care. Available at: https://publications.naturalengland.org.uk/publication/4513819616346112(Accessed: 20/07/25).
Natural England (2016) Natural Connections Demonstration Project, 2012–2016: Final Report. Available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/natural-connections-demonstration-project-final-report (Accessed: 29 July 2025).
National Literacy Trust (2024) Creating Confident Communicators: Supporting Children’s Spoken Language Development from Birth to 19. London: National Literacy Trust.
Mannion, G, Fenwick, A and Lynch, J (2013) Learning to Learn in Nature: Developing a Pedagogy of Outdoor Learning. Stirling: University of Stirling and Scottish Natural Heritage.
Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (MHCLG) (2019) English indices of deprivation 2019. Available at: https://imd-by-postcode.org/imd/2019 (Accessed: 29 July 2025).
O’Brien, L, & Murray, R (2007) Forest School and its Impacts on Young Children: Case Studies in Britain. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening.
O'Brien, L and Murray, R (2008) A Marvellous Opportunity for Children to Learn: A Participatory Evaluation of Forest School in England and Wales. Forest Research. Available at: https://www.forestresearch.gov.uk (Accessed: 29 July 2025).
Public Health England. (2014). Mental health and wellbeing of children in England.
Rickinson, M, Dillon, J, Teamey, K., Morris, M, Choi, M Y, Sanders, D & Benefield, P (2004) A Review of Research on Outdoor Learning. Slough: National Foundation for Educational Research (NFER).
Waite, S (2011) Teaching and Learning Outside the Classroom: Personal Values, Alternative Pedagogies and Standards. Education 3–13, 39(1), pp.65–82. doi:10.1080/03004270903206141.

AI for learners with SEND: Implementation guidance for safe and effective use

MIKE FINLAY, HEADTEACHER, SPRINGWATER SCHOOL; BOARD MEMBER, WHOLE EDUCATION; SEND ADVISORY GROUP MEMBER, CHALLENGE PARTNERS, UK

The rise of Artificial Intelligence (AI) in education brings both opportunities and uncertainty. For pupils with Special Educational Needs and Disabilities (SEND), AI offers the potential for more responsive and personalised support. Yet concerns around ethics, bias and data privacy are significant – and rightly so. As school leaders and practitioners, we must ask: how can we harness AI’s potential while safeguarding inclusive values and professional judgement?

This article offers practical, research-informed guidance for schools looking to implement AI tools in ways that support learners with SEND safely and effectively, grounded in policy, evidence and lived experience.

Unlocking potential: The promise of AI in supporting SEND practice (and recognising the risks)

AI is already reshaping classroom practice in ways that could be transformative for learners with disabilities, or those with additional or different support needs. From predictive tools that identify learning gaps, to software that scaffolds and adapts tasks in real time, emerging technologies are enabling new forms of individualisation (Luckin et al., 2016). For pupils with communication or sensory needs, these affordances can significantly enhance access to learning.

In practice, we’ve seen speech-to-text tools support independence for non-verbal pupils, or AI-enhanced literacy platforms unlock reading for those with dyslexia. Crucially, these technologies echo the principles of the SEND Code of Practice (DfE & DHSC, 2015): that education should be aspirational, responsive and tailored to each learner’s strengths and needs.

However, the potential of AI must be weighed against the risks – or at least be met with clarity of understanding of the need to mitigate against risk. Many AI systems are built on datasets that fail to represent the diversity of all learners (Holstein et al., 2019), increasing the risk of misclassification or misinterpretation when considering those with additional support needs. In some cases, automated plans based on narrow attainment data may miss the complexity that teachers observe, and cater for, daily.

In addition, the relational and interpretive nature of SEND practice – built on dialogue, observation, and professional discretion – cannot be automated. There is a real danger that AI outputs are over-relied upon, undermining the nuanced decision-making at the heart of inclusive education (Norwich, 2013).

Five principles for safe and effective implementation

To help schools navigate these opportunities and challenges, I propose five guiding principles.

1 Pupil-centred first, technology second

AI should enhance, not displace, person-centred planning. Tools that allow for teacher adjustment, personalised settings, and family input are most likely to benefit learners with SEND (Luckin et al., 2016; Kirk, 2019).

This, of course, aligns with the SEND Code of Practice (DfE & DoH, 2015), which stresses the importance of person-centred approaches. Listening to pupils about how AI affects their learning is not optional – it is essential to effective, and ethical, practice.

As Kirk (2019) demonstrates through participatory visual methods, young people, particularly those with SEND, can offer rich insights into their own learning experiences when afforded appropriate means of expression. The voices of children and young people with SEND must be taken into consideration when developing AI tools and systems, both in the design stages and through ongoing evaluation. Co-design workshops, supported communication, and person-centred approaches allow learners to share their experiences and help shape technologies that genuinely meet their needs.

This representation must continue as teachers evaluate and refine tools and approaches for using them in schools; pilot tools with a diverse group of learners, including those with SEND, with regular opportunities for feedback built in. Schools can create student panels or feedback loops tailored to individual communication styles to ensure ongoing input. Then use feedback from the perspectives of all learners to inform ongoing improvements.

Beyond design and evaluation, it is equally important to empower learners with SEND to understand and question AI. Providing accessible education on how AI works, and encouraging ethical thinking around fairness and privacy, ensures that these pupils are not just passive users but informed participants. Through deliberate, inclusive strategies, schools can ensure AI tools enhance equity rather than reinforce barriers.

2 Transparency as a non-negotiable

School staff and families need to understand how AI recommendations are generated. This is not just a technical issue but is a matter of professional integrity, ethical responsibility and educational justice. Transparent systems make it clear what data is being used, how it is being interpreted, and why particular recommendations are being made. Without this clarity, there is a risk that AI outputs will be accepted uncritically or misinterpreted, particularly by time-pressured staff or families unfamiliar with the underlying mechanisms (Williamson & Piattoeva, 2022).

For learners with SEND, who already face multiple barriers to agency and inclusion, opacity in decision-making can be especially damaging. AI tools that inform interventions, resource allocations, or curriculum access must be open to challenge and review. The DfE (Department for Education) (2023) emphasises that schools must maintain human oversight and be able to explain, in plain language, how AI-influenced decisions are reached. This supports meaningful involvement from families, many of whom already advocate tirelessly for their children’s needs to be recognised and met (Kirk, 2019).

Practical steps towards transparency include choosing tools that offer explainable AI features, such as clear rationales for each recommendation, and embedding processes where staff can question, override, or adapt outputs in light of professional judgement. Co-reviewing AI-informed decisions with parents or carers during annual reviews, EHCP (Education Health and Care Plan) meetings, or intervention planning sessions can also ensure accountability is shared and trust maintained.

Ultimately, transparency is not just a technical safeguard but is pivotal in inclusive, ethical AI use in education.

3 Bias is real and must be addressed

AI can perpetuate systemic inequalities, including assumptions around ability and progress (Benjamin, 2019). Schools should routinely assess tools for unintended bias and involve diverse stakeholders in doing so.

Holstein et al. (2019) show that even well-intentioned systems can produce discriminatory outcomes if fairness and accountability are not prioritised. The DfE (2023) similarly warns that generative AI (GenAI) can embed harmful stereotypes and should be used with care.

