Category:

Research finds NO negative impact of EAL learners on non–EAL learners attainment in schools!

5/4/2013

Recent research by Professor Sandra McNally et al at the London School of Economics has discredited the negative popular view perpetuated by the media, that pupils with English as an additional language drive down standards for pupils for whom English is a first language. Newspaper articles, especially around the time of the EU enlargement frequently used negative headlines to highlight this myth – ‘English is the foreign language for 40 % of primary school pupils’ - Daily Mail, November 2007   'No place at school if you’re British' - Daily Express, October 2006 or 'More Catholic schools needed to cope with East European influx' - Independent 22/6/ 07. This is not accounting for the negative rhetoric used then and now by politicians too.

The research entitled ‘Non-native speakers of English in the classroom: What are the effects on pupil performance?’ by Charlotte Geay, Sandra Mc Nally, Shqiponja Telhaj, was published by the Centre for the Economics of Education at LSE in March 2012. The researchers highlighted the fact that the number of EAL learners has more or less doubled over the past fifteen years from approximately half a million to the present 1 million of EAL pupils in schools in 2012.   The key focus of their research was ‘Does it matter for the educational attainment of ‘native English speakers’ at the end of primary school?’

The researchers used data from the National Pupil data base, which is the census of all pupils in state schools from 2012 -2009 and linked this to school level data sets. The Census data provides information on a range of factors such as EAL, ethnicity, gender, Free School Meal eligibility, Special Educational Needs and Disabilities, as well as prior attainment.   These factors are often called pupil characteristics. They were also able to look in depth at school level data such as the school type, the size of the school, how many of the pupils were from disadvantaged backgrounds, pupil – teacher ratios and the amount of funding it receives etc. Much of this data nowadays for individual schools is in the public domain and is readily available on the DfE performance tables, which are available here.

Using this information they carried out two pieces of research focusing on KS 2 SATS which are exams that all pupils have to take in Year 6 and marks the end of primary schooling in England.

The two key areas they looked at were the following:

1. What was the association between the percentage of non–native speakers in Year 6 and KS attainment of native speakers of English, taking into account detailed characteristics of pupils.

2. Whether schools that had an increase of white non-native speakers as a result of EU enlargement had a change in attainment of native English in speakers, compared to other schools.

Their findings were as follows:

“There is a negative association between the percentage of non-native speakers and attainment of native speakers of English if we do not control for anything else”. Now this if is very important because of factors such as disadvantage which is measured by the proxy indicator of eligibility for free school meals (FSM). The researchers highlight that 15 % of non EAL speakers are eligible for FSM, compared to 18 % for white EAL learners and 28 % non –white EAL learners.   Therefore, when minimal controls are put in to take account of these various characteristics “ …….this negative association goes away” . This is as a result of the fact that EAL pupils or non-native English speakers on average go to more disadvantaged schools.

They conclude……….’ negative association in the raw data between the percentage of non-native speakers and the educational attainment of native English speakers is easily removed – even by controlling for very limited characteristics of native English speakers. The negative correlation can be explained by sorting of non-native speakers into schools with less desirable characteristics. Under certain assumptions, the strategies used in this paper can be used to make an inference about causal effects. Both strategies suggest that negative effects can be ruled out. This is not surprising in the light of positive selection of first and second immigrants to the UK in terms of their educational attainment, although it does refute perceptions (in the media) that the increase in students who do not speak English as a first language is detrimental to the education of native English speakers.

The result also makes sense in the context of other research about ethnic minorities in England. Dustmann, Machin and Schonberg [1] show that most ethnic minority groups progress through primary school at a faster rate than white British students (as measured by the increase in attainment between age 7 and 11) and that improvements in the proficiency of the English language is likely to be the most important contributing factor. Thus it seems likely that most primary-aged students catch up in English proficiency at a rate such that they do not impede the progress of their native-speaking peers.”

Should you wish to watch Sandra McNally giving an overview of the research report, a short video clip is available here courtesy of Cambridge Assessment.

A full copy of the report is available here.

[1] Dustmann, C., S. Machin and U. Schonberg, (2010), Educational Achievement and Ethnicity in Compulsory Schooling. Economic Journal, 120(546): F272-F297

0 Comments

Using peer-tutoring to improve standards in reading

17/3/2013

10 Comments

A short while ago, I attended a meeting with colleagues at the Centre for Evaluation and Monitoring (CEM) at Durham University to discuss proposals for working with schools in disadvantaged areas to improve reading. Using the research findings from the EEF Toolkit developed by CEM, which found that peer tutoring was one of the top three strategies to improve learning, we are looking at ways in which we could use both cross–aged peer tutoring and parental engagement (another strategy recognised by the Toolkit) to raise standards in reading in a sustainable way.

