Category: Academic Analysis

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Emily MacLeod, Honorary Senior Research Fellow in Education, UCL

It is well known that more teachers are needed in England. A shortage of teachers affects young people’s attainment at school and puts pressure on the existing education workforce. There are two key reasons for this teacher shortage. Not enough people are signing up to become teachers, and too many teachers are leaving the profession each year.

Politicians often refer to the need to improve teacher recruitment and retention, putting both factors together. Underpinning this approach is an assumption that policies aimed at motivating people to stay in teaching – early-career bursaries, for instance – might simultaneously attract new teachers into the profession.

But my research with aspirant teachers indicates that the reasons teachers leave teaching are not the same as the reasons people choose not to become teachers. It makes sense, then, that these issues should be considered separately – and that they require different approaches to counter them.

My recent research used data from a research project that surveyed more than 47,000 young people over ten years. With colleagues, I used this data to examine children’s aspirations to become a teacher over time.

I found that one-third of young people surveyed by the project had an interest in teaching. This finding suggests that a far greater number of young people between the ages of 10 and 21 are interested in becoming a teacher than the number who actually end up becoming teachers.

In further research, I carried out interviews with 13 young people in England who wanted to become teachers. I followed them over 11 years, between the ages of ten and 22. All had expressed an interest or aspiration to become a teacher at least once during their education. This in-depth work is rare in education research and gives a unique insight into people’s pathways into and away from teaching.

By the time of their final interviews at age 22, six of the 13 aspirant teachers in the study had gone as far as applying to teacher education. But only three of the 13 aspirant teachers were actually in initial teacher education and actively pursuing a career in teaching.

The other ten were pursuing non-teaching careers and pathways. Two of those who applied to become science teachers had withdrawn their applications and instead chose to pursue different careers – one in scientific research and another in patent law. Another young person in the study had their application to become a science teacher rejected and chose not to apply again. At the time of my final interview with them this person had graduated from their science degree and was working as a cleaner while looking for other work opportunities.

My research explored why these young people had moved away from their ambition to become teachers. They didn’t mention the things that current and former teachers have said push them out of teaching: the profession’s high workload, stress and poor wellbeing.

Instead, they told me that they had changed their minds because they no longer saw teaching as a respected career, or they no longer viewed it as a “low-risk” career option – meaning that they no longer saw teaching as easy to access or a secure career option. Teaching no longer held status or safety.

Teaching’s lost status is demonstrated in the attitudes of the research participants who studied science at university. Almost all questioned the degree to which teaching was a highly educated profession compared with non-teaching careers in science. For instance, some reported that it would feel like “giving up” on science to become a teacher.

Most considered a postgraduate teaching qualification to be less valuable than a postgraduate science qualification such as a master’s degree in science. One said that becoming a science teacher would be “almost a waste of a science degree”.

The young people in the study who felt that teaching was no longer a safe career option found it to be more and more risky over time. For instance, one participant who had previously described teaching as “almost guaranteed work” which was “very secure, and very stable” decided against becoming a teacher after having their first initial teacher education application rejected.

Another participant who earlier considered teaching to be easy to access in their childhood turned away from teaching after realising that teaching required a degree. Because no one in their family had been to university, they did not feel that they could afford to take on the tuition fee costs of a degree and they instead chose to pursue a non-graduate career.

Recruitment and retention are separate

These findings demonstrate that while policies which focus on improving teacher workload and wellbeing might improve retention, they are unlikely to improve recruitment. Likewise, short-term financial incentives aimed at attracting more people into the career do not tackle the issues faced by people who are already teaching. Continuing to combine the issues of recruitment and retention may risk not improving either issue.

This issue is especially important because, while teacher shortages can have an impact on all young people, the negative effects are worse in schools serving disadvantaged communities, meaning that students receiving free school meals are worst hit.

My research with aspirant teachers suggests that highlighting the professional education required to become a teacher in England – and otherwise working to present teaching as a professional or high-status career – could improve recruitment. Politicians must also consider whether the costs associated with some teacher education routes could be deterring some aspirant teachers from pursuing a career in the classroom.

Emily MacLeod receives funding from the Economic and Social Research Council.