These risks are magnified for learners with SEND, who may be more vulnerable to exclusion if bias and inaccessibility go unchecked. Practically, ethical frameworks to prevent or mitigate bias in educational AI must be embedded throughout the design, implementation, and evaluation process. This means:

involving diverse stakeholders – including educators, pupils, families, and SEND experts – in co-designing AI tools to ensure they reflect a broad range of experiences and needs
regular audits and impact assessments should be carried out to detect and address potential biases, particularly those affecting marginalised or neurodivergent learners
leaders prioritising transparency, ensuring that any resource or process created by or with AI is detailed for all stakeholders, with clear channels for accountability and redress where concern is raised. Decision-making processes relating to use and redressing concern must be equally clear and understandable to non-technical users.
ensuring that any system is based on information that reflects the full range of pupils, so that it doesn’t favour some groups over others.

Schools and developers should regularly evaluate the AI system to check if anyone is being treated unfairly or if assumptions are being made that could harm certain learners.

It’s also important that AI supports teachers rather than replacing their professional judgement, helping them make better decisions and not making decisions for them. Using AI ethically in education isn’t something you do just once; it’s an ongoing responsibility to make sure these tools help every child learn and thrive, without causing harm or deepening existing inequalities.

4 Ethical data stewardship

AI introduces significant ethical considerations, including data privacy, algorithmic bias, opaque decision-making, and more. Floridi and Cowls’ (2019) five principles for AI in society (beneficence, non-maleficence, autonomy, justice and explicability) should underpin any educational AI implementation.

SEND data is particularly sensitive. Beyond legal compliance, ethical data use requires clear accountability for how information is collected, used, and shared (Floridi & Cowls, 2019). Families must be informed and empowered to opt in at each stage and with any expanding usage.

Set up a trust, or school, working group with clear terms of reference that insist on thoughtful, planned approaches to AI use. Ideally, include your data protection officer and specialists in both AI and ethics conversations to ensure risk is always considered with the expertise required in identifying and overcoming it. As well as ensuring the systemic consideration of ethics, data protection and accepted use, this approach will deliver clarity to all colleagues that there is a measured and process-driven approach to embedding AI. In addition, process resulting from strategic planning will insist on clear stakeholder engagement at each stage, as well as leadership oversight that prevents loss of control and inconsistent or, worse, harmful use of AI.

5 Empower, don’t replace, professionals

AI should support teacher judgement, not substitute it. As Holmes et al. (2022) argue, successful implementation is about augmentation; ensuring that AI enhances rather than diminishes professional expertise.

The promise of AI for inclusion can only be realised if teachers understand the tools they are using. Capability, as well as control over the use of AI by school leaders, can be tackled by creation and use of custom ‘GPTs’ – a ‘front door’ to AI input which is very specifically targeted to a given focus. For example, a custom GPT can be created which is designed to produce social stories based on BOTH a young person’s age and stage of reading, so that a 15-year-old requiring text usually associated with Key Stage 1 doesn’t have to trawl through stories written for, say, the interests of a six-year-old. The custom GPT will be incredibly user-friendly and, therefore, easily accessible to all colleagues, regardless of their IT savviness. As capability and confidence grows, so champions can look to how expanding AI use tackles those historic and widespread challenges.

To build staff capability and confidence in using AI, schools can offer phased CPD that develops both practical skills and ethical awareness over time. A term-long programme might begin with foundational sessions introducing AI concepts, ethical considerations (such as GDPR and bias), and its potential for inclusive education. Staff can then explore AI tools hands-on, applying them in lessons with a focus on supporting learners with SEND. Later sessions will provide space for reflection, peer learning, and discussion about what worked and what didn’t. Through mentoring, resource sharing, and drop-in clinics, momentum and embedded confidence in the critical use of AI across the school can be sustained.

Professional development must go beyond basic functionality and address critical questions: How does the AI work? What assumptions underpin its recommendations? How can it be adapted to support SEND learners?

Teachers need space to experiment, reflect, and collaborate with SEND specialists, families, and pupils themselves. AI can support inclusion only when embedded in a community of informed, empowered professionals and so opportunity to broaden communities to include, for example, specialists in AI and ethics could be of enormous benefit at an early stage.

Conclusion

AI is neither a panacea nor a threat – it is a tool. For learners with SEND, it holds enormous potential, but only if implemented with care, collaboration, and critical reflection. As Benjamin (2019) warns, technology can either challenge or reinforce structural inequalities. The choice lies in how we use it.

AI can analyse patterns, personalise content, and flag emerging needs. But it cannot replicate the ethical, empathetic, and highly relational work that defines inclusive education. As educators, our role is not to resist innovation but to shape it. By holding fast to principles of transparency, equity, and professional autonomy, schools can ensure that AI serves learners, not the other way around. With the right frameworks in place, AI can be a powerful ally in realising the aspirations of inclusive education but only if teachers and leaders remain in the driving seat.

A strategic, phased approach can help schools to integrate AI thoughtfully. Starting with small-scale pilots which involve learners with SEND, SENCOs, families and governors allows for careful evaluation before wider rollout. An AI, or SEND AI, working group can oversee this process and ensure varied perspectives shape decisions.

Accessibility should be a central consideration when selecting tools. Those tools aligned with Universal Design for Learning (UDL) principles (Rose & Meyer, 2002) offer greater flexibility and support differentiation more effectively. Continuous reflection, including specific focus on unintended consequences, is key to improving practice over time.

By grounding implementation in ethical principles, inclusive design, and professional wisdom, we can harness AI in ways that enhance, not erode, the inclusive aspirations of our education system.

Rethinking early childhood and the importance of play within the curriculum

This article has been published as part of the Rethinking Curriculum project, kindly funded by The Helen Hamlyn Trust.

Andrew King, Headteacher of Riverhead Infants’ School in Sevenoaks, Kent.

How we are refocusing our approach to teaching and learning for EYFS and KS1 children in response to changes bought about following the pandemic.

The need for change

“It’s not like it used to me in my day; children nowadays are…different”

Like many of us, I grew up with at least one grandparent who would inevitably make claims like this. To me, this sounded like children in ‘their day’ were somehow removed from what I identified with as being a child. Was it my generation? Were we the different ones? Surely not. This was just somebody who had forgotten what it was like to be a child - I returned to my Curly Wurly, safe in the knowledge it was them, not me!

As I grew older, I continued to question my grandparents’ logic, unsure of how the material changes of the late twentieth century could alter the experiences of childhood. Yes, we had plastic toys, video game consoles, a smorgasbord of children’s television channels and more e-numbers than you could shake a Swingball bat at - but we still played. We went on adventures, scraped our knees and treated our local area as our playground. These experiences fuelled our imagination and creativity, not stunted it. Once again, I assumed that my grandparents were the ones who were wrong, not me.

The first half of my teaching career did little to change this view. Yes, the world was changing, but even amongst the endless debates about screen time, so-called ‘Supernannies’ or whether was the way forward, little seemed to alter the experiences of the children I encountered day-to-day. They still played and, crucially, they played together.

Then, in 2020, the world did change. For the first time, I really could see a demonstrable difference in children’s experiences and behaviours.

The immediate effects of COVID-19 on education were obvious, and the national focus swiftly fell upon the impact of ‘lost learning’ for children already in school. However, the longer-term challenge for the education sector was only just entering the wider world. Namely, what would be the developmental effects on children raised during a time of unprecedented societal change and how might this alter early childhood for generations to come?

