Person-centred reviews and transition: an exploration of the views of students and their parents/carers

The person-centred review (PCR) is a model for the review of a student’s special educational needs (SEN) which places the young person and their family at the centre of the process. This mixed-methods, exploratory study investigated the views of 16 students with SEN aged between 10–11 years (Year 6) and 13–14 years (Year 9), and their parents/carers on their PCRs (which were mostly held at transition). Attention was paid to potential changes in the young people’s locus of control and feelings towards school. Findings indicated that the PCR is a collaborative, constructive and reassuring process for families where a wealth of information is shared openly and honestly within a relaxed, yet structured, meeting. The young people were generally positive about the process, although many felt daunted beforehand. Some parents felt the meeting was too long and not entirely accessible to children. The study did not conclude that the young people’s locus of control or feelings towards their education changed following the PCR. Implications for good practice are discussed, particularly for educational psychologists and in the context of the SEN and Disability Code of Practice.     

Investigating populations via penguins and their poo!

We describe an activity that introduces students to population modelling, enables them to use estimates obtained from a sample to infer back to the population, and understands how the findings are translatable via penguins and their poo!     

替代性世界：学习环境新方向

教育领域一直以评价和采用交互创新技术为先驱,这些交互创新技术为教育技术专家探索计算机辅助的教学提供了实践的土壤＂。替代性世界＂（Alternative worlds）是完全实时的、高保真的、用户高度介入的学习环境。其特点是具有丰富的环境、丰富的接口、操作驱动和有效应用于教与学＂。替代性世界＂在混合式学习中可以冲破传统教育屏障,拓展教师和学习者角色,为学习者提供时间和空间的便利,实现终身学习＂。替代性世界＂学习环境是一个新的研究领域,它为专注于人机交互、社会网络和虚拟现实的教育技术专家开拓了新方向和新空间。     

Making Political Anger Possible: A Task for Civic Education

The article asks whether political anger has a legitimate place in a democracy, as this is a political system designed to resolve conflicts by peaceful negotiation. It distinguishes personal from social anger and political anger, to focus explicitly on the latter. It argues that both the feeling and expression of political anger are subject to normative constraints, often specific to social status and gender. The article examines arguments, including those of Seneca, in favour of an anger‐free society. It concludes, however, that a democracy cannot dispense with political anger, which has a vital role to play in protecting things of value. This role demands a civic education such that when democratic values are under threat citizens will not feel apathetic or simply fearful, but angry and possessed of a repertoire of ways of expressing democratic anger.