– ref. Teacher recruitment and retention are separate issues – they need tackling in different ways – https://theconversation.com/teacher-recruitment-and-retention-are-separate-issues-they-need-tackling-in-different-ways-267168

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Siobhan Mclernon, UCL Stroke Research Centre, Department for Brain repair and rehabilitation. Senior Lecturer, Adult Nursing and co-lead, Ageing, Acute and Long Term Conditions, London South Bank University

Stroke is one of the leading causes of disability worldwide. It places a huge burden on families, health systems and societies. Increasingly, strokes are not just occurring in older adults. They are affecting younger people in the most productive years of their lives, interrupting work, family life and long-term wellbeing.

In the US, around 55,000 more women than men experience a stroke each year. This is partly because women live longer. However, women also tend to have poorer outcomes and a lower quality of life after a stroke. Globally, stroke is more common in women than men under the age of 25.

Stroke risk in women is shaped by biology and hormones throughout the reproductive years.

One important set of risk factors involves high blood pressure during pregnancy. These include conditions such as gestational hypertension and preeclampsia.

Preeclampsia usually develops after 20 weeks and involves high blood pressure alongside organ damage, often affecting the kidneys or liver. These conditions increase the risk of stroke both during pregnancy and later in life because high blood pressure can injure the blood vessels that supply the brain.

Hormonal contraceptive use can also influence stroke risk. Not all hormonal contraception increases the risk. The main concern relates to combined oral contraceptives that contain both oestrogen and progesterone. These can make blood more likely to clot and raise blood pressure.

The risk is higher in women who smoke, are over 35 or have migraines with aura. Progesterone only methods are not linked to the same level of risk. Around 248 million women worldwide use hormonal contraception according to the World Health Organization.

---

Read more:
Birth control increases stroke risk – here’s what women need to know

---

Menopause is another important factor. During menopause, oestrogen levels fall. Oestrogen normally helps protect blood vessel walls and supports healthy cholesterol levels. When oestrogen declines, blood vessels can become stiffer and more prone to damage, which increases stroke risk.

Hormone replacement therapy, or HRT, is sometimes used to treat menopausal symptoms. Some forms of HRT, particularly those containing oestrogen, have been linked to a small increase in stroke risk, especially in older women or those who start HRT many years after menopause.

Women are also more likely to experience migraines, particularly migraines with aura. This type of migraine is associated with temporary disruptions to blood flow in the brain, which can increase the risk of stroke.

Autoimmune diseases, such as lupus and rheumatoid arthritis, are more common in women and can cause chronic inflammation. Inflammation contributes to the narrowing and weakening of blood vessels, making stroke more likely.

---

Read more:
Women get far more migraines than men – a neurologist explains why, and what brings relief

---

Evidence for these combined risks has been documented in multiple studies. For example, a research review found that reproductive factors, hormonal exposure and immune system differences all contribute to higher stroke risk in women.

Stroke in pregnancy and after childbirth

Pregnancy places extra strain on the heart and circulatory system. Blood volume increases, hormones fluctuate and blood becomes more prone to clotting. This means that women who are pregnant or have recently given birth are about three times more likely to have a stroke than women of the same age who are not pregnant. Evidence for this increased risk is well documented in research published by the American Heart and Stroke Association.

---

Read more:
Women are at greater risk of stroke, the more miscarriages or stillbirths they’ve had

---

In addition, stroke is a leading cause of maternal illness and death. Serious inequalities exist. In England, Black women are four times more likely to die from pregnancy-related causes than white women. Asian women and women from mixed ethnic backgrounds also face higher risks, according to MBRRACE UK, a longstanding official audit of maternity care quality and outcomes.

In the US, Black women die from pregnancy-related causes at nearly twice the rate of white women. Stroke is one of the major medical complications that contributes to these deaths. Factors include delayed diagnosis, unequal access to care and higher rates of conditions such as high blood pressure, obesity and preeclampsia.

Women from minority ethnic groups are also more likely to have stroke risk factors such as hypertension, diabetes and reduced access to high-quality maternal healthcare. This makes regular antenatal checkups and culturally appropriate health education vital.

Why stroke is often missed in women

Stroke symptoms are more likely to be overlooked in women. Although men and women often have similar early signs, such as facial drooping, arm weakness and speech problems, women are more likely to report additional symptoms such as headache, fatigue, nausea or confusion. These can be mistaken for anxiety, migraine or stress.