I have been a senior leader for over ten years and, for me, the ‘change’ in children entering school has been marked. Conversations with colleagues across the country point to increasing levels and complexity of need at point of entry, on a scale rarely seen in mainstream settings. Over time, these conversations have been supported by a number of studies that demonstrate a significant decline in children’s school readiness when entering into Early Years Foundation Stage (EYFS).

In 2020, the Sutton Trust highlighted that the “school readiness gap” had widened during the pandemic, with fewer children entering Reception able to dress themselves, play cooperatively, or express emotions.
A report published by the Education Endowment Fund in 2021 stated that Early Years children showed delays in communication, language, and personal-social skills post-lockdown, especially those from disadvantaged backgrounds. Professionals also reported reduced levels of confidence and independence, together with weaker self-regulation and emotional literacy.
Even Ofsted, in their 2021 review entitled ‘Education Recovery in Early Years Providers’, noted regression in social interaction, resilience, and group collaboration, with many children struggling with turn-taking, initiating play, and adapting to routines.

These reports (and the countless others published since) confirmed a seemingly obvious problem - schools could no longer deliver education in the way they had done before.

Our context

Our school is a successful, three-form Infant School based in the North-West of Kent, with a solid reputation for academic outcomes throughout EYFS and KS1. However, over the past few years, the school has had to adapt and evolve both its pedagogy and practice as we welcome children whose experiences of early childhood differ from their peers in previous years.

In 2021Liz Robinson (co-founder of Big Education) posited a thought on a course I attended, and it has stuck with me ever since. In fact, it has become central to much of what we have planned for our school. Put very simply, it was this:

‘Meet the needs of the children where they are at, rather than where you think they should be.’

Although this seems straightforward enough, , it suddenly becomes far more complex. Liz’s initial thought often has to run parallel with meeting specific targets and working within often tightly defined parameters and statuary frameworks.

Nevertheless, undeterred by the size of the task, leaders, teachers and support staff at our school committed to the idea expressed by Liz Robinson. We set out to consider how we could move the school forward to better support our learners - both now and in the future.

For us, this meant developing some key areas of our offer, to ensure it met a wider and more diverse range of needs. This included:

Developing nurture provision within our school that included both a dedicated practitioner and specified resources, thus supporting children who may require support that falls outside of the SEND scope.
Recognising the vital importance of play in children’s development and ensuring its significance within our curriculum.
Collaborating with external partners to help us improve our knowledge and understanding of a wider range of increasingly complex needs, without an over-reliance on ‘Velcro-adults’.
Linked to the above, working to build staff knowledge and confidence through targeted professional development, to ensure all staff feel equipped to work with all children within our school.

Our curriculum journey

Whilst the strategies above are important in delivering our vision, central to all of this is the school’s curriculum - both the taught and the hidden curriculum. If the children were evolving, then we needed to reflect this in how and what we taught them.

It was for this reason that we were very keen to engage with the As leaders, we had an idea about what we wanted to achieve but were unsure how best to go about it. We were also uncertain of how it might fit within the expectations for a Local Authority (LA) maintained school. Equally, we wanted to ensure that changes were for the benefit of our school and our children – something that made simply choosing ‘off- the-shelf’ ideas less appealing to us.

From the start, the Deputy Headteacher and I wanted to establish some non-negotiables for our revised curriculum. It needed to be:

Experiential: the learning needed to have as many tangible elements to it as possible to enable our children to ‘live’ their learning.
Relatable: the world of an infant-aged child is relatively small and their experiences of it limited; learning needed to be relatable. We wanted our children to engage with their local community and make links to what they knew about it.
Developmentally appropriate: we needed to ensure that what we were asking of the children was within their grasp developmentally – physically, mentally and emotionally.
Progressive: the curriculum needed to build over time and have clearly defined progression running throughout to allow suitable opportunities to both support and stretch the children.
Prioritise input: we wanted to support teachers to think carefully about how they taught things as much as what they taught, thus developing practitioners’ pedagogical approach to most effectively support the children.
Compliant / quantifiable: whilst not our primary driver, we are a LA maintained school and, therefore, must recognise our statutory responsibilities and the relevant assessment points.

Our early sessions working with the Chartered College of Teaching (CCT) allowed us time as leaders to unpick our vision and reflect on our own knowledge and experience to get to the heart of what we wanted. The CCT team provided us with access to experts, linking us with Kath Bransby, Education Coordinator at Steiner Waldorf.

Working with Kath was both a demanding and exhilarating experience for those of us lucky enough to have the opportunity. Kath explored and unpicked our ideas with us, so that she could present models and practices she felt would further inform our thinking. Crucially, she encouraged us to consider the work of Urie Bronfenbrenner and his ‘Ecological Systems Model’ (1979), as Kath felt the principles of this model aligned closely with what we were looking to achieve – and she was right!

In his work, Bronfenbrenner proposed that child development occurs within a series of interconnected environmental systems, each influencing the child directly or indirectly. This consisted of:

Microsystem: Immediate environments (e.g., family, school, peer group, classroom).
Mesosystem: Interactions between microsystems (e.g., parent-teacher relationships).
Exosystem: Indirect environments (e.g., a parent’s workplace, local authority policies).
Macrosystem: Cultural and societal norms, laws, and ideologies.
Chronosystem: The dimension of time, including life transitions and socio-historical events (e.g., the COVID-19 pandemic).

Bronfenbrenner’s model highlights the importance of context, relationships, and environmental responsiveness in child development—making it a powerful framework to guide Early Years and KS1 pedagogy within our school. Where many of these systems in children’s lives were disrupted by the pandemic, his theory underscores the need to rebuild supportive networks and prioritise soft skill development through:

Play-based, child-initiated learning which respects the child's voice and agency within their microsystem. This also allows for learning to be contextualised in their everyday experiences, thereby fostering intrinsic motivation and personal relevance.
Community projects and local explorations targeted at engaging children in learning that reflects their lived environment (linking microsystem and exosystem).
Opportunities to practice collaboration, resilience, and independence in authentic contexts (something important in linking each of the preceding systems to the macrosystem over time).

With support from Kath, the school’s leadership team was able to combine our non-negotiables with Bronfenbrenner’s model to create a framework to shape both content and practice in our school.

From this, the next step was to bring the wider leadership team into the conversation and begin to work with teaching staff. At each stage of this process, it was crucial for us to be clear to staff about why we felt curriculum change was important. As a relatively new leadership team, it was felt that change was inevitable; but, as leaders, we needed staff to feel that this process was being undertaken with them, rather than done to them. So, throughout the previous academic year, we planned CPD sessions targeted at increasing teacher ‘buy-in’ to the process, carefully building their knowledge and understanding of what we were looking to achieve.

Initially, these sessions focused on teachers reflecting honestly on why the need for change existed and exploring the theories underpinning the direction we were choosing to take. We also discussed what might be missing from our existing curriculum and things we wished to include more of (see Figure 1).

Figure 1: A word cloud based on thoughts and feedback from teaching staff about what we wished to include in our revised curriculum.

As the year progressed, so did the work undertaken by the teaching team, along with the independence and confidence with which they approached it. Time was given to carefully consider individual subjects and the content taught in each year group. Teachers were encouraged to establish closer links with the relevant subject associations and draw on the knowledge and expertise of others, considering the appropriate disciplinary and substantive knowledge required by the children at each stage and how this would build over time.

