Education: Joining the Dots

How has teacher retention changed since initial teacher training began?

Teacher retention has collapsed since initial teacher training expanded. In one cohort that started with 183 trainees, only about 90 completed the course—and staying in teaching beyond a few years has become the exception rather than the rule . What once looked like a lifelong career path now stretches across far shorter tenures.

The shift is striking when measured against living memory. Teachers who entered the profession decades ago often recall their colleagues as fixtures in schools—professionals who taught multiple generations of families and remained until retirement. That continuity has largely vanished. Those who stay past their first few years are now rarities rather than the norm, a seismic change in how the profession sustains itself.

This decline sits within a broader crisis. As discussed in this podcast episode , the TES School Wellbeing Report 2024 found that 74% of school staff have contemplated leaving the profession in the past year —a figure that underscores how unsustainable current conditions have become for teachers across all career stages.

The damage begins early. Training cohorts are halved before graduation, and many who do graduate never make it to their second year. The profession is haemorrhaging talent before teachers have even begun their careers in earnest.

From pipelines to leaks: the exodus at every stage

The problem is not confined to the early years. Workload, systemic pressures, and burnout affect teachers at every point in their journey. As the podcast reveals , 61% of nearly 7,000 respondents to the TES report said their workload is simply not manageable. The stress accelerates once teachers are established: 78% of SENCOs reported unmanageable workloads , as did 71% of middle leaders.

This cascading exit means schools are not just losing new teachers—they are losing experienced staff who might otherwise anchor a school's culture and mentor the next generation. Retention has become a constant uphill battle, with schools unable to build the stable, multi-generational staffrooms that once steadied the profession.

What happens when you lose not just numbers but institutional memory, mentorship capacity, and the lived experience of long-serving educators? The episode digs deeper into what leaders and early career teachers are experiencing as they navigate a profession in flux.

What systemic issues do educators identify as underlying causes of staff wellbeing challenges?

Schools are trapped in a perfect storm of underfunding, unchecked SEND demand, chronic staff shortages, and unmanageable workload — problems that stretch far beyond individual resilience and demand systemic intervention. External pressures from Ofsted compounds these challenges, leaving educators battling structural failures rather than isolated difficulties.

The TES School Wellbeing Report 2024 surveyed nearly 7,000 school staff and uncovered the depth of these systemic issues. Educators didn't point fingers at their colleagues or local circumstances alone; they identified budget constraints as a foundational problem that ripples through every classroom and staffroom.

Rising SEND (Special Educational Needs and Disabilities) referrals add another layer of pressure. Schools are struggling to meet these needs without corresponding increases in resources or specialist staff, forcing existing teams to stretch themselves thinner. As discussed in the episode , one headteacher named the rising SEND population as a critical concern — a problem they can identify but cannot solve alone.

Workload and the impossible mathematics of modern schooling

The numbers make the reality stark: 61% of respondents reported their workload is not manageable . That percentage climbs dramatically for specialist roles — 78% of SENCOs and 71% of middle leaders say they cannot sustainably manage their load. These are not anecdotal complaints; they reflect a structural imbalance between demand and capacity.

This isn't simply about long hours. Teachers describe being asked to do more with less: larger classes, fewer support staff, rising pastoral needs, and compliance demands that seem to multiply each term. The workload issue doesn't sit in isolation — it feeds directly into whether educators consider leaving the profession entirely.

Ofsted and external accountability as amplifiers

Beyond budgets and staffing, Ofsted inspection pressure adds a layer of external stress that schools cannot control but must navigate constantly. The pursuit of inspection readiness can distort school priorities and add administrative burden on top of existing teaching demands. Educators in this podcast identified this as a specific pressure point — not something they created, but something they must endure.

The widening gap for disadvantaged children represents a final systemic failure. Schools serving communities with higher deprivation face compounded needs — more SEND, more trauma, more poverty-related challenges — yet paradoxically receive fewer resources. This inequality isn't a school management problem; it's a policy problem.

"I had to really remember that I can't do it all. And actually, people that are around me have amazing strengths and I need to lean on them."

Becky Hawes — CEO of Cadmus Inclusive, reflecting on the necessity of shared responsibility and collective strength in addressing overwhelming systemic pressures in education.

The core insight here is crucial: educators speaking in this episode were clear that wellbeing challenges are not personal failings to be fixed with mindfulness apps. They are systemic failures requiring policy-level change: proper funding, adequate staffing, realistic workload, and support mechanisms that match the actual complexity of modern schools.

How manageable is workload for different roles in schools according to recent survey data?

According to the TES School Wellbeing Report 2024, 61% of nearly 7,000 school staff respondents reported that their workload is not manageable . However, certain roles face significantly sharper pressure: 78% of SENCOs (Special Educational Needs Coordinators) and 71% of middle leaders said their workload is unmanageable, revealing a stark gap between different positions in schools.

The burden hits specialist and leadership roles hardest

The TES survey uncovered a troubling pattern when broken down by role. While the baseline finding of 61% across nearly 7,000 respondents already signals a crisis, the disparity widens considerably for those in dual or expanded responsibilities. SENCOs carry the heaviest load, with 78% reporting unmanageable workload —a gap of 17 percentage points above the whole-staff average.

Middle leaders occupy a similar pressure point: 71% reported the same struggle , putting them 10 points above baseline. These roles typically blend classroom teaching with coordination, pastoral care, data management, or departmental oversight—a combination that evidently stretches capacity beyond sustainable limits.

The data comes directly from the TES School Wellbeing Report discussed in the Education: Joining the Dots episode , which surveyed thousands of UK school staff to assess the lived experience of workload and wellbeing across different career stages and positions.

Why specialist roles are overwhelmed

SENCOs and middle leaders occupy a unique structural position in schools. They are often expected to deliver curriculum or teaching duties while simultaneously managing systems, compliance, meetings, and support coordination. There is no formal capacity reduction that typically accounts for these additional responsibilities, meaning the workload simply accumulates on top of baseline classroom work.

For SENCOs in particular, the role spans legal compliance (Education, Health and Care Plans), individual support planning, staff liaison, parent communication, and safeguarding oversight—often without dedicated non-contact time. Middle leaders face parallel pressure: they mentor junior staff, oversee assessment data, plan curriculum developments, and attend multiple meetings while still teaching a full timetable.

This pattern is explored more fully in the full episode, where headteachers and early career teachers discuss the real conditions and support available to different roles .

More than 6 in 10 UK school staff (61%) describe their workload as unmanageable, according to TES 2024 data.

SENCOs bear the highest burden: 78% report unmanageable workload, 17 points above the whole-staff average.

Middle leaders are nearly as stretched: 71% report unmanageable workload, suggesting leadership overlay without adequate capacity release.

The gap between roles indicates that specialist and leadership positions lack the formal time allocation or support needed to sustain their expanded remit.

What percentage of school staff have contemplated leaving the teaching profession?

According to the TES School Wellbeing Report 2024 UK, 74% of school staff have contemplated leaving the profession entirely in the past year. This striking figure reveals a widespread crisis in teacher retention and job satisfaction across UK schools.

The scale of this exodus threat is not evenly distributed across school roles. As explored in this episode on teacher wellbeing , certain positions face even sharper pressures—78% of SENCOs (Special Educational Needs Coordinators) reported that their workload is not manageable, compared to 71% of middle leaders, underscoring the particular strain on those juggling dual responsibilities.

Workload emerges as the central driver behind these figures. 61% of the nearly 7,000 respondents to the TES survey identified workload as unmanageable , a finding that transcends job title and experience level. The data suggests that burnout and capacity exhaustion, rather than pedagogy itself, are pushing educators toward the door.

Why experienced and new staff alike are reconsidering their future

The contemplation of leaving spans both ends of the career spectrum. Early career teachers face their own distinct challenges—training cohorts show significant attrition, with some losing nearly half their graduates to alternative careers within a few years. Meanwhile, headteachers and established leaders report the mental and emotional toll of managing schools under relentless pressure.

The wellbeing crisis, detailed at length in the full podcast conversation , points to systemic issues—insufficient time for planning, marking, and pastoral care; competing demands from accountability frameworks; and a lack of tangible support structures. When three-quarters of staff have seriously considered leaving, the issue is no longer individual resilience but institutional sustainability .

What makes this data particularly concerning is that it captures a moment when schools were already adapting to post-pandemic conditions. The percentage reflects not an aberration, but what may be a new baseline for teacher dissatisfaction—a warning sign that incremental approaches to workload are insufficient.

What are the main positive takeaways for early career teachers and new school leaders completing their first year?

The first year brings real wins: one early career teacher taught over 800 students , creating tangible impact across the school. A new school leader discovered that her small, tightly-knit team was the greatest asset—colleagues pulling together, each bringing equal strength and expertise she could lean on.

The scale of impact often surprises new teachers. Having taught over 800 students in a single year is not just a number—it represents hundreds of young people who received direct instruction, feedback, and support at a formative moment in their education. That reach, spread across a whole school or year group, becomes a powerful reminder of why educators choose the profession in the first place.

For new school leaders, the realization is equally profound: you cannot carry the weight alone, and you shouldn't . At a small school of just 85 children, the headteacher discovered that every member of staff—regardless of experience level—brought equally valid strengths and expertise. That shift in mindset—from believing you must have all the answers to trusting the collective capability of your team—transforms the first year from exhaustion into partnership.

"I had to really remember that I can't do it all. And actually, people that are around me have amazing strengths and I need to lean on them."

