Search

There is a large and long-standing gap in education outcomes between pupils from economically disadvantaged backgrounds and their peers in England (EEF, 2018; Hutchinson et al., 2020). Although there is some evidence of improvement since 2011, the gap has widened recently, largely as a result of school closures during the COVID-19 pandemic (Tuckett et al., 2022; Howard et al., 2021; Rose et al., 2021). The Government is committed to improving outcomes for disadvantaged pupils (HM Treasury, 2021). The disadvantaged pupils' attainment gap is a key metric to assess progress in narrowing the gaps between disadvantaged pupils and their peers. To discuss the implications and suggest the best ways forward, the National Foundation for Educational Research (NFER) convened a roundtable in summer 2022 of experts involved in policy and research on economic disadvantage and education. This followed on from prior research by NFER exploring these issues in detail. The roundtable discussion informed the development of three key policy recommendations: (1) The Government should explore the feasibility of establishing a household income-based measure of disadvantage for the future; (2) The Government should explore the feasibility of introducing a 'continuity measure' of disadvantage from 2024 onwards. This would be based on the underlying eligibility criteria for FSM, and remove the effect of the transitional arrangements; and (3) The Government should consider replacing the current rank-based disadvantaged pupils' attainment gap measure with a simpler metric based on average point scores. [For "Investigating the Changing Landscape of Pupil Disadvantage: Exploring the Implications of the Pandemic and the Roll-Out of Universal Credit on Measures of Pupil Disadvantage, the Attainment Gap and School Funding," see ED618981.]

Racial diversity within the school workforce is valuable in 'fostering social cohesion and most importantly, in supporting pupils to grow and develop in an environment of visible, diverse role models' (DfE, 2018c, p.2). A diverse workforce is likely to promote greater cultural understanding and inclusion when educating pupils from diverse ethnic backgrounds, including white. Ensuring there are equal opportunities for people to enter the teaching profession, and progress within it, is a necessary condition for ensuring the profession is representative of society. This requires a shared commitment from many individuals and organizations across the system and a willingness to listen to voices from diverse communities as well as using evidence to bring about improvements in racial equality and ultimately racial equity. There is a substantial and growing base of qualitative evidence exploring the lived experience of teachers and leaders from ethnic minority backgrounds. However, the quantitative evidence base on the extent to which there are equal opportunities within teacher career paths is limited. This NFER research, in partnership with Ambition Institute and Teach First, aims to establish the extent of ethnic disparities and where they occur in the teacher career pathway. Teacher census data is used to explore the representation and career progression opportunities in the teaching profession among people from different ethnic minority backgrounds, from applications to initial teacher training through to headship. This report also analyses differences across regions, training courses and schools. Focusing on the numbers of teachers from different ethnic backgrounds is a necessary, but by no means sufficient, first step towards establishing racial equity. However, understanding more about where ethnic disparities occur within the teacher career pathway and which groups are most affected will support the education system to focus on the areas where action to address them can have the greatest impact. [This report was co-funded by Teach First and Ambition Institute.]

The COVID-19 pandemic has had profound effects on education in both mainstream and special schools. Education in England was considerably disrupted during the 2020/1 and 2021/22 school years. There were two periods of partial school closure when most pupils stayed at home (March-May 2020 and January-March 2021). Schools were asked to prioritise on-site places for vulnerable pupils (i.e. those with an Education, Health and Care Plan (EHCP) to address their special educational needs and disabilities (SEND); a social worker; or identified as vulnerable by the local authority or education provider) and the children of key workers. Schools had to adopt strict infection control measures for those attending on site, while simultaneously providing remote teaching/learning activities for pupils at home. This report summarises key findings from a series of surveys and interviews conducted by two research teams in the summer terms of 2020 and 2021. It also draws on other research to put the findings into a wider context. [This report was co-published with ASK Research (United Kingdom).]