Paramedics and healthcare professionals are more likely to label a woman’s symptoms as a “stroke mimic” rather than a stroke itself. This delay in recognition and treatment can lead to lifelong disability or death.

---

Read more:
Paramedics are less likely to identify a stroke in women than men. Closing this gap could save lives – and money

---

Subarachnoid haemorrhage is a type of stroke caused by bleeding around the brain, often due to a burst aneurysm. It usually presents as a sudden, extremely painful headache that does not improve with pain relief. This form of stroke is more common in women.

One reason is that lower oestrogen levels after menopause can weaken artery walls in the brain, making them more prone to rupture. Women who go through menopause early, before the age of 42, have an even higher risk.

---

Read more:
Kim Kardashian’s brain aneurysm diagnosis: what it means and who is most at risk

---

Women shoulder a disproportionate share of the global stroke burden. Hormonal, reproductive and social factors all contribute. Women from minority ethnic backgrounds often face even greater risks because of unequal access to healthcare, higher rates of underlying health conditions and delays in diagnosis and treatment.

Despite this burden, there is still a significant gap in knowledge. Many stroke risks that are specific to women are poorly understood. Women remain underrepresented in clinical research, which means treatment guidelines are often based on evidence from men, rather than reflecting women’s bodies and experiences.

Improving outcomes will require stroke prevention strategies that are inclusive, culturally sensitive and tailored to women at different stages of life. Education, early recognition of symptoms and fair access to healthcare are essential. Only by acknowledging and addressing these unique risks can we reduce the global impact of stroke and begin to close the gender gap.

Siobhan Mclernon does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. From contraception to menopause: why women face a higher risk of stroke – https://theconversation.com/from-contraception-to-menopause-why-women-face-a-higher-risk-of-stroke-266040

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Keetie Roelen, Senior Research Fellow, Co-Deputy Director, Centre for the Study of Global Development, The Open University

The UK is grappling with a housing crisis, with a shortage of 2.5 million homes in England alone. To address this, the government has pledged to build 1.5 million homes by 2029 and 12 new towns before the next election.

Building new homes, as part of small developments or in large new towns, is imperative for affordable and comfortable living. However, it is only a starting point. Making new housing estates into good places to live requires adequate transport links, access to schools and shops, and a sense of belonging for those who live there.

Earlier this year, I led research into two new estates in Milton Keynes, Glebe Farm/Eagle Farm and Whitehouse. Both areas have been under development for nearly a decade, and new houses continue to be built. Our research with residents, service providers and community workers in both estates reveals how simply building homes does not create an environment for people to thrive.

New homes provide much-needed stability and security, particularly for people who have experienced housing insecurity.

But residents in new developments reported that they also face considerable challenges. Lack of public transport, limited availability of schools, childcare facilities or GP surgeries and delayed or non-existent community hubs are commonly cited problems.

New estates are often built without adequate infrastructure or amenities to accommodate residents. While developers and local authorities blame each other for these shortcomings, residents draw the short straw. Whitehouse has had to wait eight years before opening the doors to its community building. The shops and local pub that residents said they were promised have yet to be built.

Challenges with infrastructure and services affect all residents in new housing estates. But they are especially difficult for residents whose budgets are tight. Problems with transport and accessing basic amenities bring economic, social and psychological costs. In turn, it is harder to hold a job, raise children and live healthily. With affordable housing requirements of up to 50% in new estates, a considerable proportion of new residents are affected in this way.

Take Angela, who lives on the Glebe Farm estate on the eastern edge of Milton Keynes. She doesn’t have a car and relies on taxis to bring her children to school, nearly three miles from their home. She told us that fares can add up to £800 a month during the cold and dark of winter. Others reported having to choose between an expensive local shop or taking taxis to cheaper, larger shops, as the bus service is unreliable.

Low-income residents are also more likely to face social isolation and struggle with housing associations. Maintenance issues, broken windows or mould take months to be responded to or are sometimes ignored altogether.

How to make new housing estates successful for all

First, it is vital that public transport links are established as soon as new housing areas are being developed. Lack of affordable and viable ways of travelling around the city emerged as the single biggest complaint in the two new estates included in our research, especially among low-income residents.