New school leader — completing her first year as headteacher at a small primary school, reflecting on the importance of delegating and trusting colleagues' expertise

This is not a soft skill or a nice-to-have insight. The TES School Wellbeing Report 2024 shows that 61% of nearly 7,000 school staff surveyed reported workload is not manageable , with middle leaders reporting 71% experiencing unsustainable demands. Early career teachers and new leaders who build collaboration into their first year model a different path—one where strength comes from shared responsibility, not individual heroism.

The episode also explores practical strategies for managing that transition , including how to communicate your needs to colleagues and create a culture where seeking support is the norm, not the exception.

Student impact and professional identity

When a first-year teacher reflects on having reached 800 students, something shifts. The job becomes less about survival and more about purpose. Each lesson, each piece of feedback, each moment of connection has been genuinely felt by a real young person. Over a full year, that compounds into a visible legacy—students who improved, who felt seen, who gained confidence or skill because of this teacher's deliberate effort.

This awareness of scale and impact is a critical anchor for retention and resilience . In a profession where workload complaints dominate the conversation, centering the positive outcome—the actual students touched—recalibrates motivation for years to come.

Building strength through delegation, not isolation

The headteacher's insight reveals a practical shift in how new leaders can approach their role. Instead of framing delegation as admitting defeat, it becomes strategic use of the team's collective intelligence . A school of 85 children is intimate enough that every staff member's contribution is visible and valued.

This translates to lower burnout, better decision-making, and—paradoxically—more effective leadership. When a headteacher trusts her team and acts on that trust visibly, staff retention improves and morale rises. It's a virtuous circle that begins with the willingness to name what you cannot do alone.

What is the typical duration of the New Group Math Test assessment?

The New Group Math Test takes 45 to 60 minutes for learners to complete. Once students finish within this timeframe, schools immediately gain access to comprehensive data including overall maths scores, domain-specific results, and insights across multiple curriculum areas.

This assessment window has been carefully designed to fit seamlessly into school schedules without disrupting the wider timetable. The duration is deliberately structured to allow sufficient time for students to demonstrate their mathematical understanding across different question types and difficulty levels.

As Andy Small explains in the episode , the assessment was designed with both challenge and scaffolding in mind —ensuring that students who excel have sufficient stretch while those finding maths more difficult receive appropriate support through the question design itself.

Real-time data unlocks immediate classroom action

The true value of this 45–60 minute window lies in what happens immediately after. Schools don't simply receive a final score; they unlock domain-specific breakdown across curriculum strands , enabling teachers to pinpoint precisely where individual learners need support or enrichment. This granularity of data, available almost instantly after completion, transforms the assessment from a summative endpoint into a diagnostic tool for the next teaching sequence.

Teachers can identify patterns across their cohort—whether certain topics require reteaching, which students are ready to progress, and where targeted interventions might have the highest impact. This is particularly valuable given that research shows classroom confidence in mathematics varies widely among UK teaching staff , and evidence-based data becomes a trusted foundation for instructional decisions.

"We tried to ensure that a test experience is one that ensures challenge for those kids that demand it, as well as scaffolding for those that might find maths more difficult."

Andy Small — Assessment Specialist for Numeracy and Mathematics, Renaissance (GL Assessment). With nearly 16 years' experience as a mathematics specialist in primary and independent prep schools, Small served as a maths leader managing significant challenges including limited budgeting and varying staff confidence. He joined Renaissance to bring his classroom expertise directly into assessment development, focusing on products that genuinely support individual children and teachers.

The 45–60 minute duration is neither rushed nor unnecessarily extended—it reflects practical classroom reality while ensuring comprehensive curriculum coverage across multiple domains , a critical feature given the diversity of learner needs in any typical classroom.

When was the New Group Math Test first proposed as a concept?

The New Group Math Test was first proposed in 2017 as a seed concept, emerging from questions Andy Small fielded about the potential for a new mathematics assessment. The project then evolved through multiple years of structured development—item writing, rigorous review, trial phases, and standardization—before reaching release.

When Andy Small was still a classroom practitioner using GL Assessment's tools in schools, he began fielding inquiries about whether a fresh approach to math assessment was possible. Rather than remaining a casual idea, this concept took shape across the years as a formal research and development initiative within Renaissance.

The journey from concept to classroom wasn't immediate. Multiple stages of meticulous design work followed the 2017 proposal—including writing and selecting assessment items, peer review processes, real-world trialing with students, and standardization protocols to ensure the test was fair, reliable, and valid across diverse school contexts.

"We tried to ensure that a test experience is one that ensures challenge for those kids that demand it, as well as scaffolding for those that might find maths more difficult."

Andy Small — Assessment Specialist for Numeracy and Mathematics at Renaissance (GL Assessment). With nearly 16 years of experience as a mathematics specialist and subject leader in primary and independent prep schools, Small brings authentic classroom insight to assessment design. He transitioned to Renaissance to focus on product development that directly supports both individual learners and teachers, drawing on years of managing real-world challenges including budget constraints and staff confidence gaps.

The adaptive nature of the NGMT reflects this design philosophy: rather than a uniform test that everyone completes in identical order, the assessment adjusts to each child's demonstrated ability. For students finding mathematics challenging, this tailored approach reduces unnecessary frustration , while more confident mathematicians encounter appropriate stretch. The test itself takes between 45 and 60 minutes per learner to administer.

What started as a genuine user question in 2017 has become a complete assessment tool shaped by classroom realities and research evidence. The full episode explores how this design journey unfolded , including the specific feedback and insights that guided each development phase.

What proportion of the UK population is estimated to experience developmental dyscalculia?

Approximately 6% of the UK population experiences developmental dyscalculia , according to the British Dyslexia Association. This translates into 1–2 pupils in every classroom, a statistic that underscores the prevalence of this learning difficulty across UK schools.

Why dyscalculia matters in the classroom

Understanding the scale of dyscalculia is essential for teachers to recognize how many of their students may be struggling with number concepts. The British Dyslexia Association's figure of 6% means that developmental dyscalculia is far from rare , yet many children go unidentified because the condition is less visible than other learning differences.

As explored in the episode on mastering maths assessment , the New Group Math Test (NGMT) was specifically designed to help identify students who may be at risk of dyscalculia and highlight the need for further investigation and support.

"We tried to ensure that a test experience is one that ensures challenge for those kids that demand it, as well as scaffolding for those that might find maths more difficult."

Andy Small — Assessment Specialist for Numeracy and Mathematics at Renaissance (GL Assessment). With nearly 16 years of experience as a mathematics specialist in primary and independent prep schools, where he served as a maths leader, Small brings classroom expertise directly to assessment design. His work now focuses on creating tools that support both individual children and teachers in identifying learners who may benefit from targeted intervention.

The classroom impact is significant: having 1–2 pupils per class who experience number dyslexia means teachers need reliable, early-identification tools. A discussion of how schools can better screen for these difficulties appears in this podcast episode on assessment and early support .

Moving from identification to targeted support

The 6% figure is not just a statistic—it's a call to action. When classrooms contain 1–2 pupils affected by dyscalculia, systematic identification becomes essential for teachers to adapt their instruction and prevent learned helplessness.

NGMT was built with this reality in mind. As detailed in the full episode , the assessment helps teachers spot which learners might struggle with number concepts and need scaffolding, while also ensuring challenge for those with stronger mathematical thinking.

6% of the UK population experiences developmental dyscalculia according to the British Dyslexia Association.

This means 1–2 pupils in a typical UK classroom are likely to be number dyslexic.

Early identification through targeted assessment is critical to providing the right support and preventing math anxiety.

Modern assessment tools like NGMT are designed to identify at-risk learners while maintaining challenge for confident mathematicians.

What does research suggest are the key areas for developing effective mathematics practice in secondary schools?

The Education Endowment Foundation study released in June identified four priority areas for mathematics practice : teacher skills and expertise, targeted interventions using assessment data and personalized materials, impactful practice where data reflects positive outcomes, and program engagement through adaptive testing that removes barriers to participation. These areas form the foundation for schools aiming to strengthen mathematics outcomes.

Building on Teacher Expertise and Data-Driven Support

The first two areas— strengthening teacher skills and deploying targeted interventions powered by assessment data —work in tandem. Teachers need both confidence and tools to deliver effective mathematics instruction. The framework emphasizes using assessment insights to match personalized practice materials, such as those available through platforms like Freckle, directly to individual learner needs rather than applying one-size-fits-all solutions.

As Andy Small explains in the episode , this data-informed approach ensures that interventions reach the students who need them most, at precisely the right level of difficulty.

Making Practice Count and Removing Test Barriers

The third and fourth priorities— impactful practice and program engagement —address how students interact with mathematics learning itself. Impactful practice means classroom activity that genuinely translates to measurable progress, not just busy work. Program engagement removes friction points that discourage students from fully participating, particularly through adaptive testing approaches that adjust difficulty in real time.

A deeper discussion of how these design principles were applied to create an effective assessment experience is covered in this podcast episode , which explores how adaptive technology reduces the anxiety many students feel during mathematics testing.

"We tried to ensure that a test experience is one that ensures challenge for those kids that demand it, as well as scaffolding for those that might find maths more difficult."

Andy Small — Assessment Specialist for Numeracy and Mathematics at Renaissance (GL Assessment). With nearly 16 years of classroom experience as a mathematics specialist in primary and independent prep schools, where he led mathematics for most of his career, Small brings direct understanding of both teacher challenges and student learning needs. He now works on assessment product development, applying his frontline expertise to create tools that support individual learners and their teachers.

The episode also reveals concrete examples of how schools like Cardinal Heenan and Cornerstone Academy Trust have benefited from this integrated approach, moving beyond surface-level intervention to systemic improvement. Listening to the full conversation provides insight into how these four research pillars translate into practical day-to-day classroom strategies.

Teacher skills and expertise form the foundation—without confident, well-trained mathematics educators, other interventions cannot succeed.