Whilst the importance of planning has never been in question, what was crucial for us as leaders was to show staff how much we valued this process. Therefore, the majority of staff CPD was dedicated to this process. We alsoStaff were also encouraged to collaborate with colleagues in other year groups to ensure there was alignment and shared understanding of what came before and after for the children. This was not solely the subject lead’s responsibility, but the responsibility of all.

As we moved forward, staff were encouraged to reflect on our established non-negotiables. For example, staff were to ensure that curriculum content was firmly rooted in a world our children could relate to and make links with. Our aim was to reclaim the world around our school and encourage the children to view themselves as part of the community.

Meanwhile, plans were put in place to revise our learning environments to better support our curriculum vision. Too often, the barrier to truly realising a school vision stems from not having the right tools – often linked to financial constraints. With the support of our community, our Parent-Teacher Association (PTA) and carefully researched funding sources, the school has been able to evolve our building alongside our curriculum. With teaching staff tasked with focusing on the explicit curriculum, the wider leadership and staff team ensured the children’s day-to-day surroundings reflected the implicit curriculum and values of the school. A primary focus has been carefully planning classroom layout, design and resourcing to maximise opportunities for focused adult-child interactions, whilst also allowing children in KS1 to pursue their learning independently and with a greater emphasis on collaboration and communication.

Whilst this work is still in its early stages, initial anecdotal feedback from teachers, children and parents has been positive. For teachers, it has allowed them time to get to know their children in a more holistic way and better utilise a child’s interests and experiences to enhance their learning. Giving greater thought to how the learning environment is structured, has given greater confidence to children who initially were lacking in this area when coming into school. We have found our children to be more nurturing towards each other and are seeing increased interaction between peers – something particularly important to those who may have come to us with language and communication issues. Finally, informal parental feedback, has indicated that they are grateful for the nurturing environment we have created for their children, most notably the way in which staff really take their time to get to know the children and understand their needs Whilst these early signs are encouraging, we as a school will continue to monitor the progress and outcome measures for all of our children to ensure that what we are striving to achieve remains in the best interests of our learners.

Conclusion

To date, we have invested two years in this process and been grateful for the support of the CCT and all of those who have worked with us. We are now in a position where our school vision is starting to be realised. However, meaningful change does not happen overnight; it takes time to plan, reflect upon and adjust where necessary. Central to this has always been how we as a school view our children and what we feel constitutes most effective teaching and learning for them. For me, this this was always a key element of Rethinking Curriculum and its aims – there is no one-size- fits-all answer to the challenges in education. Instead, we as a nation and a profession need to think carefully about

Because, after all, things nowadays are different to how they used to be…

References

Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979) The Ecology of Human Development: Experiments by Nature and Design. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Education Endowment Foundation (EEF). (2021) Impact of school closures and subsequent support strategies on attainment and socio‑emotional wellbeing in Key Stage 1. [online] Available at: https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED620409.pdf [Accessed 18 Aug. 2025]
Education Endowment Foundation (EEF). (n.d.a) Impact of Key Stage 1 school closures on later attainment and social skills: A longitudinal study. [online] Available at: https://educationendowmentfoundation.org.uk/projects-and-evaluation/projects/impact-of-key-stage-1-school-closures-on-later-attainment-and-social-skills-a-longitudinal-study [Accessed 18 Aug. 2025]
Education Endowment Foundation (EEF). (n.d.b) Impact of COVID‑19 disruptions in primary schools: Attainment gaps and school responses. [online] Available at: https://educationendowmentfoundation.org.uk/projects-and-evaluation/projects/covid-19-disruptions-in-primary-schools-attainment-gaps-and-school-responses [Accessed 18 Aug. 2025]
Kindred². (2022) Annual School Readiness Survey. Available at: https://kindredsquared.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2022/05/YouGov-Kindred-Squared-School-Readiness-Report-2022-1.pdf [Accessed 18 Aug. 2025]
Ofsted. (2021) Education recovery in early years providers: Autumn 2021. [online] Available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/education-recovery-in-early-years-providers-autumn-2021 [Accessed 18 Aug. 2025]
Pascal, C. and Bertram, T. (2020) COVID-19 and Social Mobility Impact Brief #4: Early Years. Sutton Trust. [online] Available at: https://www.familyandchildcaretrust.org/sites/default/files/Resource%20Library/Implications%20of%20Covid%20for%20ECEC%20in%20England%20-%20June%202022_0.pdf [Accessed 18 Aug. 2025]
University of Oxford (2021). Co-SPACE Study: COVID-19 and Young People's Mental Health. Available at: https://cospaceoxford.org/findings/young-peoples-mental-health-during-the-covid-19-pandemic/ [Accessed 18 Aug. 2025]

Personalised learning at scale: What are we willing to trade?

FRANCESCA DE GARIS, AI TRAINING AND DEVELOPMENT LEAD, ELIZABETH COLLEGE, GUERNSEY

Let’s briefly imagine that a generative AI (GenAI) system was adopted at scale in education and used as personal learning assistants for students. Every student is given full access, and it is used to teach all current subjects. It is trained on the national curriculum and school-own resources with age minimums appropriately adjusted. In this imagined scenario, teachers might be a lot freer and more available to move around the classroom giving one-to-one attention to students, instead of trying to juggle teaching a whole class, concerned that several students will not be seen to in the short time the lesson allows. Student motivation is high, which the teacher can tell by the level of focus and independence. She helps a student with a concept by testing their understanding in dialogue and clarifies some initial uncertainty before asking where they will take their learning next; everything is focused on the child. Having circulated and feeling pleased with progress, she can monitor individual student activity on her own device and be alert to any safeguarding signals that ping-up and address them in real time.

There are obvious benefits to this imagined future scenario and since ChatGPT’s arrival in November 2022, pundits have been talking excitedly about GenAI’s potential; educators have recognised how it could help to support them ‘with their workload …[to] enable self-directed learning and personalised learning for students’ (DfE, 2024). AI in education offers some clear advantages. As a machine it will never lose patience and has been trained on more data than humans could ever retain in a lifetime. With our bounded knowledge and finite patience, particularly when the pressure is on during peak times in the school year, it is argued that deploying AI at scale could step-in, enhance outcomes and meet the needs of the learner (Merino-Campos, 2025). Students would not have to wait for others to catch up, instead working at their own pace independently (International Schools Partnership, n.d). But are these benefits well founded? What are the risks and limitations of this scenario?

The history and the hope of personalised learning

The prospect of learning tailored to the individual student is a long-established goal that has been riffed on over the past century as a reaction to a standardised model of education which developed in the 1800s. The earliest iteration stems from Pressey’s ‘teaching machine’ in the 1920s and was built on by psychologist B. F. Skinner in 1958 (Watters, 2021). More recently: adaptive AI platforms like Century Tech have emerged. These systems route the student through learning based on their abilities. At each turn, learner pace and teacher time have been forefront and centre of what makes these ‘machines’ such an enticing opportunity, focusing on the individual and where they want to go whilst simultaneously enabling the teacher to move freely around the class and give more help. Long before these developments, during the Enlightenment, Jean-Jacque Rousseau pictured an ideal education in Emile where the student is taught one-to-one allowing them to explore what is of interest to them rather than it being prescribed (Friesen, 2020). In the modern world, technology is seen as the only means to achieving this utopian vision (Laak, 2025) signally a techno-solutionist lens through which many have come to see education’s trajectory.