Second, new housing estates need their own services and amenities, including schools, GP surgeries and shops. Their establishment tends to be delayed, their capacity insufficient to meet new demand, or their construction simply not on the cards. This is vital – not just for serving new residents, but to avoid putting further pressure on existing services in nearby areas, which are often already under strain.

Third, investment in community development and infrastructure is key for creating inclusive and thriving communities. This means building community centres and spaces with ample capacity to meet communities’ needs, and ensuring that temporary facilities are provided until permanent facilities are available.

---

Read more:
Starmer’s plan to ‘build baby build’ risks more American-style car-dominated sprawl

---

Understanding the needs of all residents, and especially those on lower incomes, is imperative for creating inclusive neighbourhoods. Resident groups and community organisations can play a role with developers and local authorities to make this happen.

To avoid new estates trapping low-income residents in a life of precarity rather than move them out of it, the focus needs to shift beyond the government’s current “build, baby, build” approach and also consider the needs of people and families beyond the brick and mortar of their new homes.

Without prioritisation of public transport, schools, healthcare, community infrastructure and ongoing social support, these developments risk becoming places of exclusion rather than opportunity.

Keetie Roelen is a Trustee of anti-poverty organisation ATD Fourth World UK.

– ref. How to make new housing estates work for the people who live there – https://theconversation.com/how-to-make-new-housing-estates-work-for-the-people-who-live-there-267930

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Neeltje Boogert, Royal Society Dorothy Hodgkin Research Fellow, University of Exeter

Did you get through your beach picnics unscathed this summer? Or did you return from a swim only to find a “seagull” (most likely a herring gull if in the UK) rifling through your bags in search of food? If the latter, shouting at it should help to stop the gull in its tracks and make it fly off – as my team’s latest research shows.

Our previous experiment, published in 2022, showed that urban herring gulls perceive men shouting as a threat. When we played back recordings of men shouting “No! Stay away! That’s my food, that’s my pasty!”, gulls moved away, just like they did in response to our playback of another gull’s alarm calls that signal danger. These findings made us wonder whether gulls foraging in towns are fearful of human vocalisations in general, or whether they are sensitive to the way we speak to them.

Recent studies have indicated that gulls pay attention to subtle human cues, like our gaze direction and handling of food items. They even colour-match the crisp packet we’re eating from when given the choice between two differently coloured options. Given how attuned urban gulls seem to be to our behaviour, my colleagues and I predicted that they would be similarly sensitive to our sounds.

We asked five British men to record themselves saying “No! Stay away! That’s my food, that’s my pasty!” in a shouting voice, and then a second time in a neutral, “speaking”, voice. We used male voices in our experiment as most wildlife crimes against gulls reported in the media are committed by men. Although we did not test this, it seems likely that gulls are more wary of men’s voices compared to women’s voices – as found in nestling jackdaws as well as in African elephants. Men are more likely to represent a threat to these animals than women or children.

We also needed to check whether the gulls showed fearful behaviour to sound played from our speaker in general. So as a control trial we used the song of European robins (of which we downloaded five recordings from the Xeno-Canto library). We edited these sound clips (five per treatment) so that they were all of the same duration (30 seconds) and volume when played back to our gull test subjects.

We conducted all our experimental trials in Cornish coastal towns where gulls are known to take food from people – it was these bold individuals we were most interested in testing for their responses to human sounds. We started each experimental trial by luring a gull to the ground with a clear sealed plastic container filled with fries. Once the gull approached the container, we started a 30 second playback of one of our three treatments; a man speaking, a man shouting the same words or a robin singing.

We found that gulls exposed to the shouting and speaking treatments were significantly more likely to flinch, to stop pecking at the food container and to leave the area, compared to gulls exposed to robin song. Of the gulls that left the area, those that were shouted at would most often fly away, whereas gulls that were spoken at tended to waddle away. These findings suggest that urban herring gulls pay attention to our tone of voice, and are more likely to leave in a hurry when addressed angrily.

Our results may not surprise you. Dog owners may tell you that dogs respond to the way we talk to them, and often look “guilty” when we scold them. Domestic horses can also tell the difference between positive and negative human vocalisations. They freeze for longer when they hear human growling than human laughter.