Durham University is already working on a Shared Maths peer tutoring programme across four Local Authorities (LA). The Shared Maths project is being funded by Education Endowment Foundation (EEF) and it is a cross–aged peer tutoring programme involving Year 5’s working as tutors and Year 3’s as tutees. Pupils work together for 20 minutes a week, over a period of 16 weeks to solve mathematical problems. Together, they use a variety of strategies based on real life situations to gain a deep understanding of the mathematical problem and reach an answer to this problem.   Altogether, there are nearly 100 schools across the four LA’s involved in the Shared Maths project which commenced in 2012 and will continue to be delivered over the next few years.   Each LA has a local co-ordinator who works with schools in their area to provide initial CPD and follow up training to teachers taking part, along with on-going tailored support to schools throughout the duration of their involvement.   InCAS, which is a diagnostic, computer-adaptive assessment tool, is being used to provide an objective measure of attainment and inform personalised learning of pupils involved in the project. Bristol University is providing an external evaluation of the Shared Maths Project.

The benefits of the cross–aged peer tutoring work are cited as the following:

· “Cross-age peer tutoring in maths has consistently been found to raise attainment with gains for both tutors and tutees.
· On top of the attainment gains there are social and emotional benefits to being involved in peer tutoring:
· Participating in a peer tutoring programme can improve attitudes both to maths and to school generally.
· Peer tutoring can increase motivation and confidence in maths.
· Working with a partner using the peer tutoring technique develops pupils’ interpersonal skills as well as improving social, communication and teamwork skills.
· Peer tutoring can increase social relationships within schools particularly for people who find it difficult to make friends”.

Source Durham University www.sharedmaths.org website.

Recognising the above benefits of peer tutoring, we are hoping to extend the Shared Maths Project by piloting a small scale project with 6 primary schools to deliver peer-tutoring with a focus on improving reading for 10 weeks and then extending the same techniques to parents, so that target pupils continue to read within the home environment. This should allow for the development of a holistic approach to reading within the family context, with opportunities for families to read reciprocally, using other languages if these are spoken within the home environment.

The evidence base for peer learning is extensive, with Professor Keith Topping being a leading expert in the field.   Professor Topping who is the Director of the Centre for Peer Learning at Dundee University and who was a lead member of the Fife Peer Learning Project, is working with Dr Andy Wiggins, and other colleagues from CEM and I on this project.

Whilst I was at CEM, I had the opportunity to meet with Stuart Kime. Stuart has been part of the team along with Professor Robert Coe, Camilla Nevill, & Robbie Coleman, who have produced the newly released The DIY Evaluation Guide (January 2013) to accompany the refreshed Sutton Trust - EEF The Teaching and Learning Toolkit
Stuart and colleagues are particularly interested in receiving feedback and hearing from colleagues in schools who have used The DIY Evaluation Guide. Stuart can be contacted on [email protected]k

The Sutton Trust-Education Endowment Foundation Teaching and Learning Toolkit. London: Education Endowment Foundation by Higgins, S., Katsipataki, M., Kokotsaki, D., Coleman, R., Major, L.E., & Coe, R. (2013).

Further posting on this blog will provide updates on developments in relation to using peer-tutoring to raise standards of achievement in reading.

In the meantime, interested colleagues may wish to visit the newly refreshed EEF Toolkit pages. The Toolkit is a live resource which will be updated on a regular basis as findings from EEF-funded projects and other high-quality research become available. The sceenshot above only shows the top seven strategies. When you visit the EEF website you will see 30 topics outlined, including 8 new topics which are summarised for average impact on attainment, along with strength of the evidence and their cost. Each one of the topics also has a video case studies and improved links to further reading and providers of professional development via The Teacher Development Trust's GoodCPDGuide.

10 Comments

DO YOU HAVE A PUPIL PREMIUM POLICY? IF NOT, YOU CAN GET A FREE MODEL PUPIL PREMIUM POLICY TEMPLATE AND GUIDANCE FOR SCHOOLS, COURTESY OF EQUITABLE EDUCATION.

