Naureen Khalid

Mum. MAT trustee. Local Governing Body Chair. Co-Founder @UKGovChat. Loves chocolate, a proper cup of tea and cake. My views. Also at @5N_Afzal @5_Naureen

[Naureen Khalid @5Naureen]

On 20.4.2022 I had the honour of speaking to PM @ImranKhanPTI. My kids were so happy that I got to speak to the Skipper. They also said, “Mum, you made him smile”. In the video you’ll hear why I follow and will always follow Khan Sb. #BehindYouSkipper

[Naureen Khalid @5Naureen]

Following the announcement on vocational routes, these are three really good threads worth reading.
1. @adamboxer1

2. @jon_hutchinson_ (https://t.co/3WhD6yhzuJ )

3. @Mr_Raichura (https://t.co/yVXBlHEYQO )

[Adam Boxer @adamboxer1]

To @andyburnham and @LucyMPowell,

There are lots of problems and things to worry about with the introduction of a new technical route at age 14.

As mentioned in the article (and flagged by union bosses) there are substantial workload and resourcing implications. Schools don't have lots of slack, and we will be teaching our current curriculums full time as soon as September hits. When will we plan and resource a whole bunch of new technical pathways? Which workforce will teach them, and with what physical infrastructure? How will schools figure out which ones to deliver? How will they be examined?

Announcing this in the holidays is traditionally considered a poor move. The Tories were big for it, Labour have consistently done it in the first week back to school to match The Grid, and broadly it is anxiety inducing and not very fun for anybody.

I have more substantive issues though:

Focusing on your local area's job market somewhat renders the entire project of social mobility dead. The point of schools and education is to take students beyond their horizons, not constrain them within it. Yes, we want students to gain employable skills, and yes, from a purely utilitarian perspective it makes sense for those skills to be local ones, but we cannot lose track of the fact we want students to be *universally* employable, and to communicate to them that the world is their oyster and they can do anything they want.

Channeling students into vocational routes at age 14 is - in my opinion - far too young. As much as you say you want parity between the two routes, you won't have it. There is literally an entry in Urban Dictionary for the term "BTEC" to mean a crappy knock-off. The current GCSE regime we have is the best we have ever hand in terms of its rigour, robustness and richness and all students should have the right to access it and carry its credentials with them for life.

In the past when we have done stuff like this, it is always "other people's children" who end up doing the technical routes. High performing and middle class schools will magically end up with fewer children in technical routes, and poor performing schools will shovel their toughest students (who are statistically from lower socio-economic backgrounds) into them. This is what happened last time, and it will happen again. It will not help social mobility, and it will ironically decrease employability. Yes, this child might be more likely to be employable as a bricklayer (which, to be clear, is fine), but they will be less employable as a data manager, software engineer, accountant, events planner or retail manager (which, to be clear, is not fine).

It's definitely the case that there is a small % of students in a small % of areas that might need different approaches to what we currently have. But it is a logical fallacy to take that small % and extrapolate it to a nation-wide policy change.

I would strongly urge you to look at the reams of research that have already been conducted in the area, and established that - potentially alone in the west - our education system is doing pretty damn well. We have a flawed but strong curriculum, improving behaviour and standards across the board and a workforce that is ever more engaged with the research base. After decades of two- and three- tier systems, we have state schools that are now proving that disadvantaged students can leave school with astonishingly high academic qualifications.

Let's not row that back.

(PS there are plenty of people with rich experience and expertise in this area [who aren't me]. These people are deeply invested in getting the best life outcomes for our students, they aren't fusty old Govian academic snobs. I am always happy to try and help you find them.)

https://t.co/23yk1IE7Y0

[Pritesh Raichura @Mr_Raichura]

I hope all the activists that took an anti-academy stance for fear of business sponsorships unduly influencing schools, also vocally oppose a policy where local business influence the curriculum for 14-year-olds.

[Jon Hutchinson @jon_hutchinson_]

The country is feeling restless and there’s been a feeling that politicians have been too listless.

The support for Burnham has been driven at least partly because he’ll ‘get stuff done’. And the Milburn report provides a real burning platform. The status quo is not ok.

>

[Jon Hutchinson @jon_hutchinson_]

We’re actually quite unique internationally in guaranteeing a broad and balanced approach up to 16, which keeps options open to kids for longer as they work out what they’re good at and which path they’d like to take.

>

[Claudia Lewis @MBDscience]

Maybe we should introduce vocational education at 14. Maybe we should go a step further and do it at 11. Railroad the kids into a job before they've lost all their milk teeth. It would certainly stop the "when am I ever going to use this" whining.

