The role of National Strategy Behaviour and Attendance consultants with regard to training and professional development in special educational needs
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The year 2003 saw Behaviour and Attendance (B&A) consultants beginning work across the country, supporting (mostly) mainstream secondary schools. They are part of an extensive advisory team which is instrumental in improving standards in schools through the Government's Secondary National Strategy. Their brief was to develop and improve the systems, strategies and approaches for managing and improving behaviour and attendance, and thereby have a positive impact on learning and attainment. This approach has been confirmed in the fourth Steer Report which highlights improving behaviour and attainment via better understanding and provision for special educational needs and additional needs in mainstream schools. Each B&A consultant draws on their own strengths and strategies to work with school staff at many levels and support a wide range of focuses; some draw on their extensive experience of working with special educational needs and additional needs. This article provides an illustration of the role of such consultants specifically in relation to training and professional development in special educational needs or additional needs. It covers areas such as staff support, school management and systems, use of data and, of course, the social and emotional aspects of learning (SEAL).
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it