9/3/2013

6 Comments

Equitable Education has produced a Model Pupil Premium Policy Template and accompanying guidance for schools to use. Both are available free for schools to download from the Guardian Teacher Network. Click here for the Model Policy Template and here for the accompanying guidance.

The Pupil Premium Policy and guidance have been written to support schools to produce a policy of their own. The policy enables all colleagues in a school community to be clear as to how this additional funding is to be used to reduce inequalities, what their role is in narrowing the gaps for disadvantaged pupils and how the school will demonstrate impact. The supporting guidance assists schools in tailoring the policy to meet the needs of their particular pupils. It also pulls all the latest research and tools they can use together in one place for ease of use saving time and effort.

The Pupil Premium Policy Template on the Guardian Teacher Network is a PDF. Should schools require a Word version to make it easier for them to produce their own, this is available on request from Equitable Education on [email protected] for a copy.

Equitable Education provides workshops for schools and their governing bodies to facilitate the production of their own Pupil Premium Policy, using all the latest evidence based research of ‘what works’ and evaluation tools that are available to use. We can support you in personalising the workshop, so that it is tailor made to meet the particular needs of your pupils eligible for free schools meals. Please get in contact with Sameena Choudry on [email protected] to discuss the needs of your school and how we can support you in ensuring maximum impact in using your Pupil Premium effectively in narrowing the gaps for your disadvantaged pupils.

For further information on the Pupil Premium and what you as a school needs to meet the Ofsted and Pupil Premium Grant requirements, please read the blog posting below.

6 Comments

WHAT ARE THE REQUIREMENTS OF SCHOOLS REGARDING THE USE OF THE PUPIL PREMIUM AND HOW ARE THEY HELD ACCOUNTABLE FOR ITS USE?

9/3/2013

0 Comments

Many schools are receiving additional funding for their pupils who are eligible for free schools meals through the Pupil Premium Grant. This is also given for children who have been looked after for more than six months and children of service personnel. The purpose of the Pupil Premium is to reduce the inequalities in educational attainment that currently exist between disadvantaged pupils and their more affluent peers.

The Pupil Premium Grant is not ring-fenced by the DfE and schools have freedom to use the Pupil Premium as they see fit, based upon their knowledge of their pupil needs.

‘It is for schools to decide how the Pupil Premium, allocated to schools per FSM pupil, is spent, since they are best placed to assess what additional provision should be made for the individual pupils within their responsibility.’　 DfE

As a school in receipt of Pupil Premium funding, you are accountable to your parents and school community for how you are using this additional resource to narrow the achievement gaps of your pupils. New measures have been included in the performance tables published annually on a national level. They capture the achievement of disadvantaged pupils covered by the Pupil Premium.

Under The School Information (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2012, Schedule 4 there is specified information which has to be to be published on a school’s website.
Section 9 of this regulation requires schools to publish:

‘The amount of the school’s allocation from the Pupil Premium grant in respect of the current academic year; details of how it is intended that the allocation will be spent; details of how the previous academic year’s allocation was spent, and the effect of this expenditure on the educational attainment of those pupils at the school in respect of whom grant funding was allocated’.

In addition, under the Ofsted Inspection Framework 2012, there is a stronger focus on improving the learning and progress of different groups and on narrowing gaps in standards. As a result, Ofsted carefully scrutinises the use of the Pupil Premium and the impact this is having on narrowing the gaps. Please note that this permeates across all four areas of the new Ofsted framework and your governing body has an important role in monitoring the use of the Pupil Premium and accounting for its effectiveness.

Equitable Education has produced a free Model Pupil Premium Policy Template for schools to use, with accompanying guidance. Both documents are available from the Guardian Teacher Network and can be downloaded here.

Equitable Education can provide workshops for your school and your governing body on the Pupil Premium. this which will be tailor made to meet the specific needs of your pupils eligible for free school meals. These workshops will also take you through the latest evidence based research of ‘what works’ and evaluation tools to ensure that members of your school community know how to narrow the gaps and can demonstrate impact. Please feel free to get in touch with Sameena Choudry on [email protected] to discuss your school needs. We can also provide you with a Word version of the two documents produced by Equitable Education. These are available by e-mail from [email protected]

We look forward to hearing from you.