Yet none of these iterations have ever been fully realised with or without technology: could GenAI make a difference? Or will it be consigned to the ‘hope, hype and disappointment’ bin (Selwyn, 2022)? Arguably, there is a stark difference this time around because artificial intelligence (AI) affects the present and it will keep making impact in the future. Sharpening our understanding of it as educators is crucial so that we are not doing young people a disservice trying to ignore the challenges it is creating by ignoring its existence altogether. We already know that students are using AI to help them with their studies with figures ranging from 14 to 67 per cent according to the Department for Education (DfE) in 2024 and that is likely to have increased as the technology takes root. There is an appetite to see more of it in schools (Jisc, 2024) and there are advantages realising the pipe dream of personalised learning. Yet it raises significant questions about the trade-offs we could be making in the process.

Learner agency and misuse

The issues that the use of AI raises for student learning are manifold. When using GenAI tools as a personal tutor or for Socratic questioning, there is always the risk that the student will be given false information that could amplify misconceptions. Biases could also infiltrate and go unnoticed by the young learner (UNESCO, 2024), and without a human-in-the-loop, will be hard to detect until it is too late. As in the imaginary scenario at the start of this article, the teacher will still only be able to give a portion of the class their full attention to intervene at these critical moments. It might be an improvement on what we experience today at least knowing other students are able to continue making progress (or so we think), but it is difficult to monitor and could have long-lasting consequences.

Additionally, unlike adaptive systems such as those created by Century Tech or Khan Academy, general GenAI models such as ChatGPT have not been trained using a pre-set knowledge graph. These graphs are what constitute the learning paths that students are led down exposing its semblance of autonomy for a system that is pre-set and limiting on a student’s creativity and agency (Laak, 2025). The absence of these graphs with GenAI make it an attractive child-centred prospect; one that is fuelled by the idea of technology being self-justifying – a techno-utopian belief. However, without a clear set of goals and objectives, many learners will be unclear on how or where to take their learning, yet others might be more intuitive and mobilise by their own accord (Laak, 2025). Whilst you could question the degree of learning that takes place via this dialogic method (and how that might be measured), it is concerning that the gap in attainment could be widened, caused by disparity between those that are using AI and those that are not. The trade-off is an equity issue. Without a common frame of reference that comes from directed teaching and training, this is likely to perpetuate, and not just among students but among educators too.

The confidence gap and the role of the teacher

Just as students are facing uneven outcomes depending on their access and understanding of AI, educators are also having to navigate new digital territory. The adoption of AI in schools has largely been driven by autodidacts motivated to learn more in their own time and experiment in their work. Notably, these ‘champions’ are ‘digitally mature’ (UK, DfE, 2024) and confident in using established technology highlighting a binary between them and so-called ‘digital immigrants’ (Bayne, 2017) who lack confidence with much of the digital infrastructure already in place. GenAI exacerbates this confidence gap and compounds student misuse of AI in their own time due it not being addressed in a uniform fashion. The remedy must include training to build staff confidence, supported by clear guidelines, so that all colleagues can engage their students in conversations about AI, starting with the basics.

In the hypothetical future where GenAI is used for personalised learning, it is important to consider what that means for the educator. I outlined the idea of a teacher feeling satisfied with what she saw in her classroom: all students engaged and making progress based on a dialogic check-in; ability to monitor screens for tracking progress and safeguarding; contented with time saved and no longer strained. Through all the time saved – an often-touted advantage by edtech companies (Ideland, 2021) – what are teachers left to fulfil? As well as recent research suggesting using GenAI for teacher tasks does not save time (Selwyn, 2025), others argue favourably that AI will create new jobs just as in previous industrial revolutions (Willcocks, 2020) suggesting teachers should not worry. Yet, what is troubling in this scenario is the capacity to supplant the core role of the teacher undermining the very essence of teaching (Pelletier, 2023). One recent study tested the use of AI for virtual tutoring of English language learning in a secondary school in Nigeria (De Simone et al., 2025). The research findings suggest that significant gains in productivity were AI support, whilst highlighting that teachers were superfluous for primary instruction or feedback. Images in the paper are also strongly suggestive of a new classroom dynamic, one which sees the teacher circulating as students are immersed in front of computers.

Through fully realised personalised learning with AI, teachers are left to facilitate, collect and analyse incoming data, and to monitor student screens rather than give active instruction. Not only does this generate ethical debate regarding the surveillance of young people (Williamson, 2018), but it also underscores the risk that teachers face of de-professionalisation. There is already an emerging language of facilitation and unequivocal advice to ‘Relinquish some authority while still providing guidance’ (Educate Ventures Research, 2025) raising concerns over what will constitute an educator in the future. While some may welcome the evolution as an opportunity to redefine the role, it defies the fundamental motivation of candidates that have historically been attracted to the teaching profession. Selwyn (2022) contends that although teachers are unlikely to be replaced by robots, the profession may still become increasingly robotic in character, with implications for its appeal and value.

Teaching the skills to question AI

Whilst personalised learning with GenAI might not yet (or ever) resemble the scenario outlined at the start of this article, it is already taking place informally. Students are taking advantage of its tutoring capacity: the issue is how.

As adults we know what we don’t know (Luckin, 2025). Students are not in the same privileged position meaning that when they are learning about a new topic, they cannot detect what is dubious or plainly false. This concept links to the AI learning paradox, or the novice’s dilemma (Mishra, 2025) where the student requires proficiency using AI as a medium to learn a subject domain that is new to them, arguably making the use of chatbots a ‘non-starter’ (Furze, 2025). Such tensions strongly suggest that foundational subject knowledge is non-negotiable otherwise learning is obstructed. Therefore, a job remains for the human teacher to ensure students are familiar with the topic and thus able to detect any discrepancies. Without such knowledge, misunderstanding will be compounded and, according to research, harder to repair (Chew, Cerbin, 2022).

Whilst teacher confidence with AI is left wanting, one concept many educators are more familiar with is metacognition. Such strategies will be of profound value to students as they learn through experimentation. Laak (2025) proposes, metacognitive skills will assist students to be clearer on the task and overarching goal and identify obsolete information. As educator confidence in AI grows in future, best practice can be modelled and thought out loud to demonstrate the process of critical thinking. From there, reflective questions can be asked on what they learnt from their interaction with AI and what was successful or ineffective.

Key considerations

Invest in whole-school training on AI

Without training, teachers cannot talk openly about AI’s impact on education or how it will affect their students’ school years and futures.
Without open discussion, students will be accessing tools blindly posing safeguarding and misconception risks.
Training could be initiated in-house via a champions scheme or sought externally from a wide-range of courses and materials.

Define acceptable student use of AI

Provide clear guidelines and recommendations.
Explicitly say what is acceptable and what is unacceptable.
Model using AI in a way that does not sacrifice critical thinking.

Preserve the role of the teacher

Scrutinise edtech/AI company values to see if they align with the school’s own.
Critique the problems an AI platform, tool or service purports to solve: does it erode the teacher’s instructional role?

Conclusion

Several trade-offs have been highlighted in this article if GenAI is ever to be used in the way the hypothetical scenario suggests. Whilst it has a speculative edge, there is a historical driving force that is rooting for one-to-one education, and which could be realised through AI. Yet, among these trade-offs is equity among both students and colleagues and which clearly signal the demand for a common frame of reference. This can only be achieved through transparency in teaching and training of AI. Without it, just the impression of autonomy will remain while learners will be influenced by more subtle forces that will be difficult to detect. Finally, how far education goes with adoption of AI for personalised learning will also have a big impact on the teaching profession. It is vital that during this liminal phase educators are taking responsibility for how GenAI is being adopted and moulded into the new norm.