In the United Kingdom, the Coronavirus Act relaxed the duty on Local Authorities to provide all of the support set out in pupils' educational, health and care plans (EHCPs). They were expected to use 'reasonable endeavours' to deliver as much of this as possible. This relaxation was lifted in September 2020, meaning that from that point the legally required support stated in EHCPs should have been fully reinstated. In the first national lockdown most special providers reported they were only able to offer a very limited number of pupils in-school places. On average their capacity was 30% of their usual intake. In January 2021, the Prime Minister announced a further national lockdown, requiring educational settings to close to the majority of pupils for the second time. In this report this lockdown in early 2021 is referred as the second lockdown (although there was a national lockdown at the end of 2020, educational settings remained fully open). A briefing paper had been published setting out a summary of what happened during this second lockdown, and in the term following the expected 'return to normal' (i.e. all educational establishments being fully open as before the pandemic). This report provides all of the detail gathered to inform that paper. It is based on: (1) A survey of Headteachers from 190 special schools and colleges in England. This represents an 11% response rate across the sector; (2) Depth interviews with senior leaders of 40 special school or colleges; and (3) Depth interviews with 40 parents of children with EHCPs who attend this type of setting. [For the briefing paper, "The Reported Effects of the Pandemic on Pupils in Special Schools and Colleges and What They Need Now," see ED615418. This report was co-published with ASK Research (United Kingdom).]

This qualitative study set out to investigate the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on mainstream schools and their pupils in summer 2021. The interviews reported here took place with 50 leaders of mainstream primary and secondary schools in England, most of which were serving disadvantaged areas. This report expands on the interim report (Sharp and Nelson, 2021) and focuses on two main areas in particular: teaching and learning; and pupils' wellbeing and mental health. It also considers how the pandemic has affected educational transition, and identifies pupils' and schools' immediate and longer-term support needs. Findings from this study and other research, suggest the need for the following actions: (1) Immediate increased funding to address pupils' wellbeing and mental health; (2) Recovery measures should balance support for wellbeing and academic 'catch up'; (3) An urgent need to tackle widening educational inequality; and (4) Although the intention is that schools will resume normal operations from September, they will need to prepare for the potential return of COVID protective measures and/or periods of remote learning. [For the interim report, "Schools' Responses to COVID-19: Key Findings from the Wave 1 Survey," see ED608586.]

Since the initial closure of schools to most children on 20th March 2020, mainstream education has been disrupted as a result of COVID-19. When most pupils returned to school in March 2021, they regained some of their usual routines, but schooling was far from 'back to normal'. Building on the National Foundation for Educational Research's (NFER's) 2020 COVID-19 school surveys, this policy briefing reports headline findings from in-depth qualitative interviews in May and June 2021 with 50 senior leaders in mainstream primary and secondary schools. The study focused on schools serving deprived populations because it is known from previous work and other evidence that these schools and pupils have been most seriously affected by the pandemic. This study has the following objectives: (1) To identify the immediate and longer-term impacts of the pandemic on teaching and learning, and on pupils' wellbeing and mental health (acknowledging the relationship between mental wellbeing and effective learning); (2) To identify priorities for schools and pupils as they emerge from the pandemic, including support needs in the immediate-, medium- and longer-term, and positive developments that should be capitalised on; and (3) To consider how the sector can best prepare itself for future shocks, preserve high quality teaching and learning and protect pupils' mental health and wellbeing.

Differences in achievement between disadvantaged pupils and their more advantaged peers are a focus for policy in all parts of the UK. A gap in educational outcomes between pupils from less-affluent backgrounds compared to their peers is evident by the time they start school and only widens as they move through the school years. In 2018, nearly 80 countries participated in the Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA). PISA assesses 15 year olds' proficiency in reading, maths and science and collects data on a wealth of background factors via questionnaires from pupils, teachers and school leaders. This provides a unique opportunity to explore the impact of disadvantage on pupils from an international perspective, as well as a comparison across England, Northern Ireland and Wales on the devolved matter of education. This report focuses on reading, mathematics and science performance in PISA to answer three questions: (1) How well are England, Wales and Northern Ireland doing at supporting the reading, maths and science performance of disadvantaged pupils compared with other countries, and has this changed over time? (2) How do resilient pupils' (high-achieving, disadvantaged pupils') attitudes differ from low-performing pupils' from similar backgrounds and similarly performing pupils' from more advantaged backgrounds? and (3) In what circumstances do disadvantaged pupils tend to overcome barriers to perform better, and are there lessons that can be applied more widely? [For the research brief, see ED612577.]