0 Comments

Seven specific characteristics of outstanding leaders who successfully close the gaps

15/2/2013

1 Comment

During the course of over 25 years in education, I have been privileged to have had the opportunity to work alongside hundreds of primary and secondary schools leaders in Yorkshire. The vast majority of schools I have spent most of my career in are those which would be deemed to be in “challenging circumstances”[i]. These schools are the ones I proactively chose to focus my own teaching career in because of the potential to make a greater difference. Recently, I have been reflecting on the specific characteristics of successful leaders of challenging schools who I have seen successfully close the gaps in attainment. What is it that they do on a regular and sustained basis for their pupils and communities, which makes the difference between success and failure of a school and its community ?

There is much research on what constitutes successful school leadership.[ii] However, there has been much less research on the nature of successful leadership of schools facing challenging circumstances[iii] with attention being drawn to this subject only a decade ago. In 2009, Ofsted published two key reports[iv] outlining characteristics of schools which were outstanding and excelled against the odds, in terms of their intake of pupils and location. The same year the then DCSF also published two phase reports[v] with a main focus on white pupils eligible for free school meals. There seems however, even much less written about leadership of multi-ethnic schools. Following Gillborn and Gipps’[vi] seminal research in 1996, which highlighted the under-performance of some minority ethnic pupils, Blair and Bourne’s research[vii] in 1998 highlighted the characteristics of outstanding multi-ethnic schools.   Subsequent to this, the only other main research which focuses on successful multi-ethnic leadership was undertaken by Dimmock et al[viii] in 2004, followed by Walker et al,[ix] which used a case study approach of ‘good leaders’ of multi-ethnic schools, setting the challenges they face within an international context.   Currently, with the focus on closing the gap and raising attainment in schools near or below floor targets, many of whom are schools facing challenging circumstances, HMCI Wilshaw has ordered a review of “Access & Achievement”[x]. The purpose of this review is to focus on the issues facing urban leadership. He has also engaged an expert panel to come up with new and radical solutions to address the issues facing deprived communities. After a year of deliberations, the expert panel is due to report back in May this year.

Based on this research and my own observations of working closely with these leaders who had a proven track record in closing the gaps, I decided to reflect on what I thought were the most compelling specific characteristics they shared and came up with this list, much of which resonates with the research outlined above.

1.    Overarching commitment to fairness, equality and social justice.

This commitment drives the schools mission, values and practice in schools and is their ‘raison d’etre’ for leading schools in challenging circumstances. I have observed that that these leaders are confident and command respect from their school community, but at the same time have a sense of humility and modesty, with an eagerness of wanting to learn more about their often changing communities. They have high expectations of their staff, pupils and their communities and ensure that this is permeates across everything the school does.

2.    Distributed leadership at all levels

The demands of working in a school facing challenging circumstances is immense and one of the key ingredients is making sure that all leaders in the school passionately share in the Head’s vision and commitment to fairness, equality and social justice. This team of leaders play a pivotal role in ensuring that the many difficult issues they come across on a daily basis are dealt with promptly and effectively, without distracting them from the smooth and efficient running of the school and their core focus of delivering high quality teaching and learning opportunities for their pupils.

3.   Delivery of Quality First Teaching, with a high emphasis on literacy skills and the use of swift and effective interventions for those at risk of falling behind.

The leaders I am referring to relentlessly focus on the delivery of high quality first teaching by all their staff, from teachers to support staff, each with a key role to play in accelerating pupil’s progress and learning. They ensure that all staff are experts in teaching literacy, which is taught explicitly and consistently across the curriculum, with interventions carefully monitored for progress and impact. They create opportunities for their pupils and parents to engage in fun literacy activities, even when parents may be less confident in their own literacy skills or do not have the literacy skills in English. They are solution focused by using innovative strategies such as use of technology in the form of “Talking books” or using bilingual reading resources to overcome barriers.

Another key feature of these leaders is that they ensure that the curriculum offered to their pupil’s is reflective of their backgrounds and interests, including positive portrayals of diversity. This demonstrates to pupils and their parents that they are respected and their heritage is valued. A rich variety of enrichment activities are used as a way of enhancing the learning experiences of pupils and are carefully planned at key points in the delivery of the curriculum to actively support learning in a practical, fun and meaningful way. Often when affordability is an issue they use school funds to either subsidise or fully pay for the costs.

4.   Use effective and regular tracking systems which are not only disaggregated by different groups (i.e. gender, socio-economic status, ethnicity, language background and special educational needs) but also look at how structural inequalities can come together and impact on pupil outcomes.