Targeted interventions must be informed by real assessment data and paired with personalized practice materials tailored to individual students.

Practice activities need to demonstrably improve outcomes; assessment data should validate that classroom work translates to measurable progress.

Adaptive testing and personalized assessment experiences increase student engagement by removing one-size-fits-all barriers and anxiety.

How can adaptive mathematics assessment reduce anxiety and improve accuracy for student testing?

Adaptive mathematics assessments remove the one-size-fits-all approach by presenting test content tailored to each student's perceived capability level , which significantly reduces stress and anxiety during formal assessment. This targeted, personalized method makes testing more accurate while simultaneously improving the overall test experience for learners.

Traditional standardized testing places every student on the same path: identical questions in identical order, regardless of ability. This approach creates unnecessary pressure for struggling learners who encounter material well beyond their current level, and equally wastes time for advanced students who breeze through content below their capabilities.

The New Group Math Test (NGMT), developed by Renaissance as discussed in this episode , transforms this experience through adaptive algorithms. Instead of a fixed sequence, the test dynamically adjusts difficulty based on each child's responses, ensuring they encounter questions that are appropriately challenging yet achievable .

Removing stress through personalized difficulty

When a student struggles with material that is too advanced, anxiety and disengagement follow naturally. Conversely, boring content below a student's level wastes assessment time and fails to uncover their true capabilities. Adaptive mathematics assessment solves both problems simultaneously by meeting each learner exactly where they are.

As Andy Small explains in the podcast episode , the design philosophy behind NGMT prioritizes both challenge and scaffolding in the same assessment . This dual approach means that every child—whether advanced, struggling, or somewhere in between—encounters a test experience designed specifically for their needs, dramatically reducing the anxiety traditionally associated with standardized assessments.

"We tried to ensure that a test experience is one that ensures challenge for those kids that demand it, as well as scaffolding for those that might find maths more difficult."

Andy Small — Assessment Specialist for Numeracy and Mathematics at Renaissance (GL Assessment). Over nearly 16 years as a mathematics specialist in primary and independent prep schools, Small served as a maths leader while navigating budgeting constraints and staff confidence disparities. He joined Renaissance to translate classroom experience into assessment design that genuinely supports individual learners and teachers.

Accuracy through targeted assessment

A second major benefit of adaptive testing is measurement precision. Traditional assessments often misclassify student ability because they force comparisons on a single fixed pathway. A child answering ten difficult questions and getting most wrong, versus answering ten easy questions and getting most right, may both receive a middling score—yet they represent vastly different capability profiles.

Adaptive mathematics assessment corrects this by ensuring that each student's score accurately reflects what they can actually do , not how lucky they were with question selection. A more precise assessment means teachers can confidently identify which students need targeted intervention and which are ready to move forward, ultimately enabling better instructional decisions at the classroom level.

The NGMT assessment duration of 45–60 minutes per learner is specifically designed to maximize this accuracy without overwhelming students, creating a more efficient and humane testing environment than many traditional alternatives as detailed further in the full episode .

What design principles guided the development of the New Group Math Test?

The NGMT was designed around two fundamental pillars: creating a personalised, stress-free test experience for every learner , and equipping teachers with the actionable insights they need to drive real progress, regardless of their confidence level or experience. The test achieves this through an adaptive algorithm that dynamically adjusts question difficulty based on each student's responses in real time.

These guiding principles emerged from a clear recognition that assessment must serve two distinct audiences simultaneously. On one side, learners need an experience that acknowledges their individual differences—presenting appropriate challenge without overwhelming those who find mathematics difficult. On the other, teachers require reliable data that supports informed decision-making, especially in contexts where staff confidence in mathematics varies widely across schools .

The adaptive approach is central to achieving this balance. Rather than presenting a fixed sequence of questions to all test-takers, the test dynamically adjusts difficulty in response to learner performance , ensuring that struggling students receive scaffolding while those excelling encounter genuine challenge. This personalisation occurs within a structured assessment window of 45–60 minutes per learner, making it practical for classroom use.

"We tried to ensure that a test experience is one that ensures challenge for those kids that demand it, as well as scaffolding for those that might find maths more difficult."

Andy Small — Assessment Specialist for Numeracy and Mathematics at Renaissance (GL Assessment). Small spent nearly 16 years as a mathematics specialist teaching in both primary and independent prep schools, where he served as a maths leader for the vast majority of his career. He brings firsthand classroom experience to product design, having worked directly with the challenges schools face around staff confidence and resource constraints.

Beyond the learner experience, the NGMT was engineered to generate insights that matter for teaching. Teachers receive clear, interpretable data that helps them identify gaps and tailor their instruction accordingly. This is particularly important given that approximately 3 in 10 UK teachers report anxiety about solving maths problems in front of their classes —a context where assessment tools must reduce rather than amplify pressure, while offering concrete guidance.

The design philosophy also reflects a deep understanding of real classroom constraints. As Small explains in the full episode , the team worked to ensure that assessment becomes a tool for inclusion rather than a barrier, particularly for the estimated 1–2 pupils in every UK classroom who experience developmental dyscalculia. The adaptive algorithm helps identify these learners earlier, enabling schools to provide appropriate support.

Bridging the gap between learner needs and teacher capability

Small's own background as a maths leader in primary schools meant the design team understood firsthand the real obstacles teachers face: budgeting limitations, mixed levels of subject expertise, and the need for assessment data that is both accurate and immediately actionable. The NGMT was built to address these gaps directly.

The result is an assessment tool that doesn't simply measure performance—it actively reduces test anxiety while generating the specific insights teachers need to differentiate their teaching . Whether a school has confident, experienced mathematicians on staff or is working with less experienced practitioners, the assessment provides a level playing field for interpreting student progress and making informed pedagogical decisions.

Personalised, stress-free test experience is fundamental to the NGMT design—balancing challenge with scaffolding for every learner.

Adaptive algorithms adjust question difficulty in real time based on individual student responses, ensuring appropriate pacing and challenge.

The assessment is designed to support teachers of all confidence levels by delivering clear, actionable insights rather than raw scores alone.

The 45–60 minute test window makes the assessment practical for classroom use without sacrificing the depth of information teachers need.

How does persistent student absence impact GCSE mathematics attainment rates?

Attendance below 90% in years 10 and 11 devastates mathematics GCSE pass rates. Students who were rarely absent achieve an 84% pass rate at grade four or above, but when absence reaches just 10% of sessions, that figure plummets below 50%—a direct, quantifiable correlation between school attendance and mathematics achievement.

This dramatic shift reveals why truancy and chronic absenteeism demand urgent intervention in secondary mathematics. The final two years before GCSE are already intensive; missing 10% of lessons compounds cumulative knowledge gaps and leaves students ill-prepared for the final examination.

As Andy Small explains in the Education: Joining the Dots episode , these statistics underscore the importance of early identification and support mechanisms. Schools cannot assume that all students arrive at GCSE with equal foundational understanding—absence widens that gap exponentially, especially in a subject as sequentially dependent as mathematics.

"We tried to ensure that a test experience is one that ensures challenge for those kids that demand it, as well as scaffolding for those that might find maths more difficult."

Andy Small — Assessment Specialist for Numeracy and Mathematics, Renaissance (GL Assessment). Small spent nearly 16 years as a mathematics specialist teaching in both primary and independent prep schools, where he served as a maths leader for the vast majority of his career. He brings firsthand classroom experience to assessment development, designing tools that support both high-achieving and struggling learners.

The attendance-attainment link is not new, but its precise quantification here provides schools with a concrete target: maintaining 90% attendance is not an arbitrary metric —it is the threshold that separates successful GCSE outcomes from failure. A learner who misses just one day every fortnight over two years faces a pass rate below half, regardless of ability.

Early intervention matters. If schools can identify students whose attendance is flagging in year 10 or earlier, targeted support—whether academic catch-up, mentorship, or pastoral care addressing barriers to attendance—becomes the direct lever for improving mathematics outcomes. The full episode explores how assessment tools like the New Group Math Test can help schools pinpoint which students need this support , moving beyond surface-level attendance records to understand actual skill gaps.

Absence also intersects with other vulnerabilities. Students with dyscalculia, anxiety around mathematics, or limited home support are statistically more likely to have poor attendance, creating a compounding disadvantage. The podcast discusses how schools can use diagnostic assessment data to differentiate support and keep at-risk learners engaged , but attendance policy itself must remain non-negotiable.

84% of students with rare absence in years 10–11 achieved GCSE mathematics grade 4 or above; below 50% achieved this when absence hit 10% of sessions.

A 10% absence rate—equivalent to missing roughly one day every two weeks—creates a catastrophic 34-percentage-point drop in pass rates.

The attendance threshold of 90% is not arbitrary; it marks the boundary between likely GCSE success and likely failure in mathematics.

Early identification and targeted intervention during year 10 can break the absence-attainment cycle before the final examination.

What are the primary challenges mathematics teachers and leaders face in UK schools today?

The obstacles are concrete and interconnected: three in ten UK teachers report feeling anxious about solving maths problems in front of their classes , while schools battle budgeting constraints, uneven staff expertise, chronic student absences, overcrowded curricula, and a critical shortage of high-quality professional development. These pressures compound on leaders tasked with managing inconsistent confidence across their teams while meeting increasingly complex student needs.

Budgeting limitations sit at the foundation of nearly every challenge facing maths departments. Schools lack resources to recruit specialists or invest in targeted professional development—a particularly acute problem when many qualified mathematicians choose lucrative careers in the private sector instead of teaching.