However, we have domesticated these species for thousands of years, while herring gulls have only started breeding on our roofs in the last century. It therefore seems likely that gulls have learned to associate our aggressive or angry intonations with threat. For gulls, being shouted at is more commonly associated with being chased than with being fed, after all.

Herring gulls might give the impression that they are thriving, given their apparent abundance in coastal towns in summer. But they are on the RSPB’s red list of species of highest conservation concern. Their coastal population is only half of what it was 50 years ago. This is probably due to a combination of fish depletion, disturbance, culling, disease and egg predation by animals like rats and foxes.

But my team’s research points to easy, non-violent ways we can mitigate conflict with a species that is just making the best of a bad situation. For example, in 2019, we found that simply staring at herring gulls can get them off your food. And we know that gulls go where the food is. So another important thing you can do is not feed them.

Neeltje Boogert does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. Yes, shouting at seagulls actually works, scientists confirm – https://theconversation.com/yes-shouting-at-seagulls-actually-works-scientists-confirm-269317

Source: The Conversation – UK – By John Schofield, Director of Studies, Cultural Heritage Management, University of York; Flinders University

Imagine a remote Galapagos beach, where iguanas stomp around between fishing nets, flip flops, baseball caps and plastic bottles. Stuck in the sand is the empty packet for food sold only in Ecuador, the nearest mainland hundreds of miles away. To most people, these things are rubbish. But to archaeologists, they’re also artefacts – traces of how people live in what some call the plastic age.

Using an archaeological lens allows us to question what we think we know about the contemporary world, and to see plastic as not just pollution but as evidence of the impact people are having on the planet.

Archaeology is the study of people and how they behaved, which is represented by what they leave behind. Stone tools and pottery fragments, for example, reveal how people lived and worked in the past.

But the past is always accumulating. People continue to leave traces, just as they have done for millennia: objects are dumped, lost and discarded. The archaeological record never stops forming.

Since single-use plastics became more common in the early 1950s, plastics have been an increasingly significant part of the archaeological record. That is why the period from then until now is referred to by archaeologists as the plastic age, in much the same way as the bronze and iron ages are defined by their distinctive metals.

But unlike bronze or iron, these materials are leaving behind a toxic legacy. Micro- and nanoplastics are found in human organs and blood, and are everywhere in the environment: even in in places like Antarctica or on remote mountaintops to which they have been carried by air. Microplastics also exist in deeply buried archaeological deposits. Plastic bags are found in the depths of the ocean. And because plastics can also alter carbon cycles in the ocean, they’re even speeding up climate change.

An archaeological record

In our recent study – in collaboration with Flinders University in Australia – we used archaeological theory to investigate how the plastic age is leaving its record behind, and how best to understand it. We looked at the many different places where that record is accumulating, from city landfills to farms or remote coastlines, from human bodies to space. And we examined how people’s everyday actions – using, losing, discarding things – shape how the present day appears to archaeologists.

Our main argument is simple: to tackle plastic pollution we have to understand how and why it is being created. And archaeology can help us do that.

We built on the work of anthropologists like Michael Schiffer in the 1970s, who used archaeology to examine human behaviour and the archaeological signatures that it creates. We use this influential work to describe how objects move from a “systemic” context – where they’re part of daily life – into the “archaeological” context, once they’re lost or thrown away (at which point these items become “artefacts” to archaeologists).

An archaeological record is therefore forming in real time. Perhaps the packaging on your last meal will be part of it. The device you’re reading this on certainly will.

But the relationship between artefacts and human behaviour isn’t as straightforward as it sounds. Artefacts do not necessarily remain where they fall, but can be shifted by nature or by people. Ocean currents, for instance, carry plastic waste around the globe to places like the Great Pacific garbage patch, while human actions such as waste collection deliberately moves plastics from one place to another. Understanding these processes is crucial for interpreting archaeological traces.

Working with other scientists through the Galapagos Conservation Trust, we used this archaeological approach to investigate plastic waste in the World Heritage listed Galapagos. We wanted to better understand where the waste was coming from and how to reduce its impact. By treating plastics as artefacts and tracing the processes that they had been subjected to, it was possible to untangle the many forces that contributed to the growing sense of contamination in such a fragile and important landscape.