They use their tracking data at regular intervals to monitor pupil progress and ensure that both quality first teaching and interventions are delivering faster than average rates of progress, which they know is essential for their pupil’s to get to age related expectations, as many of their pupil’s start at lower levels of attainment on entry. They use this tracking information to deliver bespoke and personalised learning suitable for meeting the needs of either groups of pupils or individual pupils. They expect their pupils to reach at least age related national expectations, irrespective of their starting points and although they are aware of both LA and national performance of particular groups of pupils, they continue to set expectations for them to reach the national benchmark rather than that of their peers, as they know this will perpetuate lower standards.

5.    They know each and every child, their background and circumstances.

They use this knowledge to ensure that the holistic needs of the child are met but without compromising on the high expectations they have of them.   They show “tough kindness with empathy” rather than expecting less of them because of their particular circumstances. On many an occasion, whilst on a learning walks, with these outstanding leaders they are vigilant and aware of their pupils’ needs and interactions. They also make it their business to know more about the personal circumstances of their pupils as do all Headteachers. However, in addition they make it their business to be knowledgeable of the extra learning their pupil's undertake at weekends and after school, including competency in other languages the pupil's may be learning or speak within the community and at home, as they can see the benefits of bilingualism as a tool for learning.

6.    Proactive engagement with the community

They recognise the important role that parents and carers play in the lives of their children, especially since they know that schools only have pupils for 15% of the time. They, therefore proactively look at ways in which the remaining 85% of the time their pupils are with their parents can be maximised.   They do this enabling their school to become a hub of the community, providing extended services in partnership with other key services so that wrap around care is available when needed. They also enable successful partnerships to be forged between their school and local complementary schools, who provide additional study support in language, religious or academic study. They work in synergy to meet the holistic needs of the same groups of children, with a collective emphasis on high attainment.

7.   They nurture and develop their own staff and governors and try to ensure that they are representative of the community their school serves.

These leaders understand that the school is at the heart of their local community and that pupils need to see positive role models from the community in its staff and governing body. They therefore, nurture and develop staff and governors by providing high quality professional development opportunities and coaching. This also assists in alleviating some of the difficulties they can face in recruiting and retaining staff and governors. In many cases, I have seen these schools develop strong partnerships with local universities and colleges who place trainee teachers in their schools. The advantages are that the school is able to train these teachers in both the generic and specific skills and competencies needed for teaching in urban schools, thereby having a ready pool of potential teachers to recruit from. They also benefit from having highly qualified additional staff in their school which means they can provide more focused quality teaching to their pupils, at minimal cost.

These observations based on my own working closely with these leaders are closely borne out by the research. However, the key issues is not the identification of these key characteristics but the translation of these into practice. We now have, more than ever before much evidence based research to guide us in what works the best. Take for example the latest Education Endowment Foundation, Teaching and Learning Toolkit Research which has shown that providing effective feedback is the single most powerful way of improving attainment. However, less than 3% of teachers in surveyed identified this as a top spending priority for the Pupil Premium. This example illustrates the problem. Therefore, the issue is even though we know the effective characteristics of outstanding leaders who close the gaps in their schools, how do we ensure more schools in similar circumstances have leaders with these specific outstanding characteristics? Bearing in mind the growing emphasis on school to support and system leadership to drive up standards across localities, it is difficult not to share some of the concerns highlighted by HMCI Wilshaw when giving evidence to a cross –party commons committee earlier this week. He stated “The great challenge for the future is to identify system-wide leaders for our poorest areas because at the moment we have got more good head teachers serving quite affluent communities who are national leaders of education who are asked to go into disadvantages communities to support them. I am not sure they have the necessary skills to do that. Some will, some won’t.”

I believe that the many of the leaders I have identified above, lead ‘outstanding’ schools according to Ofsted criteria. However, I have also come across many exceptional leaders, who will find it difficult to get this grading for their school in the current framework, even though the progress the pupils make is higher than the national average. Together, these leaders hold the key to raising standards in similar schools, where many of the systemic problems lie. Recognising the specialist and distinct competencies and expertise they have should form the cornerstone of any strategy in driving forward standards for closing the gaps and raising standards for all.

[i] i.e. those schools which face multiple challenges in terms of their location (inner city and/or in areas of high social deprivation); student mix (higher percentages of pupils eligible for free school meals, mobility, minority ethnic pupils, new arrivals with English as an additional language needs); facing staffing difficulties in terms of recruitment and retention of key staff; parental attitudes and sometimes histories of the schools themselves with low records of attainment and achievement and therefore under pressure from either being in an Ofsted categories or likelihood of falling into one as a result of being below or near the floor targets.