Staff experience and confidence are deeply fragmented. Significant disparities exist between teachers , with some feeling equipped to deliver rigorous maths instruction while others struggle with basic problem-solving confidence. This inconsistency creates a ripple effect: students receive uneven quality of teaching depending on which class they're assigned to, and leaders must navigate these dynamics while keeping morale intact.

As Andy Small explains in the episode , student attendance patterns—especially in secondary schools—create cascading learning gaps. When pupils miss sessions, they fall behind on cumulative content they cannot easily recover without targeted intervention.

The curriculum itself presents a structural burden. A dense maths syllabus leaves little room for flexibility, remediation, or deep consolidation of foundational concepts, forcing teachers to move forward regardless of readiness levels across their classes.

Time scarcity compounds every other pressure. Teachers and leaders juggle marking, planning, data management, pastoral duties, and compliance work—leaving minimal space for the collaborative reflection and peer learning that could build collective expertise. Limited availability of high-quality CPD means professional growth often falls to individual initiative rather than systemic support, a challenge Small has explored in depth throughout his years as a maths leader.

Student need is also evolving. Schools now encounter more pupils with developmental dyscalculia and other learning differences— around one to two students in every UK classroom —yet teachers often lack specific training or resources to support these learners effectively within mainstream settings.

Andy Small — Assessment Specialist for Numeracy and Mathematics at Renaissance (GL Assessment). After nearly 16 years leading maths in primary and independent prep schools, where he managed everything from curriculum design to staff development amid budget and confidence constraints, Small joined Renaissance to apply classroom experience directly to assessment product development—ensuring new tools support both teachers struggling with maths anxiety and leaders wrestling with data-driven decision making.

Behind every challenge lies a real person: a primary school teacher in North Manchester unable to find maths specialists for recruitment, a secondary leader trying to improve attendance despite systemic barriers, a maths coordinator frustrated by the gap between curriculum ambition and staff readiness. The texture of these obstacles becomes clearer when you listen to Small and the team discuss how assessment itself can become a lever for identifying where support is most needed —a practical pathway through an otherwise overwhelming landscape.

Three in ten UK teachers experience anxiety when solving mathematics problems in front of classes—a widespread confidence crisis affecting instructional quality.

Staff disparities mean students receive inconsistent teaching quality depending on which teacher they're assigned to, undermining equity.

Secondary school absences directly undermine learning: students absent 10% of sessions drop below 50% likelihood of securing a GCSE maths pass, while those rarely absent achieve 84% pass rates at grade 4 or above.

Dense curricula, limited CPD access, and time pressures leave teachers unable to consolidate learning or upskill collaboratively.

One to two pupils per UK classroom have developmental dyscalculia, yet specialist training remains scarce across schools.

What is the distinction between proximal and distal assessments and when should schools use each?

A proximal assessment measures specific criteria and stays close to the teaching content , testing immediate progress—such as vocabulary at the start and end of an intervention. A distal assessment has distance from what's being taught and shows whether students retain knowledge and can apply it in different contexts, even compared against national standards. Schools need both: proximal assessments celebrate immediate teaching success, while distal assessments prove that learning has generalized over time.

Proximal assessments: measuring immediate teaching impact

A proximal assessment is designed to measure specific criteria directly linked to what you've just taught . Think of it as checking progress immediately after an intervention or unit of study. If you're teaching vocabulary to a group of students, you run a proximal assessment at the beginning to see what they already know, then another at the end to show the immediate gain from your teaching.

This type of assessment is called "proximal" because it's close—in time and in content—to the actual instruction. As Becky Sinjin explains in the podcast , the proximity to teaching makes it easy to see whether your direct instruction worked. It answers a simple question: did students learn what I just taught them?

Distal assessments: proving knowledge sticks and transfers

A distal assessment has distance—both in time and context—from the original teaching . It measures whether students have retained knowledge weeks or months later, and critically, whether they can apply it in new or different situations. These assessments often allow schools to compare results against national samples and track progress over longer periods.

The power of distal assessments lies in their ability to show generalization. A student might pass a proximal vocabulary test immediately after a unit, but a distal assessment—perhaps six months later, embedded in a reading comprehension task—reveals whether that vocabulary actually stuck and whether the student can use it independently. This distinction is explored in depth in the episode , where the concept of knowledge durability becomes central to understanding what your data actually tells you.

"The standardized test results are there to support the teacher judgment, to contribute to the teacher judgment, not to replace it."

Becky Sinjin — Freelance school assessment and performance data consultant, with 15 years' experience as a data manager in secondary schools and 7 years of freelance work across multiple companies and educational organizations. She previously served as Head of Training at CISRA and worked with GL Assessment's training team, visiting schools to help educators implement assessment systems effectively.

To understand both assessment types in practice, listen to the episode for detailed examples of how schools use proximal assessments to celebrate weekly or monthly wins, and how distal assessments provide the evidence that long-term learning has actually occurred.

Proximal assessments measure immediate progress on content taught recently, showing whether direct instruction worked right away.

Distal assessments measure retention and application weeks or months later, proving that knowledge has generalized and persisted.

Proximal assessments celebrate short-term teaching success; distal assessments provide evidence of real, lasting learning.

Schools need both types to tell the complete story: proximal data keeps momentum high, while distal data proves long-term impact.

What are the top practical tips for effective data management in schools?

Get a tracking system that suits your school after reviewing all options. Focus on individual students rather than headlines and ensure teachers have easy…

What criteria should schools use to select the right assessment tracking system?

There is no universally "best" assessment tracking system— schools need to evaluate options against their specific needs and workflows . The right choice depends on whether the system delivers the analysis teachers actually need, whether data entry feels manageable for staff, and whether reports are easily accessible across devices like tablets or computers.

Each assessment tracking system comes with distinct strengths and weaknesses. Rather than searching for a single superior solution, schools should focus on understanding which system aligns with their operational priorities and pedagogical goals. As Becky Sinjin explains in the episode , the question isn't which system is universally better, but which one serves your school's particular context.

What to evaluate when selecting a tracking system

Start by examining what analysis and reporting the system can actually provide . Does it generate the specific insights your school needs to understand student progress and inform teaching decisions? Different systems excel at different types of data visualization and analysis, so clarifying your school's priority questions is essential.

Data entry experience matters significantly. Staff comfort with the interface directly affects adoption and consistency—if teachers find data entry cumbersome, the system's value diminishes. Similarly, ensure that accessing reports works the way your teachers prefer, whether that's through simple button clicks, visual graphs, or detailed tables.

Device accessibility is often overlooked but critical in modern schools. The system should work seamlessly across multiple devices including tablets, laptops, and desktop computers , allowing teachers to enter and review data from wherever they are working in the school. This flexibility reflects how teaching and data management actually happen in practice, rather than forcing staff to work only at a central location.

"The standardized test results are there to support the teacher judgment, to contribute to the teacher judgment, not to replace it."

Becky Sinjin — Freelance school assessment and performance data consultant. With 15 years of experience as a data manager in secondary schools using CISRA tracking systems, followed by seven years of freelance consulting work with multiple companies and schools on data strategy, Sinjin brings deep practical knowledge of how assessment systems integrate into real teaching environments.

Before making a final decision, it's worth exploring how other schools in similar contexts use their chosen systems. A point detailed in this podcast is that communities of practitioners—such as data managers networking through professional groups—share valuable real-world insights about which systems work best in different scenarios.

Prioritize systems that provide the specific analysis and insights your school actually needs, not systems with the most features.

Ensure data entry is comfortable and intuitive for your staff, as this directly affects consistent use and data quality.

Verify that the system offers flexible access across multiple devices so teachers can work from different locations in the school.

Evaluate how easily teachers can retrieve and review reports in their preferred format—whether visual, tabular, or otherwise.

What foundational principle should underpin data management systems in schools?

Every grade entered into a school's data system must connect directly to the curriculum — each mark should represent specific knowledge and skills a pupil has actually attained. Without curriculum mapping by teachers, grades become meaningless numbers with no real diagnostic value, making it impossible to use data effectively for intervention or learning improvement.

The challenge is straightforward but often overlooked. Teachers across different subjects frequently record grades without anchoring them to any shared framework. One teacher's "7" may reflect mastery of a skill, while another's "7" might reflect something entirely different — or nothing precise at all. This inconsistency doesn't just create confusion; it renders the entire data system useless for the school's core mission: understanding what pupils know and don't know.

Curriculum mapping is the solution. Once teachers have invested the time to align their grading rubrics with actual curriculum standards — mapping each grade band to specific attainments — the system runs reliably for years forward . The initial work is substantial, but the payoff is durability and consistency. From that point on, every grade carries genuine meaning, and data becomes actionable.

Why grades without curriculum alignment fail schools

When grades live disconnected from curriculum standards, teachers can't reliably track pupil progress, and school leaders can't identify systemic learning gaps. A number in a box tells you almost nothing without knowing what skill or knowledge it represents. Two classes with identical average scores might have vastly different underlying learning profiles — one class strong in application, the other strong in factual recall — but the raw numbers hide that difference.

As Becky Sinjin explains in her work with schools on data strategy , this is where many data management systems break down. Teachers are diligent; they record grades conscientiously. But without a shared map back to the curriculum, the data tells no coherent story. Interventions end up unfocused, and it becomes impossible to measure whether teaching changes have actually worked.

"The standardized test results are there to support the teacher judgment, to contribute to the teacher judgment, not to replace it."

Becky Sinjin — Freelance school assessment and performance data consultant with 15 years of experience as a data manager in large secondary schools and Head of Training at CISRA, now consulting with multiple educational organizations on data management, data analysis, and assessment strategy.

This principle extends beyond standardized testing: internal grades must also serve as tools to inform teaching, not simply as administrative records. And that is only possible when each grade reflects a clearly defined curriculum outcome.