[Carl Hendrick @C_Hendrick]

“The tragedy of Project Follow Through is that nobody ever did follow through. The results were ignored by an educational establishment ideologically committed to the approaches the study had refuted, and a generation of American teachers was trained—as I was—to treat explicit instruction as something to avoid.” via @MrZachG https://t.co/hkukxA5apC

[Pritesh Raichura @Mr_Raichura]

Advocates of traditional teaching methods are incorrectly caricatured as favouring ‘factory models’ of schooling. The truth couldn’t be further: pursuing knowledge to inherit the marvels of our civilisation. @andyburnham seeks to destroy this by tying schools to *local* jobs. 1/

[Thinking Reading @ThinkReadHQ]

You can listen to a fascinating conversation with @vicgoddard Headteacher of Passmores Academy (& star of Educating Essex) about the journey his school has been on to make reading provision impactful. It's the first of our extended interviews on "Inside the Reading Gap". Wherever you get your podcasts.

[Alex @teachingwrens]

@adamboxer1 I'm dipping back into your 'teaching secondary science' book as I plan a Y5 Science unit and it's just brilliant. The chapter about going from unfamilar ➡️ familiar and *not* starting with definitions is illuminating....

[Naureen Khalid @5Naureen]

Thing which REALLY annoys me.

You click on an article. Message pops up asking you to either accept cookies or subscribe. You accept cookies. Then you discover it’s behind a paywall 😡😡

[Daisy Christodoulou @daisychristo]

Here is an attempt at a balanced view on The Hundred, which occupies far too much of my mental space at the moment.

For me, the point about The Hundred (for both men & women) has always been about the counter-factual & the opportunity cost.

If you had spent the same amount of money and given the same prime space in the calendar & on terrestrial TV to a county-based or T20 tournament, would it have been more or less successful?

So yes, of course The Hundred has been a good thing for women's cricket, relative to what went before.

It is still legitimate to ask the following question: if a county and / or T20 based women's tournament had got all of the same advantages as The Hundred, would it have been more or less of a good thing?

The other thing you have to specifically factor in about the women's game is that all women's sports have been growing fast over the past 5-10 years. So again, the "no Hundred" counterfactual has to take into account that the women's game may well have grown fast regardless.

Of course counter factuals are hard to prove and you can argue this one either way. But the central point to remember is that The Hundred has been given enormous resources, so to justify itself it does need enormous success.

The franchise sales were enormously successful. But the overall crowds & TV audiences this summer are disappointing.

Overall, I think The Hundred was a legitimate answer to an important question. It isn't the answer I would have come up with. But I still go to matches and enjoy watching them on TV.

[Geet @Peaceful248]

عمران خان نے کہا ہے کہ مجھے موت قبول ھے — ميں یزید کے آگے سر نہيں جھکاؤ نگا صرف اللہ تعالی کے سامنے سر جھکاؤ نگا -
مار دو گے ؟ اللہ تعالی ہماری شہادت قبول کرے -علیمہ آہا
#آزادی_یا_شہادت

[Zoe Enser 🐉 @greeborunner]

@AndyNelson1977 @5Naureen @21stCTeaching @imagineinquiry Yes, you are the he in question. I have no reason to offer respect to someone who doesn’t offer that courtesy to others. You should really have a long hard look at how you conduct yourself here. Tonally and otherwise

[Naureen Khalid @5Naureen]

@LBGHackney It is and it does.

[Naureen Khalid @5Naureen]

Sad to see women’s bodies, age, tone etc commented upon. Misogyny alive and thriving in 2026 (aided and abetted by many women).

[Naureen Khalid @5Naureen]

@21stCTeaching @AndyNelson1977 @imagineinquiry @awilkinson1985 Thank you for this. Imp that misogyny is called out.

[Naureen Khalid @5Naureen]

@LBGHackney @greeborunner @21stCTeaching @AndyNelson1977 @imagineinquiry This!

[Social Mobility Commission @SMCommission]

How much do grandparents shape a child's future? 👵👴

UK grandkids of professionals are 2.5x more likely to land top jobs, independent of their parents' wealth.

The effect is strongest when parental income is low.

[Naureen Khalid @5Naureen]

@21stCTeaching @AndyNelson1977 @imagineinquiry @awilkinson1985 Also interesting the implication that as a public servant I should stay silent and not object to misogyny directed towards me. Don’t think public service demands that!

[21st Century Teacher @21stCTeaching]

@AndyNelson1977 @5Naureen @imagineinquiry @awilkinson1985 That’s sounds pretty misogynistic to me. As does the “headmistressy tone” comment.

[Naureen Khalid @5Naureen]

@21stCTeaching @AndyNelson1977 @imagineinquiry @awilkinson1985 Thank you for this. Imp that misogyny is called out.