Social mobility and improving the performance of disadvantaged pupils is a focus for policy in England, Northern Ireland and Wales. The findings from PISA 2018 provide a unique opportunity to explore the impact of disadvantage on pupils aged 15, to contextualise achievement outcomes with information about home-life and school, as well as providing an international perspective. In particular, PISA provides the opportunity to explore the impact of disadvantage on attainment using a more sophisticated measure of disadvantage than the binary 'eligible for free school meals or not' by measuring socioeconomic status on a continuous scale based on pupils' responses to questions about their parents' background and education, and possessions in their homes. This research brief summarises the key findings from the analysis of disadvantaged pupils in England, Wales and Northern Ireland. Comparisons are also made with three OECD countries; Estonia and Canada as high-achieving countries with greater equity, and the Republic of Ireland to complement the simultaneous analysis PISA 2018 additional analyses: Learning from other countries (Sizmur et al., forthcoming). [For the full report, see ED612752.]

The COVID-19 pandemic continues to impact on all areas of society, including education. On 20 March 2020, schools closed their gates to all pupils apart from vulnerable pupils and children of keyworkers. In June, primary schools opened to selected year groups (Nursery, Reception, Year 1 and Year 6) and secondary schools invited pupils in Years 10 and 12 to have at least some face-to-face contact with their teachers. On 23 June, the Prime Minister confirmed that primary and secondary schools in England would return with full attendance in September (Danechi and Roberts, 2020). The Government (DfE, 2020e) acknowledged the challenge of achieving a balance between the priority of fully opening schools and controlling the spread of the COVID-19 virus. Schools are asked to ensure high standards of hygiene (for example through regular hand sanitising, deep cleaning and avoiding pupils sharing equipment). They are also asked to promote social distancing as far as possible (for example by splitting classes into smaller groups and keeping these separate from one other, and by separating year groups, reducing movement around the school, arranging desks in forward-facing rows, asking staff to socially distance and minimising the number of staff working with each group). This research investigates the impact of COVID-19 on mainstream primary and secondary schools in England. It follows an earlier National Foundation for Educational Research (NFER) survey of schools' responses to COVID-19 in May (ED608586) and focuses on the challenges schools will face from September. It considers the extent to which pupils are behind in their curriculum learning in relation to teachers' normal expectations for the end of the school year; the impact of COVID-19 on the 'disadvantage gap'; the need for catch-up support from September; and the logistical issues and resource implications of opening schools fully while taking measures to reduce the risk of infection. It also considers schools' experiences of offering remote learning from March, and blended learning (remotely and in-school) from June, in order to inform decisions about the support and resources that schools will need in the event of future lockdowns.

The COVID-19 pandemic has impacted on all areas of society, including education. On 20 March 2020, the British Government ordered all schools to close to all pupils, except vulnerable children and the children of keyworkers (such as those working in public health, transport and supplying food). National examinations were also cancelled. As a result, schools have been unable to carry out their normal activities in supporting pupils' learning and well-being, or in preparing them for transition to the next phase of their education. This represents an unprecedented disruption to the education of children and young people, raising concerns about their education and welfare and the ability of schools to provide effective learning approaches for pupils at home. The National Foundation for Educational Research (NFER) has undertaken an independent investigation into the impact of the pandemic on schools in England and their pupils, in order to document the main issues and identify insights for policy and practice. The survey explored schools' responses to the COVID-19 emergency, identifying how they were responding, the impact the crisis was having on pupils and teachers, and whether it was having a differential impact on specific groups. This paper summarises findings from a suite of published reports. Each report focuses on a specific issue related to the impact of COVID-19 on schools and pupils: (1) Returning pupils to school (ED608591); (2) Pupil engagement in remote learning (ED608590); (3) Support for vulnerable pupils and the children of keyworkers (ED608651); and (4) Job satisfaction and workload of teachers and senior leaders (ED608585).