To explore how schools actually implement assessment systems and make data visible across the curriculum, listen to the full episode on Listenly for concrete examples and the reasoning behind proximal and distal assessments.

Grades must be explicitly mapped to curriculum standards so each mark corresponds to specific knowledge or skills attained by pupils.

Without curriculum alignment, grades become arbitrary numbers with no diagnostic value for intervention or progress tracking.

The initial work of curriculum mapping by teachers is substantial, but once completed, the system delivers reliable, consistent data for years.

Data systems designed this way allow teachers to act on meaningful insights rather than chase disconnected metrics.

How should schools position standardized assessments within their broader teaching and assessment strategy?

No. Standardized test results should support and inform teacher judgment, not replace it. A single test taken on a particular day reflects only a snapshot of a student's knowledge, while teachers bring ongoing observation, context, and understanding that no single assessment can capture. The most reliable student evaluation emerges from combining test data with educator insight.

Standardized assessments are valuable precisely because they provide consistency and measurable data. However, they come with inherent limitations. As explained in the podcast , a student's performance on any given day is influenced by circumstances beyond academic ability—fatigue, anxiety, external stress, or simply having an off day can skew results.

Teachers, by contrast, accumulate months or years of direct observation. They see patterns in student work, understand individual learning styles, recognize progress that may not yet show on a standardized score, and can contextualize performance within the broader picture of a child's development. This continuous, qualitative knowledge is irreplaceable.

Building an integrated assessment strategy

The goal is not to choose between standardized assessments and teacher judgment, but to build a comprehensive toolkit where both serve distinct purposes. Standardized tests provide objective data points that allow schools to benchmark progress, identify trends, and make evidence-based decisions at scale. Teachers use this data alongside their professional judgment to design targeted interventions and personalize instruction.

As Becky Sinjin outlines in the episode , this integration requires training and systems that bring data together accessibly so educators can act on it immediately. When teachers have easy access to assessment data—both standardized and classroom-based—they can triangulate information and make sharper decisions about where students need support.

"The standardized test results are there to support the teacher judgment, to contribute to the teacher judgment, not to replace it."

Becky Sinjin — Freelance school assessment and performance data consultant. With 15 years of experience starting as a data manager in a large secondary school and seven years working independently with multiple organizations on data strategy, Sinjin brings deep insight into how schools can leverage assessment data effectively. She previously trained teachers and administrators at GL Assessment on assessment systems and has worked extensively with CISRA tracking platforms.

One often-overlooked detail from the conversation is how the podcast explores proximal versus distal assessments , clarifying which types of measurement work best for different instructional moments—a nuance that deepens the case for using multiple assessment sources strategically.

Standardized tests capture a single moment and cannot account for variables affecting performance on any given day.

Teacher judgment, built on months of observation, provides irreplaceable context and identifies progress invisible to one-off assessments.

The strongest school assessment strategy combines standardized data with educator insight, using each to validate and inform the other.

Schools need systems and training to make assessment data easily accessible to teachers so they can act on it in real time.

How do age-standardized scores improve the accuracy of student progress measurement?

GL Assessment uses standardized age scores by comparing each student to peers of their exact age in years and months , rather than comparing everyone in a whole year group together. This approach isolates genuine academic progress from the natural development that happens simply through maturation, and accounts for the significant learning gap between autumn-born and summer-born pupils within the same cohort.

The challenge of measuring student progress fairly stems from a simple biological fact: within any single year group, there can be up to a 12-month age gap between the oldest and youngest pupils . A summer-born child taking the same test as an autumn-born peer may score lower not because they have learned less, but simply because they are younger and have had fewer months of classroom exposure and cognitive development.

When you use whole year-group comparisons instead of age-specific benchmarks , score improvements can mask this reality. A pupil might show a 10-point gain between two test administrations—but if that gain simply reflects normal maturation and an extra year of curriculum coverage, it tells you nothing about whether your targeted interventions actually worked. The progress signal becomes noise.

How standardized age scores isolate real learning

Standardized age scores work by establishing separate reference groups for pupils at each specific age in years and months . Every time a student takes an assessment through GL Assessment, their score is benchmarked against the national distribution of pupils born in the same month and year, not just the same academic year.

This method ensures that score changes between tests reflect only genuine academic progress , untangled from age effects. If a pupil gains 5 points on their age-standardized score between autumn and spring, you know that gain comes from actual learning and skill development—not from simply turning another year older. As discussed in this episode , this precision is essential for teachers and school leaders making decisions about interventions and grouping.

The practical impact is especially visible when tracking autumn-born versus summer-born pupils. Both benefit from fairer comparison and clearer visibility of their individual learning trajectory , allowing schools to identify who genuinely needs support and who is simply catching up naturally with age.

"The standardized test results are there to support the teacher judgment, to contribute to the teacher judgment, not to replace it."

Becky Sinjin — Freelance school assessment and performance data consultant, with 15 years' experience as a data manager in secondary schools using CISRA tracking systems and seven years of freelance consulting on data strategy, analysis, and assessment systems across multiple school groups and companies. Becky previously led training for GL Assessment, visiting schools pre-COVID to help teachers and administrators maximize their assessment data.

The key insight is that age-standardized scores preserve teacher autonomy while sharpening the data signal . Teachers are not replaced by numbers; instead, they receive cleaner, more honest data on which to base their professional judgment. A teacher who sees a pupil's age-standardized score hold steady can ask a different question than one who sees a raw score jump: "Is my intervention working, or is this child simply maturing?" The answer changes everything about next steps. For more on how schools should integrate assessment data across the whole school ecosystem, listen to the full episode .

What are the key limitations of internally designed assessments compared to standardized tests?

Internally designed tests are inherently inconsistent in difficulty , making them poor tools for comparing performance across different students, time periods, schools, or subjects. Standardized tests solve this problem by converting raw scores onto a scaled distribution, enabling fair comparison against national benchmarks and meaningful tracking over time.

The core problem: no common yardstick

When schools create their own assessments, they have no way to ensure that one test is as challenging as another. A vocabulary test designed in one classroom may be significantly harder or easier than an identical test written by another teacher, not because of teaching quality, but simply due to how questions are phrased, selected, or weighted. This inconsistency makes it impossible to know whether a student's score reflects their actual learning or just the difficulty of the specific test they took.

The real damage happens when educators try to use these internally designed scores for comparison. You cannot reliably compare one student's performance to another's if both took different tests, even if those tests supposedly cover the same material. You cannot track genuine progress over time if assessment difficulty fluctuates from term to term. And you certainly cannot compare results fairly across different schools or subjects, where internal assessment standards vary widely.

How standardized tests create a level playing field

Standardized assessments work differently. They convert raw scores—the number of questions a student gets right—into a scaled score anchored to a standard distribution . This process, refined through rigorous statistical analysis, allows a student's performance to be meaningfully positioned against all other students who took the same test nationally.

This scaling mechanism unlocks genuine insight. A score of 75 on a standardized test tells you not just that a student answered 75% of questions correctly, but exactly where they sit relative to their peers across the entire country. It enables you to measure real growth over time—because the scale remains constant. And it allows fair comparison across different subjects and schools, because all scores are calibrated to the same standard. As Becky Sinjin explains in the episode , this consistency is what transforms raw data into actionable intelligence.

"The standardized test results are there to support the teacher judgment, to contribute to the teacher judgment, not to replace it."

Becky Sinjin — Freelance school assessment and performance data consultant. With 15 years as a data manager in secondary schools using CISRA tracking systems and seven years of freelance consulting work with multiple schools and companies on data management and assessment strategy, Sinjin brings deep operational expertise to the intersection of assessment design and data interpretation. She previously trained educators at GL Assessment on assessment systems before transitioning to independent practice.

This clarification—that standardized results support rather than replace professional judgment—highlights why the comparison gap matters. Teachers need reliable data to make better decisions faster, whether in selecting intervention students, tracking cohort progress, or identifying learning gaps. A standardized test provides that foundation; internally designed assessments cannot.

The broader implication, discussed in depth across this podcast episode , is that assessment design is not simply an operational detail—it directly shapes what educators can know about their students and, by extension, how effectively they can teach.

What theoretical foundation supports the use of oracy in cognitive development?

Vygotsky's theories establish that communication tools are essential to cognitive development because they fundamentally shape how individuals understand and interact with the world. Group activities and peer interactions enable learners to share ideas and perspectives, which enhances cognitive development and allows pupils to articulate their feelings and make sense of their learning.

Vygotsky's framework rests on the idea that language and social interaction are not peripheral to learning—they are central mechanisms through which thinking develops. When children engage in dialogue with peers, they don't simply exchange information; they actively construct understanding. Talk becomes a scaffold for thought itself.

This theoretical grounding explains why schools like those in Cabot Learning Federation have made oracy a strategic priority, as discussed in this episode of Education: Joining the Dots . When learners participate in structured group conversations, they develop not just communication skills, but deeper cognitive capacities across all subjects.

The connection between talk and academic progress becomes clearer through this lens. Peer interactions allow pupils to externalize thinking —to say aloud what they're struggling with, what they've understood, what they're curious about. This verbal articulation, far from being merely social, is cognitive work. It's how young people consolidate ideas and build mental models of the world around them.

"If young people struggle to communicate effectively, many will communicate in other ways, often through challenging behaviour."

Rachel Simons — Reading Lead and Primary English Lead at Cabot Learning Federation, a large trust of 35 settings across the southwest of England. Simons works within the school improvement team, supporting educators and learners across primary, secondary, post-16, alternative and specialist provision serving children aged two to 19. Her role focuses on ensuring all pupils have access to effective language and literacy practices.

