Search

Abstract Following a request from EFSA, the Panel on Plant Protection Products and their Residues developed an opinion on the science behind the risk assessment of plant protection products for in‐soil organisms. The current risk assessment scheme is reviewed, taking into account new regulatory frameworks and scientific developments. Proposals are made for specific protection goals for in‐soil organisms being key drivers for relevant ecosystem services in agricultural landscapes such as nutrient cycling, soil structure, pest control and biodiversity. Considering the time‐scales and biological processes related to the dispersal of the majority of in‐soil organisms compared to terrestrial non‐target arthropods living above soil, the Panel proposes that in‐soil environmental risk assessments are made at in‐ and off‐field scale considering field boundary levels. A new testing strategy which takes into account the relevant exposure routes for in‐soil organisms and the potential direct and indirect effects is proposed. In order to address species recovery and long‐term impacts of PPPs, the use of population models is also proposed.

In England, a new model of apprenticeship was initiated in whose stated intention was to 'put employers in the driving seat'. Regulation of the new model was focused on the mandatory 20% of apprentices' work time allocated to off-the-job training offered by colleges and other training providers. Based on case studies of employers and training providers across a range of industry sectors, this paper brings together data from two projects researching the on-the-job and off-the-job training elements of the new model. Three contrasting modes of apprenticeship emerged: developing apprentices to become experts in an industry-wide community of practice; apprenticeship as staff development; and apprenticeship as income stream. These resulted from different forms of employer-provider collaboration, enabled through a marketized landscape of training providers, and flexibility in regulations that requires very little of employers. Utilising Fuller and Unwin's work on expansive and restrictive environments, we found that that the new model supports a range of apprenticeships some being excellent but also others that are not worthy of the me. The paper concludes that quality apprenticeships tended to be in traditional industries and relied on strong partnerships between employers and training providers that worked against the grain of competitive market relations.

Since 2010, government policy in England has positioned further education almost exclusively as employment-orientated training for school leavers whilst also imposing severe budget cuts. During this period, values-based pedagogies that foreground social justice for students, many of whom come from low-income households, have been undermined. Following the COVID-19 pandemic, there is evidence that the mental health and well-being of further education students has suffered but little is known about the pandemic's effects on teachers. This paper presents analysis of primary research data drawn from interviews with a small sample of further education teachers and managers in the English West Midlands about their mental health and well-being during the pandemic. The paper frames the research data by acknowledging that both mental health nursing and further education teaching are currently riven by contradictions with an epistemological basis anchored in meritocratic and neoliberal policy. Using Lefebvrian theory, our analysis suggests that for further education staff, the pandemic has sharpened the tensions experienced in an already precarious professional role. Key findings were that the further education funding regime drove a 'business as usual' management attitude during the pandemic, and an intensification of work and the erosion of pedagogical practice negatively affected staff's mental health.

This music score was submitted for the Kaleidoscope 2020 Call for Scores, an open access collaboration with the UCLA Music Library.

This music score was submitted for the Kaleidoscope 2020 Call for Scores, an open access collaboration with the UCLA Music Library.

This music score was submitted for the Kaleidoscope 2020 Call for Scores, an open access collaboration with the UCLA Music Library.

The right to education depends upon a willingness to finance education fairly. Addressing the difference in educational achievement between learners of different backgrounds is a key aspect of fairness. Framed by contemporary neoliberal policies around marketisation and competitiveness, this paper examines fairness in the education finance policy (EFP) of three jurisdictions in England, Israel and Oklahoma. Using a comparative analysis of school funding formulae and an international survey on the perceptions of local policy actors, the "de jure" and the "de facto" EFPs are examined. Our findings reveal "de jure" policies attempting to address fairness through integrating different student background characteristics. However, variability is evident in the extent to which the "de facto" policies align with an aspiration for fairness. This is linked to the marketisation of education in each jurisdiction. We conclude that weightings of students' background characteristics can only be one feature in policy interventions orientated towards bringing about social equity.

Purpose: The purpose of this paper is to explore data from the University and College Union (UCU) Further Education in England--Transforming Lives and Communities research project and through this the paper develops a distinctive, theorised conceptualisation of transformative teaching and learning (TTL). Design/methodology/approach: The research used an approach grounded in critical pedagogy utilising digital methods, including video interviews, to collect narratives from learners, teachers, family members and their communities from colleges across Britain. Findings: Within a context in which there are structural pressures militating in favour of instrumentalising students in further education, TTL offers a way of theorising it as a transformative critical space that restores students' hope and agency. The research provides evidence of how further education offers this "differential space" (Lefebvre, 1991) and subverts the prescriptive, linear spaces of compulsory education. While productivist approaches to vocational education and training support ideologies that legitimate prescribed knowledge, reproducing inequality and injustice through the practices employed (Ade-Ojo and Duckworth, 2017; Duckworth and Smith, 2017b), TTL shifts to a more holistic approach, achieving a different level of engagement with students. Practical implications: The findings suggest that the TTL lens is a way of focusing on the dignity, needs and agency of further education students. The lens allows us also to identify how the existing structures associated with funding and marketisation can undermine the potential of TTL to activate students' agency through education. Originality/value: Extending on existing literature around transformative learning, and drawing on a range of theoretical frameworks, the paper formulates a new, contextually specific conceptualisation of TTL.

Purpose: To investigate the landing strategies used after discontinuing and continuing the use of a functional knee brace (FKB) while performing a drop jump. Methods: Following published methodology and power analysis, 23 uninjured male athletes, mean age of 19.4 ± 3.0 years, performed seven tests, during three test conditions (nonbraced, braced and removed brace or continued brace use), over 6 days of 12 testing sessions (S) for a total of 38.5 h. Each subject was provided with a custom‐fitted FKB. This study focuses on the single leg drop jump kinetics during S12 when subjects were randomly selected to remove the FKB after 17.5 h or continued use of FKB. The time to peak vertical ground reaction forces (PVGRF) and PVGRF were recorded on landing in eight trials. Results: After brace removal, a significantly shorter mean time to PVGRF was recorded (9.4 ± 22.9 msec (3.9%), p = 0.005, 95% confidence interval (95% CI): −168.1, 36.1), while continued brace use required a nonsignificant (n.s.) longer mean duration to achieve PVGRF (19.4 ± 53.6 msec (8.9%), n.s., 95% CI: −49.7, 73.4). No significant mean PVGRF difference was found in brace removal (25.3 ± 65.8 N) and continued brace use (25.1 ± 23.0 N). Conclusion: Removal of FKB after 17.5 h of use led to a significantly shorter time to achieve PVGRF, while continued brace use for 21 h required a longer duration to achieve PVGRF, suggesting faster and slower knee joint loading, respectively. Understanding the concerns associated with the use of FKB and the kinetics of the knee joint will assist clinicians in counselling athletes about the risks and benefits of using an FKB. Level of Evidence: Level II. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]