On May 10th, 2020 the Prime Minister announced a phased return of some children to school in England from June 1st. Schools have been closed to all but vulnerable and keyworker children since March 20th, meaning that most children have been educated at home for a period of 10 weeks, and some year groups are not expected to return to school until the autumn. Nevertheless, opening their schools to selected year groups (Nursery, Reception, Year 1 and 6 in primary schools and Year 10 and 12 pupils in secondary schools) as well as continuing on-site provision for vulnerable and keyworker children and providing distance learning for others is a considerable challenge for school leaders. In this report the authors set out initial findings on how prepared school leaders are for opening more fully, what challenges they face and what guidance and support they need. This report is based on findings from a national survey of 1,233 senior leaders in publicly-funded, mainstream primary and secondary schools in England. Responses between May 7th and 17th have been weighted by phase and free school meal (FSM) eligibility to provide a nationally representative picture. [For a summary report, "Schools' Responses to COVID-19: Key Findings from the Wave 1 Survey," see ED608586.]

Prior to the outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic, England faced a considerable teacher recruitment and retention challenge. The last ten years have been characterised by insufficient numbers of new teachers joining the profession and an increasing proportion leaving the state sector, particularly in secondary schools. This research is designed to shed some light on the immediate effects of the pandemic on senior leaders' and teachers' working lives. Based on the findings of a national survey of 1233 senior leaders and 1821 teachers in publicly-funded, mainstream primary and secondary schools in England, this report explores their levels of job satisfaction, their sense of control over teaching and learning practices, their weekly working hours, and the manageability of those hours. In doing so, it outlines the key pressures and challenges they are facing, together with the support mechanisms they are using to help them get through the current crisis. This report has found that, despite overall reductions in working hours, 41 per cent of senior leaders are still working more than 50 hours per week; a quarter are finding their workload unmanageable; and 31 per cent are not satisfied with their jobs. Key recommendations include the need for government, local authority services (LAs) and Trusts to ensure that schools have access to sufficient teaching capacity. Senior leaders need to use teaching assistants (TAs) effectively, and address the home working needs of the 22 per cent of teachers who are only able to work from home. In order to give leaders and teachers a greater sense of control, the Government needs to ensure that new directives are clear, kept to a minimum, reflect the concerns of the profession, and are sensitive to the pressures school leaders are facing. [For a summary report, "Schools' Responses to COVID-19: Key Findings from the Wave 1 Survey," see ED608586.]

Ensuring there are enough high-quality teachers in England's schools is crucial for delivering a first-class education for young people. Attracting and retaining enough secondary teachers is a key challenge facing school leaders today. Providing more opportunities for part-time and flexible working may provide part of the answer. This NFER research investigated the demand for part-time and flexible working, the barriers for secondary school leaders and how these can be overcome. It comprised an analysis of national data, survey questions and interviews with school leaders. Key findings are: (1) Part-time and flexible working is strongly influenced by the extent to which senior leaders take a proactive approach to encouraging different working patterns. This can include being systematic about asking for annual submissions to change working patterns, checking these with timetables and staffing forecasts, and then negotiating further with staff, who also need to be flexible around their requests; (2) Around one in six secondary school teachers would like to reduce their hours and could afford to do so. While it is unlikely that all of these teachers would actually reduce their hours if given the opportunity, the finding is consistent with NFER's previous research that illustrated a significant number of teachers who leave the state sector, do so to take up part-time positions elsewhere; (3) The main barriers for school leaders are: ensuring continuity for pupils and timetabling; the constraints on flexible working patterns other than part-time working; communication issues; and the additional costs involved; and (4) The main benefits are: increased teacher retention and recruitment; improved staff wellbeing; ability to retain specialist expertise and curriculum breadth; and an opportunity to reduce staff costs (by reducing the total number of teaching hours required). [Support for this report was provided by the Association for School and College Leaders (ASCL).]

There are many different types of summer school for children and young people. The most common educational summer schools in England are 'transition' summer schools for pupils about to start secondary school and 'access' summer schools to encourage older secondary pupils to apply for university. The purpose of this piece is to review the recent evidence base on the effectiveness of these interventions in relation to improving outcomes for pupils from disadvantaged backgrounds in England.