When communication breaks down—when one in five children struggle with talking and understanding words, as reported by Speech and Language UK— cognitive development itself stalls. The theoretical foundation Vygotsky provided shows us that this isn't a separate "speech therapy" issue; it's a direct barrier to learning, well-being, and behaviour. The data bears this out: schools engaged with oracy development show correlations with improved attendance and stronger extended writing.

Rachel Simons and her team have observed how implementing oracy strategies across their trust transforms what happens in classrooms. When teachers create space for purposeful talk—when they treat group discussion and peer dialogue as non-negotiable learning time—they're operationalizing Vygotsky's insight: cognition grows through language in social contexts.

From theory to practice: Why peer interaction matters

Vygotsky's concept of the "zone of proximal development"—the gap between what a child can do alone and what they can do with support—depends entirely on interaction with more knowledgeable others. Group activities close this gap not through direct instruction alone, but through dialogue, questioning, and collaborative problem-solving.

This explains why schools tackling the speech and language crisis documented in the Lost for Words report—which found up to 40% of students have speech and language issues, worsening over five years—recognize that the answer isn't just remedial work. It's creating classrooms where talk is valued, where peer conversation becomes a deliberate learning tool , as educators like Simons have championed. When pupils articulate their thinking aloud, they internalize it. Thought becomes clearer. Understanding deepens.

Vygotsky's theories position communication and language as essential drivers of cognitive development, not optional extras.

Group activities and peer interactions allow learners to externalize thinking, test ideas, and consolidate understanding through dialogue.

When children struggle to communicate, their cognitive development is directly impacted, affecting learning, behaviour, and well-being.

Creating purposeful talk and peer interaction spaces in classrooms operationalizes Vygotsky's theory and closes the zone of proximal development.

How does oracy development support other areas of literacy like writing and reading?

Talk before writing transforms how pupils think and express themselves— 86% of staff at one secondary school report that oracy strategies directly supported students to complete higher quality extended pieces of writing. With reading, oracy turns it into a social, powerful activity where pupils share discoveries, debate ideas, and learn from each other's different perspectives and lived experiences.

Speaking First: The Bridge to Better Writing

When pupils talk through ideas before picking up a pen, they rehearse thought, test arguments, and build confidence. This verbal rehearsal acts as a natural scaffold for the written word. In one secondary school surveyed by Cabot Learning Federation, an overwhelming majority of staff confirmed that oracy strategies had a measurable positive impact on the quality of extended writing.

The evidence is striking: talking through a concept or story makes the transition to paper far less daunting. Pupils who have already shaped their thinking aloud write with greater clarity, structure, and depth. As Rachel Simons explains in the episode , this rehearsal time removes the anxiety often tied to blank pages and empowers young writers to take risks.

Reading as a Shared Conversation

Reading stops being a solitary task when oracy becomes central to classroom culture. Pupils learn most powerfully when they discuss what they've read, what moved them, and where they disagree. Each child brings their own lens shaped by experience and knowledge, turning a simple book into a window onto many different interpretations.

This collective meaning-making is not just engaging—it's transformative. When a pupil hears a classmate's perspective on a story, it deepens their own comprehension and teaches them that reading is alive, social, and endlessly discussable. The experience becomes incredibly empowering, signalling to pupils of all ages that their voice and interpretation matter. The rich detail of how schools embed this talk-rich reading culture is explored further in this podcast episode .

Rachel Simons — Reading Lead and Primary English Lead at Cabot Learning Federation, a large multi-academy trust of 35 settings across the southwest of England. Simons works within the school improvement team supporting all schools' adults and learners across primary, secondary, post-16, alternative and specialist provision, serving children from age two to 19.

How have teachers' initial reservations about oracy development changed over time in the trust?

Teacher reservations about oracy development faded rapidly as professional development upskilled educators to guide and structure conversations , even while ceding classroom control to children. Once teachers gained knowledge and confidence around speech, language, and communication, concerns dissolved because they understood how to scaffold and direct dialogue effectively.

When Cabot Learning Federation began implementing oracy work across its 35 settings, teaching staff faced the same hesitation many experience with student-led learning: concern about losing authority, uncertainty about how to manage talking time, and doubt whether their own expertise in language would transfer to facilitating rather than directing.

The turning point came through structured professional development. As Rachel Simons explains in the episode , teachers who received training in oracy principles learned not only what speech and language development looks like, but how to design conversations that build on children's contributions while maintaining pedagogical intent. This equipped them with concrete tools—sentence stems, turn-taking frameworks, questioning techniques—that made handing over space to student voice feel secure rather than anarchic.

Knowledge transformed anxiety into agency . Teachers no longer saw oracy as replacing their role but as repositioning it: from delivering content to cultivating the conditions for children to articulate, explain, and defend their thinking. That shift in understanding—visible across the trust's schools—is what accelerated adoption and silenced the doubts.

"If young people struggle to communicate effectively, many will communicate in other ways, often through challenging behaviour."

Rachel Simons — Reading Lead and Primary English Lead at Cabot Learning Federation. Rachel works as part of the school improvement team supporting all schools' adults and learners across the trust's 35 settings in the southwest of England, which serve children from age two to nineteen. Her role includes driving literacy and oracy strategy across primary, secondary, post-16, alternative, and specialist provision.

The broader context makes this evolution significant. Research cited in Education: Joining the Dots shows that one in five children struggle with talking and understanding words, and up to 40% of students have speech and language issues. When teachers grasp how oracy addresses these gaps—and how structured talk actually improves writing quality (86% of secondary staff in the trust reported this link)—reservation gives way to conviction.

The evidence is further reflected in attendance improvements at schools deeply engaged with oracy work, which show higher average attendance than trust averages, suggesting that when children find their voice, they're more invested in being present.

Initial teacher reservations about oracy faded when professional development provided concrete frameworks for guiding and structuring student conversations.

Teachers came to see oracy not as relinquishing their role, but as repositioning themselves from content delivery to creating conditions for children's articulate thinking.

Knowledge of speech, language, and communication principles transformed anxiety into pedagogical confidence and pedagogical intent.

Schools engaged with structured oracy work report improved student writing quality, behaviour, and attendance—outcomes that reinforce teacher buy-in.

What do pupils think about increased time for talk in schools, and what does pupil voice reveal?

Students are increasingly recognizing talking with classmates as a valuable learning tool, with a recent secondary school survey showing a significant rise in this perception. Pupil voice data from primary schools reveals that children genuinely value being heard and listened to, and they report understanding that their contributions matter when they communicate effectively across different contexts.

The shift in how students view dialogue as a learning mechanism is striking. A recent survey at a secondary school documented a huge increase in students who value talking with classmates as a core part of their learning process—a sharp departure from earlier attitudes where speaking was often seen as a distraction or disruption to formal instruction.

When children are given genuine space to communicate, they respond by recognizing its value. As Rachel Simons explains in the episode , pupil voice from primary schools shows that pupils really and genuinely value being heard and listened to , and they develop awareness that their words have real weight and purpose within the school community.

One notable finding reinforces this: primary pupils consistently report that being heard and listened to comes directly from developing communication skills across different situations . When they practise speaking in varied contexts—from structured lessons to peer discussions to presentations—they internalize the connection between articulate expression and being respected as thinkers and contributors.

"If young people struggle to communicate effectively, many will communicate in other ways, often through challenging behaviour."

Rachel Simons — Reading Lead and Primary English Lead at Cabot Learning Federation, a large trust of 35 settings across the southwest of England. Rachel works as part of the school improvement team, supporting all schools' adults and learners across primary, secondary, post-16, alternative and specialist provision for children aged two to 19.

This insight connects directly to pupil perspective: when voice is encouraged and valued, students not only change their view of speaking—they also demonstrate improved behaviour and engagement. The episode explores in depth how oracy strategies have transformed attendance and behaviour metrics across entire school networks, driven by the same principle that pupils respond when they feel genuinely heard.

The importance of authentic listening

Pupil voice research consistently shows that authenticity matters more than mere opportunity to speak . Simply giving children talk time is not enough; they must sense that what they say genuinely influences thinking and decision-making, not just fills a slot in the lesson plan.

Primary pupils have been explicit about this need. When schools create conditions where communication is practiced intentionally across multiple situations—not confined to one type of interaction—pupils report feeling more confident and more valued. This confidence then transfers beyond the classroom.

Why this shifts student perception

The increase in student recognition of talking as a learning tool reflects a fundamental psychological shift. When pupils experience real consequences for clear expression—better grades, stronger peer relationships, inclusion in decision-making —they begin to view oracy not as a classroom activity but as a life skill with tangible returns.

Research within school trusts engaged in structured oracy work—detailed further in this podcast discussion —shows that student attitudes harden into conviction over time, especially when they see peers and younger students benefit from stronger communication skills.

How do schools in the trust identify speech and language or oracy needs across different age groups?

Identification of speech and language issues early is absolutely key, and schools achieve this through aligned assessment procedures that support inclusive excellence. Many schools have adopted standardised tools like GL Welcome to generate greater consistency and understanding across their settings, ensuring all students—regardless of age—are supported to communicate effectively about different subjects, emotions and feelings.

Aligned assessments across the trust

The challenge for multi-setting trusts is not just identifying need, but doing so in a way that is consistent and equitable across all age groups . Rachel Simons explains that schools within Cabot Learning Federation, a trust of 35 settings serving children from age two to 19, have adopted aligned assessment approaches to address this precisely. This consistency means that a child identified with oracy needs in the early years receives the same quality of support framework as a secondary student.

Adopting a shared assessment tool like GL Welcome allows schools to speak the same language when discussing speech and language development. A point detailed in the episode , this standardisation reduces gaps where some children might slip through undetected because their setting used different criteria or benchmarks.