Wicked futures

Our research also raises questions about the future. Archaeologists are already studying plastics, but how will they be viewed by archaeologists hundreds or thousands of years from now? Looking back from the deep future, will those fragments of plastic document a technological advance or a situation spiralling out of control?

Plastic pollution is what researchers call a wicked problem: complex, interconnected and hard to fix. Helping to resolve such problems requires creative and interdisciplinary approaches. Taking an archaeological lens to plastics provides just that – a new way to understand how our everyday actions are producing this toxic legacy, while at the same time providing evidence of our time on Earth.

Fay Couceiro receives funding from Research Councils, Industry and philanthropic organisations for work relating to microplastics and their removal from the environment.

John Schofield does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. Plastic waste is a toxic legacy – and an important archaeological record – https://theconversation.com/plastic-waste-is-a-toxic-legacy-and-an-important-archaeological-record-268517

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Laura Nicole Rees-Davies, Senior Lecturer, Cardiff Metropolitan University

The UK’s schools are facing a worsening teacher shortage, with heavy workloads and burnout pushing staff out of the profession.

Coaching has been introduced as a possible solution. In simple terms, coaching is a structured conversation that helps teachers reflect on their practice and find their own solutions. Rather than being told what to do, teachers work with a trained coach who uses careful questioning and feedback to build confidence, self-awareness and professional growth. For example, a coach may help a teacher explore why classroom management feels difficult, set realistic goals and then reflect on what works best.

It’s a way to help teachers and, ultimately, improve outcomes for pupils. But can it really make a difference? Or will it go the way of so many other short-lived education initiatives?

A recent review by my colleagues and I of 22 UK studies suggests that, when done well, coaching can boost teacher confidence, resilience and job satisfaction. And it can even improve pupil engagement and learning. But it also warns that poor implementation and lack of funding could undermine its potential.

Across the nations of the UK, schools are struggling to recruit and retain teachers, especially in secondary subjects, rural areas and early career posts. High workloads, low salaries, limited progression opportunities and years of underfunding have driven many to leave the profession. Meanwhile, fewer graduates are choosing to become teachers.

In England, the government has prioritised secondary teacher recruitment as one of its central aims. In Scotland, the National Association of Schoolmasters Union of Women Teachers claims that due to persistent underfunding of education, there are now serious challenges in teacher recruitment and retention.

Similarly, the Irish National Teachers’ Organisation claims that the island of Ireland has falling teacher numbers due to excessive workloads and understaffing of schools and this is supported by recent evidence.

In Wales, Estyn, the education and training inspectorate, reports that there has been a significant shortfall in recruitment to PGCE secondary initial teacher education programmes in recent years. Recent Welsh figures, for instance, show that 62% of secondary teacher training courses were under-recruited.

The consequences extend beyond the classroom. When teachers feel supported and engaged, students benefit from better learning and wellbeing outcomes. Coaching offers a way to support teachers without the pressure of judgment or targets.

Unlike traditional performance management or mentoring, it provides a reflective space for teachers to reconnect with their professional purpose. For policymakers, this could improve both teacher job satisfaction and student outcomes, ultimately making teaching a more attractive career choice for the future.

What we found

Our rapid review offers a clear picture of how coaching works in schools.

Most often, it’s used as part of professional development programmes or teacher training. Teachers who took part described coaching as empowering, restorative and transformational. Reported benefits included greater confidence, professional growth, improved classroom practice and stronger collaboration among staff.

But the evidence shows that coaching only works when it is implemented properly. In some cases, coaching has been confused with mentoring, a more directive, advice-giving approach. Or it has been used as a tool for performance management. In others, it’s been delivered by staff with little or no training. These practices can undermine trust, limit the effectiveness, or even make things worse for already overworked teachers.

Time, funding and support are also major barriers. Without proper backing from senior leaders, coaching risks becoming an add-on rather than an embedded part of school culture.

---

Read more:
How voice training can help teachers improve wellbeing in the classroom

---

So, what makes coaching effective? The evidence points to a few important ingredients.

Coaching should be kept separate from performance appraisal, to encourage open reflection. Coaches need proper training, accreditation and supervision. It’s a professional skill that goes beyond teaching experience, requiring active listening, skilled questioning and goal setting.