Music Education Hubs (MEHs) were created to provide access, opportunities and excellence in music education for all children and young people. A total of 123 MEHs were established and started work in 2012. The National Foundation for Educational Research (NFER) carried out secondary analysis of a survey conducted by Arts Council England in Autumn 2014. The study concludes that hubs appear to be fulfilling their core roles and there are signs of progress since 2012/13, with hubs providing WCET to a larger number of pupils and providing/supporting a larger number and range of ensembles. Hubs have also increased provision for singing. The main issues concern the participation of pupils with SEN in ensembles and the need to help secure progression routes so that children and young people can make good progress with their music-making. This report follows on from an analysis of the 2013 results, reported in 2014 (Sharp and Sims, 2014). This report focuses on five Key Performance Indicators (KPls) and one Performance Indicator (Pl): established for MEHs in 2014 and listed below. They are: (1) Number and percentage of pupils receiving Whole Class Ensemble Teaching (WCET) provided or supported by the hub partnership; (2) Number and percentage of pupils playing regularly in ensembles provided or supported by the hub partnership. supported by the hub partnership; (3) Number and percentage of pupils learning an instrument through the hub partnership (outside WCET); (4) Number and percentage of pupils singing regularly in choirs/vocal groups provided or supported by hub partnership; and (5) Number and percentage of state funded schools and colleges with which hub partnerships are engaging on at least one core role. The power indicator contained is:(1) Percentage of hub income from different sources. The report presents key survey data with brief explanatory text for each KPI and a comparison with findings from 2013. Key findings include the following: (1) Hubs worked with most (83.4 per cent) of the state-funded schools in their areas and provided Whole Class Ensemble Teaching (WCET) to over half a million pupils in 2013/2014. (2) Hubs are addressing the aspiration to provide every child aged 5-18 with the opportunity to learn a musical instrument largely by targeting pupils in primary school. They are reaching 39.7 per cent of pupils in Year 4. (3) Just under a third of pupils continued to learn an instrument in 2013/14 after receiving WCET in the previous year. (4) Hubs' total income in was £187,822,222, most of which came from the MEH grant and school contributions. Appendix A contains a copy of the questionnaire, giving the overall responses to each question and including a breakdown for each geographical area. Appendix B contains a copy of the guidance notes for completing the questionnaire.

This report presents five case studies of long-term partnerships (over three years) between arts organisations and schools. The Start programme enables arts venues and schools to work together to offer disadvantaged young people opportunities to engage in creative activities that inspire them and enhance their experience of the arts. It is organised and funded by the Prince's Foundation for Children & the Arts. The study finds that Start has acted as a catalyst for growing and sustaining creative activities and created a lasting legacy of arts engagement between case-study schools and arts venues. Key Findings from the study reveal: 1) Children and young people involved in Start activities experienced a wide range of positive changes. They were enthusiastic about arts and cultural activities, developed a wide range of creative and interpersonal skills and became aware of the careers available to them in the creative industries; (2) The effectiveness of Start partnerships between schools and arts organisations depended on a strong mutual commitment to ensuring children and young people were engaged in arts and cultural activities and involving them in authentic creative activities; and (3) Schools' sustained involvement with arts organisations led to an expansion in their arts and cultural offer. Start's impact and legacy was enhanced by arts partners providing opportunities for continuous professional development (CPD). This equipped and motivated teachers to use their creative skills in the classroom in the longer-term. Appended to the report is: Research Methodology.

Arts Council England (ACE) commissioned NFER to undertake the national evaluation of the In Harmony social and music education programme 2012-2015. In Harmony is funded by the Department for Education (DfE) and ACE, and is currently being piloted in six areas. The evaluation is investigating the range and extent of impacts on children, families, schools and wider communities, and considering the future sustainability of the programme. NFER's Year 1 Interim Report presents early findings from the evaluation, using data from a baseline and comparison group survey, perceptual evidence from case studies in five sites, and In Harmony provision data. Key Findings from the report reveal: (1) early indications of positive effects on children's self-esteem, resilience, enjoyment of school, attitudes towards learning, concentration and perseverance; (2) some perceived impact on parents and families including raised aspirations for their children, increased enjoyment of music and confidence in visiting cultural venues, and increased engagement with school; (3) the programme features intensity, motivation and quality. These qualities are underpinned by a whole-school approach which embeds In Harmony in the curriculum, a clear learning programme focused on orchestral part-playing, teamwork, public performance, the provision of instruments and the involvement of professional musicians. In Harmony has established itself in a short time and is proving very popular with children, parents and schools. However, it is a resource-intensive programme, representing a large investment for a relatively small number of schools and children. Sustainability is under active consideration, but it is clear that this will present a major challenge for the future. Appended are: (1) Outcome indicators and a theory of change; (2) About the baseline survey; (3) About the case studies; and (4) In Harmony provision for the spring term 2013.