Universal oracy development, not deficit-only identification

Identification is not purely about labelling children with deficits; it is about recognising oracy development as a universal need across the entire pupil population. All students, regardless of ability or age, benefit from intentional support to articulate thoughts and feelings across different contexts and subjects.

This shift from a problem-focused lens to a development-focused one means that even children without diagnosed speech and language disorders are helped to refine their communication skills. As Rachel Simons discusses in this podcast , this creates a culture where oracy is everyone's responsibility, not a specialist intervention reserved for a few.

"If young people struggle to communicate effectively, many will communicate in other ways, often through challenging behaviour."

Rachel Simons — Reading Lead and Primary English Lead at Cabot Learning Federation, a large trust of 35 settings in the southwest of England supporting children from age two to 19. Rachel works within the school improvement team to support all schools' adults and learners across primary, secondary, post-16, alternative and specialist provision.

This observation reveals why early and consistent identification matters so profoundly—unmet speech and language needs do not simply vanish; they reshape how children engage with school and with others. Identifying and addressing these needs through aligned assessment frameworks directly prevents escalation into behavioural or attendance challenges later.

For a deeper look at how schools are measuring the real-world impact of oracy strategies on student outcomes, the full episode explores concrete examples from secondary staff who have seen student writing quality improve significantly through oracy-focused teaching.

What impact has oracy development had on behaviour and attendance in schools across the trust?

Schools that have invested in oracy development report dramatically improved behaviour and measurably higher attendance . Pupils feel valued and heard through structured communication programmes, creating a direct correlation between oracy engagement and improved school attendance across trusts—even where struggling schools have transformed into thriving ones.

One primary example stands out clearly: a school that moved from struggling status to thriving credits oracy development as transformative in this shift. The principal observed that when children develop confidence in expressing themselves, behaviour problems decrease and attendance improves because pupils genuinely want to attend school.

The mechanism is straightforward. As discussed in the Education: Joining the Dots podcast , when young people lack the ability to articulate their thoughts and feelings, many resort to expressing themselves through behaviour—often challenging behaviour. Oracy programmes flip this equation by giving children the language tools to communicate effectively.

Across the wider Cabot Learning Federation—the 35-school trust based in the southwest of England— schools actively using Voice 21 oracy strategies show higher average attendance than the trust baseline. While Rachel Simons, Reading Lead at the federation, stops short of claiming direct causation, the correlation is undeniable.

Beyond attendance, 86% of secondary staff in schools implementing oracy strategies reported that these approaches supported pupils to produce higher-quality extended written work. This suggests the benefits ripple outward into academic achievement, not just behaviour management.

"If young people struggle to communicate effectively, many will communicate in other ways, often through challenging behaviour."

Rachel Simons — Reading Lead and Primary English Lead, Cabot Learning Federation. Rachel works as part of the school improvement team at Cabot Learning Federation, supporting all schools' adults and learners across 35 settings spanning primary schools, secondaries, post-16, alternative and specialist provision. She serves children from age two to 19 across the southwest of England.

The wider context makes this impact even more significant. Speech and Language UK reports that one in five children struggle with talking and understanding words . The Oracy Commission found that almost two million children in the UK fell below expected levels for language and communication by the end of reception. When oracy development programmes address these gaps, the ripple effects on behaviour and attendance become measurable school-wide shifts.

A more granular discovery: when schools introduce intentional oracy curricula—not bolt-on activities, but woven through daily teaching—pupils report feeling valued and heard . This psychological shift directly translates to higher attendance; children want to come to school when they feel their voice matters.

For a deeper exploration of how entire trusts have embedded oracy across all age groups and the specific strategies that drive these outcomes, listen to the full episode on Listenly , where Rachel Simons walks through real examples from Cabot Learning Federation's transformation journey.

How does Cabot Learning Federation ensure that oracy development is effective across the entire age range from three to 19?

Cabot Learning Federation ensures oracy development is effective across ages three to 19 through an intentional curriculum that extends beyond the national requirements, backed by consistent professional development for all adults. Every child has the right to literacy, and every adult carries the responsibility to teach it—oracy is woven through teaching and learning frameworks, given prominence in school improvement plans, and supported by a dedicated oracy lead in each setting who attends trust-wide network meetings to share research and best practices.

The approach is rooted in equity: literacy and oracy are not optional add-ons but core commitments embedded in everything the federation does. As explained in the podcast , this means moving beyond one-off interventions and instead creating a culture where quality teaching of oracy and literacy happens within every lesson, every subject, and every setting.

Professional development and shared practice across 35 settings

High-quality professional development is the backbone of Cabot Learning Federation's strategy. Every adult in the federation—teachers, teaching assistants, leaders—understands the why and the how of oracy and literacy teaching. This is not theoretical knowledge alone; it translates directly into classroom practice.

The trust-wide network meetings bring oracy leads together regularly to share research findings and proven practices. This creates a feedback loop: successes and innovations in one school quickly spread across all 35 settings, whether primary, secondary, post-16, alternative or specialist provision. The federation serves children from age two to 19, so the consistency of message and method across this enormous age span is critical. Rachel Simons details how this networking function ensures no setting is isolated in this work.

Oracy visibility in governance and improvement planning

For oracy to remain a priority, it must be visible in the federation's governance structures and school improvement plans. By giving oracy explicit prominence in these strategic documents, Cabot Learning Federation signals to every staff member and governor that this is not a peripheral initiative—it is central to the school's mission.

This structural embedding is reinforced by research: schools engaged with oracy work, such as those partnering with Voice 21, have shown higher average attendance rates compared to broader trust averages. Beyond attendance, secondary staff surveys reveal that 86% of staff believe oracy strategies supported students to complete higher-quality extended pieces of writing. These data points, discussed extensively in this episode , demonstrate that oracy is not a feel-good initiative—it directly improves learning outcomes.

"If young people struggle to communicate effectively, many will communicate in other ways, often through challenging behaviour."

Rachel Simons — Reading Lead and Primary English Lead at Cabot Learning Federation, a large trust of 35 settings based in the southwest of England. She works as part of the school improvement team, supporting all schools' adults and learners across primary, secondary, post-16, alternative and specialist provision, serving children from age two to 19. Her insight connects oracy deficits directly to behaviour and wellbeing, underscoring why systematic oracy development is not just an academic issue but a safeguarding and welfare imperative.

Oracy must be taught as a right, not an afterthought—every adult has a responsibility to embed it in all lessons and subjects.

Professional development and trust-wide network meetings ensure consistent, research-informed oracy teaching across all 35 settings, from early years through post-16.

Oracy leads in each setting provide local ownership and accountability, while remaining connected to federation-wide best practices.

Oracy visibility in improvement plans and governance structures ensures this work remains strategic and measurable, directly supporting literacy, attendance, and written output.

How prevalent are speech and language issues across Cabot Learning Federation and what trends have been observed in recent years?

There is a growing number of speech and language needs apparent in early years and throughout other year groups. The pandemic has impacted this, as has the…

What percentage of Bishop Wilkinson Catholic Education Trust's secondary school pupils come from its own primary schools?

Around 70% of pupils in Bishop Wilkinson Catholic Education Trust's secondary schools come from the trust's own primary schools. Graeme Finlay describes…

What is the Standard Age Score (SAS) and why is it recommended for comparing reading assessment results across students?

The Standard Age Score (SAS) is the score recommended by GL Assessment when making comparisons across any norm-referenced test, as it allows educators to…

How can CAT4 and NGRT be used together to support student transition and identify underachievement?

Georgina Cook and Emma Dibden explain that combining CAT4 verbal reasoning scores with NGRT reading results allows educators to compare a student's reading…

What advice do transition programme leaders give to educators building their own primary-to-secondary literacy transition plan?

Start by diagnosing every child on entry — not when they are already struggling. Involve staff from the beginning, align any digital tools directly to your transition work, and invest time liaising with your assessment provider before you choose a single instrument. Literacy is a human right: build your plan with that conviction at its centre, and never put a ceiling on what any pupil can achieve.

Liaise first, assess second — Graeme Finlay's case for slow, deliberate design

Graeme Finlay's core message is about sequence. Before any school selects an assessment tool, he recommends spending several months in careful dialogue with GL Assessment to design the reading strategy itself. The tool comes second; the strategy comes first.

That sequencing matters because the real value of diagnostic data — from instruments like the NGRT (New Group Reading Test) or the CAT4 (Cognitive Ability Test 4) — only emerges when the right people are asking the right questions at the right time. Finlay stresses that educators must be actively supported to interpret discrepancy data, not simply handed a report. This is exactly the kind of nuance unpacked in Education: Joining the Dots .

At Bishop Wilkinson Catholic Education Trust — 47 schools, roughly 12,000 children across four North East local authorities — around 70% of secondary pupils come from the trust's own primaries. That gives Finlay's team unusual leverage to plan transition assessments well in advance: the NGRT is administered in Year 6 over a three-week window in May and June, with all diagnostic data available by mid-June, months before the September start.

What are CAT4 discrepancy categories?

When CAT4 (cognitive ability) and NGRT (reading attainment) scores are compared, the difference places a pupil into one of five bands: expected range (middle 50% of score differences), higher or lower than expected (next 15% on each side), or much higher / much lower than expected (top or bottom 10%). These bands help teachers ask a precise question: is this child reading below what their cognitive profile predicts — and if so, why? "Diagnose on entry, involve staff from the start" — Talia Caralambos on literacy as a human right

Talia Caralambos adds an urgent, values-driven dimension to the practical advice. For her, late intervention is a structural failure, not an individual one. The moment a child arrives at secondary school is the moment to act — and staff across the whole institution need to be part of that process from day one, as explored throughout this podcast series .