Successful coaching programmes also give teachers protected time to participate, and they work best when linked to whole-school wellbeing and professional development strategies. Policymakers can play a important role by funding accredited training, ensuring quality standards, and also building long-term evaluation frameworks.

Coaching isn’t a cure-all for the challenges facing schools. But at a time when pressure on teachers has never been higher, it offers something rare – a chance to pause, think and reconnect with why they came into the profession in the first place.

With the right investment and commitment, coaching could become more than another educational buzzword. It could help teachers stay in the classroom. And it could help pupils, schools and communities to thrive.

Laura Nicole Rees-Davies does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. How coaching could help solve the UK’s teacher crisis – https://theconversation.com/how-coaching-could-help-solve-the-uks-teacher-crisis-266112

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Akhil Bhardwaj, Associate Professor (Strategy and Organisation), School of Management, University of Bath

You might not care very much about the prospect of the AI bubble bursting. Surely it’s just something for the tech bros of Silicon Valley to worry about – or the wealthy investors who have spent billions of dollars funding development.

But as a sector, AI may have become too big to fail. And just as they did after the financial crisis of 2008, taxpayers could be picking up the tab if it collapses.

The financial crisis proved to be very expensive. In the UK, the public cost of bailing out the banks was officially put at £23 billion – roughly equivalent to £700 per taxpayer. In the US, taxpayers stumped up an estimated US$498 billion (£362 billion).

Today, the big AI firms are worth way more than banks, with a combined value exceeding £2 trillion. Many of these companies are interconnected (or entangled) with each other through a complex web of deals and investments worth hundreds of billions of dollars.

And despite a recent study which reports that 95% of generative AI pilots at companies are failing, the public sector is not shy about getting involved. The UK government for example, has said it is going “all in” on AI.

It sees potential benefits in incorporating AI into education, defence and health. It wants to bring AI efficiency to court rooms and passport applications.

So AI is being widely adopted in public services, with a level of integration which make it a critical feature of people’s day to day lives.

And this is where it gets risky.

Because the reason for bailing out the banks was that the entire financial system would collapse otherwise. And whether or not you agree with the bailout policy, it is hard to argue that banking is not a crucial part of modern society.

Similarly, the more AI is integrated and entangled into every aspect of our lives, the more essential it becomes to everyone, like a banking system. And the companies which provide the AI capabilities become organisations that our lives depend upon.

Imagine, for example, that your healthcare, your child’s education and your personal finances all rely on a fictional AI company called “Eh-Aye”. That firm cannot be allowed to collapse, because too much depends on it – and taxpayers would probably find themselves being on the hook if it got into financial difficulties.

Bubble trouble

For the time being though, the money flowing in to AI shows little sign of slowing. Supporters insist that despite the failures, investment is critical. They argue that artificial general intelligence (AGI), the point at which AI acquires human-like cognitive capabilities, will vastly improve our lives.

Others are less optimistic. Commentators including computer scientists Gary Marcus and Richard Sutton have cast doubts on the power of AI to become truly intelligent.

In my own research, I highlight the limitations of large language models (LLMs) when it comes to reasoning. Similar conclusions have been drawn at other universities and even at tech company Apple.

So perhaps the endless expansion of the AI bubble comes down to how strongly the AI pioneers believe in its future. They’ve gone pretty far with it, so maybe it makes sense for them to go all in, with a pragmatic kind of faith that keeps the bubble growing.

The trouble is that one tech billionaire’s act of faith could also be described as a gamble. And it’s a gamble they want everyone to join, with taxpayers’ money on the table.

So if the gamble fails and the bubble bursts, who would bear the costs? Would the UK government cut funding from the NHS or siphon money from a cash strapped education sector? Would it bail out pension funds that had over-invested in AI?

One thing is certain. The future being offered by AI firms is not guaranteed. Yet governments and businesses are worried they will miss out if they don’t get on board – and there are no safeguards in place to protect taxpayers from the fallout if things go wrong.

Akhil Bhardwaj does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. If the AI bubble does burst, taxpayers could end up with the bill – https://theconversation.com/if-the-ai-bubble-does-burst-taxpayers-could-end-up-with-the-bill-269115