[ii] Alma Harris’s et al’s “10 strong claims about successful leadership”, which built on their earlier work “7 Strong claims about successful school leadership (2006).

[iii] Alma Harris & Chris Chapman “ Leading for improvement in challenging circumstances”, 2003.

[iv] Ofsted “12 outstanding schools: excelling against the odds” published in 2009, with one for primary and the other for secondary, highlighted the characteristics of schools and leaders that may a significant difference.

[v] “Extra Mile: Achieving Success with pupils from deprived communities”.

[vi] “ Recent research into the achievements of ethnic minority pupils”.

[vii] “Making a difference: teaching and learning in successful multi-ethnic schools”.

[viii] “The leadership of multi-ethnic schools: What we know and don’t know about values driven leadership”.

[ix] “Priorities, strategies and challenges: Proactive leadership in multi-ethnic schools”, NCSL.

[x] This new report follows on from two earlier ones, with the same name undertaken by Ofsted, first in 1993 and then a decade later in 2003.

1 Comment

Closing the Gender Gap - Act Now

7/1/2013

18 Comments

“Gender equality is not just about economic empowerment. It is a moral imperative. It is about fairness and equity and includes many political, social and cultural dimensions. It is also a key factor in self-reported well-being and happiness across the world. Many countries worldwide have made significant progress towards gender equality in education in recent decades. Girls today outperform boys in some areas of education and are less likely to drop out of school. But the glass is still only half full: women continue to earn less than men, are less likely to make it to the top of the career ladder, and are more likely to spend their final years in poverty”

The Gender Gap - Act Now, OECD, Dec 2012.

Just a few weeks ago the OECD released a detailed report called Closing the Gender Gap - Act Now”. The report covers four key areas of gender inequalities ranging from general public policy, employment and entrepreneurship along with education. The three key areas provide a holistic overview of gender inequalities affect many facets of life with education being one of these. The report is fascinating and it provides a wealth of information on the issues affecting gender in education, along with proposals made by the OECD to policy makers to overcome them.

The key findings will no doubt be familiar to many, such as the fact that boys are more likely to drop out of secondary education, which results in young women becoming increasingly better educated than young men in many OECD countries. It has also been well documented that:

Boys lag behind girls at the end of compulsory education in reading skills, by the equivalent of a year’s schooling on average.
Boys are also far less likely to spend time in reading for pleasure.
In contrast, although boys perform better in mathematics, the gender gap is narrower than in reading.
There remain high disparities in the choice of subject to study, with girls still less likely to choose scientific and technological fields of study,
Even when girls chose these subjects they are less likely to take up careers in those fields which leaves major implications for the potential career and earning prospects for women in the world of work.

The report argues that a major explanatory factor in these gender disparities is due to differences in attitudes. In order to address these disparities they outline key policy messages for governments to note such as getting “girls more interested in mathematics and science and boys more interested in reading in OECD countries, for example, by removing the gender bias in curricula and raising awareness of the likely consequences of male and female choices of fields of study in their careers and earnings”. They also suggest the use of apprenticeships to encourage women who have completed their science technology and mathematics (STEM) studies to work in scientific fields.

Focusing on the role of educational aspirations which are formed in early life, the report recommends that more attention should be devoted to changing gender stereotypes and attitudes at a young age. It outlines how gender stereotyping takes place in subtle ways at home, in schools, and in society and the messages children and young people form when:

they have primarily women teachers in primary schools and male science teachers in secondary,
text books which perpetuate gender stereotypes and
how teachers themselves can perpetuate their beliefs about girl’s and boy’s abilities in particular subjects.

Although these points relate to what happens at the school, the report recognises the fact that attitudes are also crucially determined by what happens at home. This highlights the important fact that whatever teachers do in school they also have to consider how wider societal and family issues can affect outcomes in schools and any strategy to address these gender disparities should also focus on changing attitudes within the context of what goes on at home.

Due to the nature of this posting I have only focused on a few issues highlighted in the report. For those of you wishing to read the full report it is available here.

“To reap the highest economic and social return on education investment, therefore, it is important to find out just why there are gender differences in attitudes towards reading and mathematics, then to discover ways to reverse the imbalance.”

The Gender Gap - Act Now, OECD, Dec 2012.