Exploring the potential of AI tools in language learning

ELÍAS VALDUEZA GARCÍA, DEPARTMENT OF LANGUAGES, HARROW INTERNATIONAL SCHOOL HONG KONG, HONG KONG SAR

In this article, I reflect on my use of a number of AI tools with my students at Harrow International School, analysing their views and finding common ground with educational research on the use of AI tools in language learning. I argue that generative AI (GenAI) has the potential to bring teachers closer to resolving common language acquisition challenges whilst highlighting the limitations of the technology.

Using AI to create personalised and engaging language input

AI avatars for tailored listening tasks

Platforms such as Vidnoz AI enable the creation of speaking avatars, either human-like or animated, by converting uploaded transcripts into spoken texts. Language practitioners can use this tool to create listening tasks, such as fill-the-gap or comprehension activities. Teachers can also generate a personalised avatar by uploading their own picture to the platform.

Beyond the shine, AI avatars could play a pedagogically useful role in language classrooms. For younger learners in particular, the use of cartoon avatars for listening activities could decrease the anxiety often associated with these exercises, and also add a surprise factor which may positively impact motivation and engagement. Engaging avatars further increase language learners' enjoyment, and social and cognitive experience, leading to improved learning outcomes, as highlighted in a review by Wang and Zou (2025) of Wang et al.’s (2022) work. More broadly, AI avatar technology is becoming more human-like, with body language or lip synchronisation becoming more accurately attuned with the message being conveyed. Drawing upon the Cognitive Theory of Multimedia Learning and Interaction Hypothesis, such characteristics provide learners with multisensory input, thereby promoting an immersive learning experience and facilitating language acquisition (Mayer 2024; Wang et al. 2024, both cited by Wang and Zou, 2025).

What do students think?

To evaluate AI avatar efficacy for listening tasks in my practice, I surveyed 84 students of Spanish (Years 6-10, ages 10-15) gathering quantitative data and qualitative perspectives. The results indicated that AI avatars can be a useful complement when it comes to listening tasks, particularly for a younger audience (Years 6-7 were more positive) and IGCSE students also reported benefits in using avatars when targeting exam preparation. However, 54 per cent of the pupils surveyed preferred the teacher reading the transcript over avatars (preferred by 32 per cent) or peer reading (preferred by 14 per cent) and many of their comments favoured a mixed approach, with some activities output by the teacher, others by avatars. This indicates that while AI avatars may be a valuable aid for variety and reducing anxiety, they are most effective as a complement to, not a replacement for, the teacher's reassuring presence.

AI as a learning tool: NotebookLM

NotebookLM is a powerful tool with significant applications in education. In essence, it acts as an ‘expert’ by internalising the resources you provide, e.g. pdfs, Google docs, text files, and web URLs including YouTube links. It can then generate study guides, summaries or answers to questions by identifying connections and answers from the provided sources and referencing them explicitly. This key feature is known as ‘source-grounding’, and because of it, the tool prevents ‘hallucinations’: plausible-sounding answers that are incorrect or simply invented by the machine.

The process NotebookLM uses is called Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG). When prompted with a question, the AI system first searches through all the resources you have provided to find and retrieve the relevant information. The system then uses that retrieved information and ‘augments’ it by combining the facts with the initial question. This creates a new, detailed prompt that forces the AI to generate its answer based only on the initially provided sources.

Beyond written output, NotebookLM can also produce ‘Deep Dive’ discussions in a variety of languages where two hosts unpack ideas from the uploaded content in an informal, podcast-style manner. Within my practice, I have experimented by uploading Spanish A-level materials such as comprehension texts, core knowledge documents, and even YouTube videos. I have then shared the ‘podcast’ created with my students to support their extensive listening skills and enhance their knowledge of the Hispanic culture - a fundamental component of the A-level language course. Furthermore, a recently incorporated interactive mode allows users to ask questions that the ‘podcast’ hosts will address in real-time, allowing learners to engage more directly with the content.

How can this help learning?

Academic research on NotebookLM is scarce at these early stages, however some studies already discuss promising applications for language learning. In particular, the study by Yeo, Moorhouse and Wan (2025), although primarily conducted in a university context, offers highly relevant pedagogical insights for advance courses such as languages at A-level. Drawing a parallel with the study, the Deep Dive podcast function would allow A-level language learners to access and engage with linguistically challenging materials, such as texts analysing aspects of Hispanic society or essays interpreting the film Pan’s Labyrinth, beyond the written word. By exposing pupils to texts multimodally, in written and audio in this case, we can lower the cognitive load and help them engage with resources beyond their linguistic proficiency (Yeo, Moorhouse and Wan, 2025). Furthermore, NotebookLM’s Deep Dive customisation function enables teachers to create high-quality audio input aligned with core language acquisition principles ensuring the material is comprehensible, meaning-based, and communicatively embedded in a natural, conversational context (Yeo, Moorhouse and Wan, 2025). In addition, hosts on the 'podcast’ interact in a relaxed manner, which helps foster a low-anxiety atmosphere. This is a factor that Yeo, Moorhouse and Wan (2025), drawing on earlier research, identify as crucial for managing students’ negative emotions in language learning.

AI-generated songs for targeted vocabulary and grammar

Traditionally, songs have been a tool widely used by second language teachers as part of their repertoire with the assumption that they facilitate language acquisition. However, their effectiveness lacks strong support. After assessing 60 intervention studies from 23 countries, Hamilton et al. (2024) found that while most studies claimed a positive causal effect, their research designs were not robust enough to support these arguments.

From my own practice as a language teacher, the conclusions from Hamilton et al. (2024) systematic review are not surprising. While I have always ‘felt’ the potential of using songs to aid student engagement and learning, I have consistently run into the challenge of finding the right track to effectively accomplish language acquisition. The selection process itself is laden with pedagogical, linguistic and logistical questions: Is the song targeting a relevant grammar structure or vocabulary? To what extent do the students understand the lyrics and message? Is the language appropriate for their age? How long is the song, and how much lesson time will it consume? All these queries make me doubt the overall efficiency of using songs as a reliable teaching tool in the classroom.

AI-generated songs could play a crucial role in addressing some of these pitfalls, as they allow language practitioners to fully tailor lyrics to their pedagogical aims. Smith and Conti (2023) suggest that effective song curation should be based on several key principles:

comprehensible input: ensuring the lyrics are linguistically accessible to learners
flooded input: saturating the song with desired language features to be learned
linguistic relevance: aligning the content with curriculum goals
‘socio-cultural’ relevance: matching the song to students’ interests, preferences, and cultural sensitivity.

In my practice, platforms such as Suno AI have allowed me to create songs aligned with these principles. For example, I created a rap flooded with idiomatic expressions for my Year 10 class, a ballad describing opinions of others on holiday preferences using the always challenging verb ‘gustar’ (to like) for my Year 9 class or a catchy pop song describing what someone does in their free time using the structures covered in the sentence builder for my Year 8 class. While this process felt effective from a teacher's perspective, it was crucial to assess the learners’ views.

What do the students think?