At Laidlaw Schools Trust , Caralambos works across 11 schools in communities shaped by high mobility and economic disadvantage — one school in Newcastle's West End has over 60 languages spoken by its pupils. In that context, a generic transition approach simply does not hold. Digital tools, when accessible, must be aligned directly to transition work rather than deployed in isolation.

Her sharpest instruction is also her most human one: never put a ceiling on a pupil. Framing literacy as a human right — not a measurable outcome or a compliance target — changes the entire posture of a transition programme.

"Don't wait until a child is failing to act. You need to diagnose on entry, involve staff from the start, and if you're fortunate enough to have digital tools that you can access, align that to your transition work, because it can be transformational."

Talia Caralambos — Director of English, School Improvement Team, Laidlaw Schools Trust

Caralambos relocated to the North East in April after training and teaching English and Media at Ritchie Diver Secondary School in London. She comes from a bilingual household and first taught English in India at age 17 — an experience she credits with sparking her lifelong commitment to equity and literacy. As Director of English across 11 schools at Laidlaw Schools Trust, she works in some of England's most linguistically diverse school communities, where over 60 languages are spoken in a single setting. Her work is featured in depth in Education: Joining the Dots .

Both Finlay and Caralambos converge on the same underlying principle: transition planning is not a one-off administrative task. It is a sustained, school-wide commitment — rooted in data, staffed by professionals who know how to read it, and guided by the belief that every child deserves to be understood before they are expected to perform. The full exchange is available in the Education: Joining the Dots episode on student transition .

What is the 'six-week dip' in the context of student transition, and how do these trusts address it?

The 'six-week dip' is the period after the summer holiday during which students readjust to school routines and lose academic momentum — particularly in reading. It is especially acute for bilingual and EAL learners, who may go the entire summer without speaking English with an adult. Laidlaw Schools Trust tackles it head-on by assessing students with the NGRT before the summer break and front-loading literacy support from the first week of September, rather than waiting to see whether a dip actually occurs.

NGRT — New Group Reading Test: A standardised reading assessment developed by GL Assessment. At Laidlaw Schools Trust, it is administered to Year 6 pupils over a three-week window in May and June, with all diagnostic data available by mid-June — well before the September secondary school start. This timing is precisely what makes early intervention possible. The six-week dip is not a minor administrative concern. For students already navigating a major change in environment, social circles, and academic expectations, a summer without structured literacy engagement can widen gaps that take months to close. As Talia Caralambos highlights in Education: Joining the Dots , the risk is highest for children from bilingual households or those classified as EAL learners — students who rely on school as their primary English-language environment.

At Laidlaw Schools Trust, which serves communities with high mobility, economic disadvantage, and over 60 languages spoken in some school settings, this is not a hypothetical risk. It is a documented, recurring pattern that the trust has chosen to treat as a predictable challenge rather than an unavoidable one.

Diagnosing before summer — not firefighting in autumn

The shift Laidlaw Schools Trust made is straightforward but consequential: move assessment before the holiday, not after it. By administering the NGRT to Year 6 pupils in May and June, secondary school staff receive full diagnostic data by mid-June. That means six to eight weeks to plan targeted support before a single new pupil walks through the door in September.

This approach, discussed in depth in this episode of Education: Joining the Dots , allows schools to identify which students are at risk of a dip before it happens — and to allocate literacy resources accordingly from day one of the new school year. The alternative — assessing in September and then designing interventions — compresses the response window and guarantees that some children will already be struggling before any support arrives.

Caralambos is clear that the NGRT is not used in isolation. Discrepancy analysis between NGRT scores and CAT4 (Cognitive Ability Test 4) results allows teachers to identify students whose reading performance is meaningfully higher or lower than their measured cognitive potential. This adds a layer of precision: the goal is not simply to flag low readers, but to find students whose needs are hidden by adequate-looking overall scores.

A particular urgency for EAL and bilingual learners

The six-week dip hits hardest for students who do not use English at home. For a child in a household where another language is the primary means of communication, the summer break can mean weeks — sometimes the full six weeks — without a single meaningful exchange in English with an adult.

Caralambos speaks to this from lived experience as well as professional observation. She comes from a bilingual household herself and has first-hand knowledge of how language environments shape learning trajectories. In a trust where some schools have over 60 languages spoken among their pupil population, this is not an edge case — it is a defining feature of the school community, and one that demands a proactive rather than reactive literacy strategy.

The full framing of this challenge — and the practical steps Laidlaw Schools Trust uses to respond to it — is laid out clearly in the Education: Joining the Dots episode on literacy and student transition .

"Don't wait until a child is failing to act. You need to diagnose on entry, involve staff from the start, and if you're fortunate enough to have digital tools that you can access, align that to your transition work, because it can be transformational."

Talia Caralambos — Director of English, School Improvement Team, Laidlaw Schools Trust.

Caralambos trained and taught English and Media at Ritchie Diver Secondary School in London before relocating to the North East. She comes from a bilingual household and taught English in India at age 17 — an experience she credits as the starting point of her commitment to equity through literacy. At Laidlaw Schools Trust, she leads English curriculum development and literacy strategy across 11 schools, many of which serve communities shaped by high mobility, economic disadvantage, and extraordinary linguistic diversity.

This principle — diagnose early, act immediately, never wait for failure — is the direct operational answer to the six-week dip. It reframes the dip not as something that happens to schools, but as something schools can choose to anticipate and prevent. Caralambos makes the case for this approach with characteristic directness in Education: Joining the Dots .

Why does Bishop Wilkinson Catholic Education Trust administer NGRT in Year 6 rather than waiting until September of Year 7?

Graeme Finlay explains that previously some secondary schools were administering the NGRT in September, which created a lag between identifying children who…

How does the Bishop Wilkinson Catholic Education Trust structure its primary-to-secondary transition programme?

Bishop Wilkinson Catholic Education Trust begins transition as early as the end of Year 5, with a large community event called the Bishop Wilkinson Celebration of Sport, held at Gateshead Stadium and bringing together Year 5 children from all 42 of the trust's primary schools. Throughout Year 6, contextual data — including attendance records, special educational needs information, and reading results — is shared systematically between primary and secondary schools. Then, after SATs, Year 6 pupils sit the NGRT (New Group Reading Test) in their primary school over a three-week window in May and June, ensuring all initial diagnostic data is ready by mid-June, months before the September secondary start.

The phased approach is deliberately front-loaded. By launching transition at the sport event in Year 5, the trust gives children their first shared experience across school boundaries before formal academic transfer even begins. This matters at scale: Bishop Wilkinson Catholic Education Trust spans 47 schools across all phases, serving around 12,000 children across four local authorities in the North East of England, and approximately 70% of secondary school pupils come from the trust's own primaries — meaning the trust has the relational infrastructure to make rich data-sharing work in practice.

1 End of Year 5 — Bishop Wilkinson Celebration of Sport A whole-trust event at Gateshead Stadium unites Year 5 children from all 42 primary schools, building cross-school familiarity before Year 6 begins.

2 Throughout Year 6 — Contextual data sharing Attendance records, SEND information, and reading results move from primary schools to their receiving secondaries, building a picture of every child ahead of transfer.

3 May–June of Year 6 — NGRT administered in primary After SATs, pupils sit the NGRT in their own primary school over a three-week window. All diagnostic reading data is available to secondary teams by mid-June — giving schools the summer to plan targeted support before September.

The timing of the NGRT is a deliberate design choice: by running it after SATs, the test does not add pressure to an already high-stakes period, yet the three-week window ensures results land with secondary schools while there is still time to act. This approach — detailed in the episode Education: Joining the Dots , alongside Talia Caralambos from Laidlaw Schools Trust — positions diagnostic assessment not as a reactive measure but as the foundation on which transition planning is built.

What is the NGRT? The NGRT (New Group Reading Test), published by GL Assessment, is a standardised reading assessment used to measure the reading ability of pupils. In this transition context, it is administered to Year 6 pupils in their primary school so that secondary teachers receive objective reading-level data on every incoming student before the new academic year begins. "Don't wait until a child is failing to act. You need to diagnose on entry, involve staff from the start, and if you're fortunate enough to have digital tools that you can access, align that to your transition work, because it can be transformational."

— Talia Caralambos, Director of English, Laidlaw Schools Trust

About Talia Caralambos

TC Talia Caralambos Director of English, School Improvement Team

Laidlaw Schools Trust Talia Caralambos relocated to the North East in April after training and teaching English and Media at Ritchie Diver Secondary School in London — an experience she credits with shaping her conviction that language is one of the most powerful tools available to young people, especially those still finding their voice. Her commitment to literacy as a lever for equity was sparked even earlier: she taught English in India at 17, an experience she describes as the origin of her lifelong belief in education as a route out of disadvantage. Coming from a bilingual household herself, Caralambos brings both personal and professional insight to multilingual and high-mobility school communities. As Director of English within the School Improvement team at Laidlaw Schools Trust, she works across 11 schools — including settings where over 60 languages are spoken and where economic disadvantage is a daily reality for many families. Her role focuses on curriculum development and literacy improvement, and her approach to transition is grounded in a core principle: every child's needs should be visible and acted upon before they ever set foot in a secondary classroom.

What is the Laidlaw Schools Trust transition programme and how does it use reading assessment?

Laidlaw Schools Trust uses the NGRT (New Group Reading Test) as an early diagnostic within its year six to year seven transition programme. The NGRT reading…

Why did Laidlaw Schools Trust put literacy at the centre of its transition programme?

Talia Caralambos argues that reading is 'the biggest and most important barrier to academic success, and actually the biggest barrier to all success.' Given…