Boys Reading

The OECD report focused on many issues affecting gender inequalities in education across the world. Moving closer to home the issue of boy’s reading in particular persistently remains an area of priority for most schools in England and the UK. The All Party Parliamentary Literacy Group Boys' Reading Commission working jointly with the National Literacy Trust found that ”three out of four (76%) UK schools are concerned about boys’ underachievement in reading despite no Government strategy to address the issue”.

The commission published a report in July 2012 this year. In it they reveal that the “reading gender gap” is widening and says action needs to be taken in homes, schools and communities. The reading commission report provides a comprehensive overview of the issues, with evidence coming from three sources, including a survey of young people themselves. What will be particularly useful to schools and colleagues interested in closing the gender gaps in reading is that it also provides plenty of practical solutions of how boy’s literacy has been successfully supported by schools, thereby providing those of you wishing to address these issues with practical strategies of “what works” to implement in your own schools or classroom contexts.

Links to the National Literacy Trust page on the Boy’s Reading Commission, which includes the report along with other relevant papers are available here.

Please note that any of the views expressed above are mine alone and not necessarily those of the OECD or The National Literacy Trust. Equitable Education is available to provide specialist consultancy to schools in closing the gender gaps in education.

18 Comments

Pupil Premium

3/1/2013

1 Comment

Many of you will be aware that the Pupil Premium is an additional amount of money given on an individual basis to schools for pupils eligible for free school meals (FSM) and for pupils in care who have been continuously looked after for six months. This year the amount has increased from £488 given last year to £600 and it will continue to increase in future years.   The DfE also made an announcement in November 2012 that secondary schools “will receive an additional premium of £500 for each Year 7 pupil who has not achieved at least level 4 in reading and/or maths (maximum £500 per pupil) at Key Stage 2. The premium will be available to all state-funded schools with a Year 7 cohort, including PRUs and special schools”.

It is worth remembering that pupils eligible for free school meals (FSM) covers a wide range of pupils, with many, especially pupils with SEND and some minority ethnic pupils having higher rates of eligibility for FSM. Therefore, schools should consider how this valuable resource can be used the most effectively when considering the multiple needs or intersectionality of pupils who come under the category of being eligible for free school meals.   The DfE has provided evidence and guidance notes to schools to assist them in the use of the Pupil Premium. These are available here. The DfE has also provided additional guidance for the use of the Year 7 Pupil Premium for pupils who did not achieve a level 4 in reading and/or maths at Key stage 2 “. This is available here.

Just a reminder that although the pupil premium is not ring-fenced, schools are expected to publish on-line though their school website details of how much Pupil Premium they have been allocated, how they plan to use it in the current year along with an account of how last year’s was spent. Most schools have included this information on their websites. What is less evident is the impact the Pupil Premium has had on the educational attainment of eligible pupils.   It is also worth noting that schools are expected to publish this information on a school academic year rather than the financial year in which it is allocated, so it will require some calculation of amounts of funding per academic year.

If schools require any information on the points raised in this post or on how they can use the Pupil Premium most effectively to ensure impact on attainment based on the needs of eligible pupils in their schools, please contact Equitable Education on [email protected]

1 Comment

"Effective classroom strategies for closing the gap in educational achievement for children and young people living in poverty, including white working-class boys" by C4EO

30/12/2012

3 Comments

classroom_strategies_research_review.pdf
File Size:	485 kb
File Type:	pdf

Download File

This research review which is part of C4EO's schools and communities theme. Written by Jonathan Sharples, Robert Slavin, Bette Chambers (Institute for Effective Education) and Caroline Sharp (NFER) it provides a refreshing and practical insight into what works in closing the gap in achievement for children and young people living in poverty. It builds on the plethora of research which highlights where and what the gaps are for children and young people in that it is the first of its kind that actually focuses on looking at "what works" from a whole school perspective and in the context of the classroom. The authors undertook a systematic research of literature both in the UK and internationally and have come up with the following findings as to "What works" within the classroom:

"International trials-based evidence of effective classroom strategies

International research evidence, based on experimental trials, identifies some common classroom strategies that work across different subjects and educational phases:

The quality of teaching makes the biggest difference to learning outcomes Pedagogy matters.
Coaching teachers/teaching assistants in specific teaching strategies significantly raises outcomes for children living in poverty.
Evidence-based approaches include cooperative learning (structured groupwork), frequent assessment and ‘learning to learn’ strategies.
Adopting new curricula does not, in general, produce large improvements in learning outcomes.
Classroom interventions that close attainment gaps often adopt proven classroom management strategies, for example a rapid pace of instruction, using all-pupil responses and developing a common language for discipline.
Traditional use of information and communication technology (ICT) (e.g. individualised, self-instructional programmes) has minimal impact on attainment for children living in poverty. Whole-class approaches, such as the use of interactive whiteboards and embedded multimedia, show greater promise.
Whole-school reform models, which address multiple elements of school provision, can produce substantial improvements in academic outcomes.
The most powerful improvements in achievement are produced through the use of well-specified, well-supported and well-implemented programmes, incorporating extensive professional development. The review identifies specific evidence-based programmes that UK schools can adopt.

Findings from the best-evidence synthesis of strategies for struggling readers living in poverty – What works for struggling readers? – identify that:

Structured phonics-based approaches, in general, work better than non phonics approaches.
One-to-one tutoring by qualified teachers is very effective for improving literacy outcomes, but this is an expensive strategy.
Tutoring by teaching assistants and volunteers can produce positive outcomes if they are well trained and use structured phonics materials.
Intervening immediately is most effective for primary reading, where preventative whole-class strategies are adopted first, followed by tutoring for the small number of pupils who still need it.

Findings of the best-evidence synthesis of early years interventions – What works in early childhood programmes? – identify that:

Early childhood programmes with explicit emergent literacy instruction and clear teaching objectives, provide the greatest improvements in school readiness, when they are implemented in a developmentally appropriate way" (Pages 2 & 3).

The above provides a very useful checklist for schools on evidence based research of "what works" in the classroom and should enable the use targeted of additional resources such as the "pupil premium" to be used more effectively to close the gaps in achievement. What is interesting is the finding that adopting new curricula does not produce large improvements in learning outcomes. When one considers the financial investment, time and effort devoted to overhauling the curriculum it seems that many other strategies could yield better outcomes for learners than this. In contrast, what is not surprising is the finding that the quality of teaching impacts the greatest on learning outcomes. This still remains one of the fundamental challenges for the English education system where in-school variation continues to exist within schools, with disadvantaged pupils making 1.5 years of learning over a school year with a highly effective teacher compared to 0.5 years learning with a poorly performing teacher. This difference of one year’s worth of learning is critical since the prevalence of in-school variance in the quality of teaching can hold back disadvantaged pupil's learning even further. This brings to the fore the need for schools to ensure the second finding of this report, that there are plenty of opportunities for teachers and learning assistants to receive coaching and support from colleagues who deliver outstanding teaching in school. Spreading this best practice in teaching through collaborative teaching opportunities and peer support rather than the heavy reliance of Ofsted type formal lesson observations, which do not necessarily result in teacher's improving the quality of their own teaching has been shown to impact on pupil's progress.

Further detailed information on each of the classroom strategies is provided in the report for those interested in delving into the evidence further and considering the implications for their own teaching.We haven't focused on the whole school strategies the report outlines as making an impact, but this section will no doubt be of interest to Heads and Senior Leaders too and is well worth a read to save time and effort, not to mention costs in implementing strategies that are going to have very little if negligible impact on outcomes for learners.

3 Comments

Equitable Education

Equitable Education's blog keeps you updated with the latest news and developments in closing the gaps in education. We regularly share best practice materials and case studies of proven strategies to close the education gaps, along with the latest research from the UK and internationally.

The blog is written by Sameena Choudry and the views are entirely her own or of her co-authors when written with colleagues.

Research finds NO negative impact of EAL learners on non–EAL learners attainment in schools!

Using peer-tutoring to improve standards in reading

DO YOU HAVE A PUPIL PREMIUM POLICY? IF NOT, YOU CAN GET A FREE MODEL PUPIL PREMIUM POLICY TEMPLATE AND GUIDANCE FOR SCHOOLS, COURTESY OF EQUITABLE EDUCATION.

WHAT ARE THE REQUIREMENTS OF SCHOOLS REGARDING THE USE OF THE PUPIL PREMIUM AND HOW ARE THEY HELD ACCOUNTABLE FOR ITS USE?

Seven specific characteristics of outstanding leaders who successfully close the gaps

Closing the Gender Gap - Act Now

Pupil Premium

"Effective classroom strategies for closing the gap in educational achievement for children and young people living in poverty, including white working-class boys" by C4EO

Equitable Education

Archives

Categories