To evaluate the efficacy and student reception of AI-generated songs, I surveyed 38 students across Years 7, 8 and 10. The results indicated a strong belief in the educational potential of AI-generated songs, with 70-83 per cent across all year groups viewing them as useful learning tools. This was particularly insightful, even if preference for authentic music grew with age (from 28 per cent in Year 7 to 50 per cent in Year 10). The oldest cohort (Year 10) demonstrated notable metacognitive awareness, identifying the AI songs as a resource for assimilating new structures for exam preparation and suggesting a hybrid approach where both AI and traditional songs are used in lessons. To improve the AI-generated songs, students across all age groups requested clearer pronunciation, a slower pace, curriculum-aligned vocabulary, and the inclusion of cultural elements.

Using AI to foster productive speaking skills

GenAI agents for personalised speaking practice

GenAI agents – LLM-powered avatars capable of verbal interaction – could offer an interesting aid to language teachers seeking to improve their students’ oral skills. Platforms such as Talos Languages allow language practitioners to create highly personalised assignments by customising parameters such as skill level, conversation duration, speaking speed and target tenses, vocabulary or questions. During the task, pupils can benefit from real-time scaffoldingProgressively introducing students to new concepts to support their learning, including captions and key vocabulary display aiming to reduce cognitive load and build confidence. After a session, the platform provides automated feedback with a score and comments on clarity, confidence and vocabulary use, promoting an interesting motivational loop for students.

It could be argued that this type of interactive dialogue, albeit virtual, addresses fundamental principles of language acquisition. As Smith and Conti (2023) highlight, effective learning requires not just comprehensible input, but also interaction and learner output. This is supported by key theories such as Long’s Interaction Hypothesis (1981, as cited in Smith & Conti, 2023), which posits how dialogue and meaning negotiation aid comprehension, and Swain’s Output Hypothesis (1993, as cited in Smith & Conti, 2023), which suggests that producing language helps learners notice grammatical forms and identify linguistic gaps, thereby fostering accuracy. By simulating these conditions in a controlled and less pressured environment than the classroom, GenAI agents could help develop our pupils’ speaking skills.

Using AI as a tool for student metacognition and reflective assessment

AI transcription for analysing oral assessments

Assessing students’ speaking proficiency without recordings is a challenging task. Language practitioners need to pay attention to various variables such as complexity, fluency and accuracy (Jiang et al., 2021) and intonation or pronunciation interplay under time pressure. Once the student utters their answers, they vanish and with them the evidence of their performance. This has always left me uneasy, as right after the test, I question how much pupils take in from my oral feedback and how accurate this actually is.

With the aim of performing a better assessment of my students’ end of year speaking responses I tried out Voicenotes, an AI app that records and transcribes in more than 100 languages. The tool enabled me to read their answers as transcripts and modify my initial marks, if necessary. To make the process more pedagogically interesting, this year I decided to highlight errors on the printed transcript for pupils to correct in the post-assessment feedback lesson as a tool for reflexion and metacognition.

What do students think?

As Kessler et al. (2020) highlight, the primary benefit of reviewing a transcript is that it helps learners to consciously ‘notice’ gaps between their intended meaning and their actual output. Schmidt’s (1990, 2001) ‘noticing hypothesis’ deems crucial for language students to consciously register (i.e. notice) the input in order for it to become intake and lead to acquisition (cited by Kessler et al. 2020). A remarkable percentage of my students (Year 10 and Year 8: 100 per cent; Year 6: 84 per cent) reported that the transcript helped them notice mistakes.

Most learners who identified mistakes cited grammar (specifically verb endings and adjective agreement) as the primary type of error the transcript revealed. This contradicts the findings from Kessler et al. (2020), which mention vocabulary and content but not grammar as the key types of errors that transcripts helped pupils to notice amongst pupils in their study.

Another interesting insight from the surveys was that it revealed a clear development in students’ metacognitive awareness with age. Years 6, 7 and 8 focused on foundational errors, with one Year 8 student realising, "I needed to work on words agreeing with gender, which I hadn’t noticed before." Year 10 pupils, on the other hand, used the transcript for more strategic, higher-level reflection, noting the need to "add more level 9 structures and idioms" and "take a short time to structure the idea in my mind instead of just saying the first thing." This aligns with the "automatisation" concept from Jiang et al. (2021), as they focus on complexity once foundational errors are visible.

It was pleasant to witness how students overwhelmingly see the value for future improvement. A strong majority of learners across all cohorts agreed that having access to transcripts would help them improve more quickly in the future (Year 8: 100 per cent; Year 10: 92 per cent; Year 6: 90 per cent).

Although AI-transcription apps show a great potential in languages, there is still room for refinement. For instance, students in Year 6 and Year 10 pointed out transcription errors. Similarly, I encountered how certain words mispronounced by students were ‘corrected’ in the transcript by the AI as described by Cámara-Arenas et al. (2023). They explain how Automatic Speech Recognition (ASR) tools prioritise communication and understanding intent and it will often ‘correctly’ recognise a word that was, in fact, pronounced poorly. Therefore, the ‘human-in-the-loop’ approach, where the teacher checks the transcript and underlines sentences with errors is key to helping students notice and correct them in feedback sessions.

Conclusion

This analysis has shown how several AI technologies can be used in various stages of the language acquisition process, helping teachers to provide rich, varied and learner-focused content, pupil-led speaking practice and opportunities for self-reflection.

While the focus is often on the AI tools themselves, a common thread emerging from the student surveys is a clear appreciation of the ‘human-in-the-loop’, that is the teacher who guides, scaffolds and adds human value to the process.

Ultimately, the challenge for language teachers is not simply to adopt these new tools, but to critically and creatively integrate them in their practice. Only then will practitioners unlock a new potential in language education.

Dance at Lansbury Lawrence: A Case Study

This article has been published as part of the Rethinking Curriculum project, kindly funded by The Helen Hamlyn Trust.

Kerri Sellens, Assistant Head, Lansbury Lawrence Primary School

Introduction

Lansbury Lawrence Primary School is situated in Poplar, in the east London borough of Tower Hamlets; a community that faces significant socio-economic challenges. Tower Hamlets has one of the highest rates of child poverty in the UK (Trust for London, n.d.). At Lansbury Lawrence over 50 per cent of our pupils qualify for pupil premium (PP). Additionally, 88 per cent of our students speak English as an additional language (EAL), and 24 per cent of children have identified Special Educational Needs. These statistics highlight the need for an inclusive, enriching curriculum that supports all learners.

At Lansbury Lawrence, we recognise the critical role of the arts in addressing educational inequities. As highlighted in The Arts in Schools report (Tambling and Bacon, 2023): ‘Arts subjects are a valued part of the curriculum in their own right in independent schools, which fall outside of curricular mandates: cultural learning is embedded, connecting and enhancing learning in other subjects.’ The Cultural Learning Alliance (2023) further summarised: ‘despite all that we know about the value of arts subjects for children and young people, there is a lack of value ascribed to the arts within the state education system in England. Access to the arts is not equitable: we have a two-tier system, with the arts more highly valued in independent schools.’

We are strategic in our approach to closing this gap at Lansbury Lawrence. We plan for sustained development within the arts as, like our independent school colleagues, we have found a consistent impact on teaching and learning across the curriculum through creative arts approaches.

Research supports this approach: Catterall et al. (2012) found that socioeconomically disadvantaged students who engaged in the arts demonstrated higher educational achievement than their peers who did not.

This case study explores one of our initiatives: developing curriculum impact through dance and movement.

Why dance?

As part of our Artsmark accreditation process, we audited our arts provision and identified dance as an area with untapped potential.

Dance is a statutory requirement in the UK National Curriculum for Physical Education at both Key Stage 1 and Key Stage 2 (DfE, 2013). However, we saw opportunities to integrate dance beyond PE, embedding it across subjects to support learning, engagement, and wellbeing.

Additionally, we were also aware of local health statistics. By Year 6, over 40 per cent of children in Tower Hamlets have excess weight (Tower Hamlets Council, 2023), increasing their risk of poor health outcomes. We believed that by incorporating more movement-based learning, we could contribute positively to students’ physical wellbeing whilst also enriching their educational experience.

Curriculum and pedagogical approach

Our journey into developing our dance provision began in 2020 through conversations with Akram Khan Company (AKC). We wanted to learn more about dance from professionals, and AKC were interested in exploring the legacy potential of working more closely with primary schools.

Akram Khan’s background resonated strongly with our community. Born in London to a Bangladeshi family, Khan’s journey as a world-renowned dancer challenged stereotypes and provided an aspirational figure for our children.

Having established a relationship, in 2022 we applied for the Paul Hamlyn Foundation Teacher Development Fund, proposing a two-year project to provide dance training for teachers across five primary schools. The bid was successful, launching an ambitious initiative aimed at upskilling teachers to integrate dance and movement into their everyday teaching.

The project was structured to start with professional dancers leading the sessions. Many teachers initially felt apprehensive about their own dance abilities, but reframing dance as “movement” made participation more accessible. Dance could be any movement, big or small. Through workshops and collaborative planning, teachers and dancers worked together to embed movement into the curriculum across various subjects and key stages.

As the project progressed, the role of professional dancers gradually shifted from leading lessons to mentoring teachers. This empowered educators to independently use movement in their teaching, ensuring sustainability beyond the initial training period.

We also factored in opportunities for school assemblies led by AKC dancers, for whole-school communities to experience a technical performance together.

By the end of the two years, dance was integrated into multiple curriculum areas, including science, history, geography, English, and maths. It was also used for classroom transitions, calming activities, and focus-building exercises. Each school had at least two dance advocates – teachers trained through the project who shared their learning with colleagues through in-house professional development sessions.

Project reach and impact

The project had a significant impact across the participating schools:

Dance artists involved: 12
Lead teachers trained: 15
Teaching assistants engaged: 10
Senior leadership team participants: 10
Children reached: 420
Teachers benefiting from training: 80

Findings

Supported by the Paul Hamlyn Foundation, we conducted an in-depth evaluation using a Theory of Change framework, guided by three key enquiry questions:

How can a dance continuing professional development and learning (CPDL) programme develop genuine buy-in from teachers at different career stages and skill levels?
What impact does using dance as a teaching tool have on children’s communication and engagement in learning across the curriculum?
How can lead teachers effectively share their new dance pedagogy across their schools?

Key Findings

Teacher engagement: Regular, structured collective sessions fostered strong buy-in. The opportunity for ongoing discussions and collaboration between teachers and dancers created a mutual exchange of expertise, leading to a deeper appreciation and understanding of dance as a pedagogical tool.
Children’s communication and engagement: Teachers reported marked improvements in the children’s ability to express ideas, engage in lessons, and retain vocabulary and concepts across the curriculum when dance was integrated into their learning. This aligns with Education Endowment Foundation (2021) research, which finds that arts participation positively impacts academic outcomes.
Sustainable change: The model of embedding dance advocates in each school ensured that the initiative did not fade after the external support ended. Teachers continue to use movement strategies independently and have shared their learning through in-school training. To mitigate against the possibility of any of our advocates leaving their schools, sharing learning wider became an essential strategy for legacy within the second year of the project.

As further evidence of impact, Lansbury Lawrence was one of the core schools that contributed to the recent Researching the Arts in Primary Schools report (Thompson et al., 2025). It found: ‘Commitment to the expressive arts does not come at the expense of other subject learning. The majority of the arts-rich schools we studied did at least as well as, if not better, than equivalent schools and schools in their local authority.’

Recommendations

Sustained curriculum development

Implementing arts integration requires time. Align initiatives with school priorities and ensure there is a clear plan for lasting impact.
A structured framework, such as the Artsmark process, can help schools to evaluate their provision and identify areas for improvement with senior leadership support.

Leverage local resources and networks

Schools can utilise their unique contexts by engaging with local arts organisations and community networks to design relevant and meaningful arts opportunities.
Collaborating and co-designing lessons with professional artists can provide invaluable expertise and inspiration for all.

Embedding arts in school culture

To sustain arts integration, schools should establish internal specialists (e.g. dance advocates) who can support their colleagues through training and shared practice.
Providing time within staff development schedules for arts-based CPD ensures that teachers feel confident and capable in using creative approaches.

Conclusion

Lansbury Lawrence’s journey into integrating dance into the curriculum has demonstrated the power of movement as an educational tool. This initiative has enhanced student engagement, improved communication, and encouraged a greater appreciation for the arts within our school community.

While we have made significant strides, there is still work to be done in ensuring this learning becomes deeply embedded. Given the pressures of a packed curriculum and limited time, finding accessible and practical ways to incorporate dance and movement remains crucial. All the Tower Hamlets primary schools involved with this project are committed to continuing this work.

The key takeaway? Find your purpose, connect with others, and be bold. The arts offer limitless possibilities for enhancing teaching and learning, and they deserve to be embraced.

References

Catterall J S, Dumais S A and Hampden-Thompson G (2012) The Arts and Achievement in At-Risk Youth. Available at: https://www.arts.gov/sites/default/files/Arts-At-Risk-Youth.pdf (accessed 29 May 2025).

Cultural Learning Alliance (2023) The Arts in Schools: Foundations for the Future – Summary Report. Available at: https://www.culturallearningalliance.org.uk/arts-in-schools-summary/ (accessed 29 May 2025).

Department for Education (DfE) (2013) Physical education programmes of study: key stages 1 and 2. Available at: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5a7c4edfed915d3d0e87b801/PRIMARY_national_curriculum_-_Physical_education.pdf (accessed 29 May 2025).

Education Endowment Foundation (EEF)(2021) Teaching & Learning Toolkit: Arts Participation. Available at: https://educationendowmentfoundation.org.uk/education-evidence/teaching-learning-toolkit/arts-participation (accessed 29 May 2025).

Tambling P and Bacon S (2023) The Arts in Schools: Full Report. Available at: https://www.culturallearningalliance.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/The-Arts-in-Schools-full-report-2023.pdf (accessed 29 May 2025).

Thomson P, Hall C and Maloy L (2025) The RAPS Project: Researching the Arts in Primary Schools. Available at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/389602328_The_RAPS_Project_Researching_the_Arts_in_Primary_Schools (accessed 29 May 2025).

Tower Hamlets Council (2023) Child Healthy Weight Action Plan. Available at: https://www.towerhamlets.gov.uk/Documents/Children-and-families-services/Child-healthy-weight-action-plan.pdf (accessed 29 May 2025).

Trust for London (n.d.) Tower Hamlets. Available at: https://trustforlondon.org.uk/data/boroughs/tower-hamlets-poverty-and-inequality-indicators (accessed 29 May 2025).