This rapid review of research evidence was commissioned by the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority (QCA) to investigate the issue of relative age in the international context. The review findings are drawn from 18 research studies published from 2000 to 2008 and carried out in Australia, Chile, the United Kingdom and the USA together with further information supplied by international contacts in 13 countries and states. All of the studies found evidence of statistically significant effects for relative age comparing the youngest to the oldest in the year group. The evidence suggests that the Government's attention should be focused on ensuring developmentally appropriate and positive experiences for relatively younger children in the primary school and also on ensuring that the process for identifying children with special educational needs takes account of relative age. This, together with taking account of relative age effects in assessment results, would help to ensure that that differences in children's birth dates do not become a continuing source of disadvantage for children and young people. Two appendices are included: (1) Search Parameters Strategy; and (2) Country Context for the Countries Reviewed. (Contains 1 figure, 3 tables and 13 footnotes.)

This report details the findings of two surveys designed to investigate the deployment and impact of support staff who have achieved higher level teaching assistant (HLTA) status in England and to assess the impact or effect they are having in schools, along with interview data collected from nine case-study schools. The study sought to: (1) identify the range of ways that support staff with HLTA status are being employed and deployed in schools; (2) establish the extent to which support staff roles have developed and changed since achieving HLTA status; (3) identify good practice in the deployment of support staff with HLTA status and how this is facilitated; as well as to highlight any barriers that may exist for effective deployment; (4) explore the perceptions and experiences of those with HLTA status in relation to their work; including job satisfaction and morale, experience of performance reviews, aspirations for future training and development, and career progression; and (5) explore and assess the impact of support staff who have achieved HLTA status in schools--in particular how their work supports the learning, engagement, motivation and involvement of pupils; in addition how they support the teachers they work with and the whole school. Research findings reveal a largely positive picture. The HLTA role has clearly grown and developed since it was introduced in 2003. In line with its original purpose, HLTA status is offering recognition and valuable development opportunities to support staff as well as providing assistance to pupils, teachers and schools. It is clear that the HLTA role has the potential to change the way in which education is delivered and to make a positive difference to school life. Appended to this report are: (A) HLTA Sample; (B) Senior Leader Sample; (C) HLTA and Senior Leader Responses: All Schools; (D) Regression Analysis; (E) HLTA Survey; and (F) Senior Leader Survey. (Contains 57 tables and 1 figure.)

The "Playing for Success" (PfS) initiative is targeted on underachieving young people. It aims to contribute to raising educational standards, especially in numeracy and literacy, bringing the attainment levels of lower achieving pupils closer to the average expected for their age. This study set out to consider whether there was any evidence of long term changes in pupils' performance in National Curriculum Assessments (NCA) associated with attending a PfS Centre. It also aimed to gather information on the strategies adopted by PfS Centres to encourage schools to capitalise on the learning gains achieved by pupils attending PfS. The statistical analysis indicated that: (1) In Key Stages 2, 3 and 4, low attainers who attended PfS Centres did better than expected and higher attainers did less well than expected in NCAs (except in respect of English in Key Stage 4, where no statistically significant difference was found); (2) In Key Stage 4, pupils who had attended PfS made greater progress in maths when compared to similar pupils that did not attend. The difference was equivalent to one in seven PfS pupils attaining one higher grade in maths GCSE (General Certificate of Secondary Education) than expected. PfS pupils also made greater progress overall at GCSE; (3) In Key Stage 2, pupils who attended PfS made less progress in English; no statistically significant impact was found in Key Stage 3; and (4) An analysis of the progress achieved by pupils attending each Centre identified eight PfS Centres that had performed significantly better than other Centres on at least two of six NCA outcome measures. The qualitative analysis of "more effective" Centres indicated that: (1) Centres and partner schools were focusing on the details of liaison and good practice that provided a well targeted, high quality learning experience during the course and facilitated transfer of learning after the pupils had left; and (2) Partnership working between Centres and schools was critical, before, during and after pupils attended the PfS programme. Overall findings from the statistical analysis employed in this study present a mixed picture. However, rather than see this as evidence of a lack of impact at Key Stage 2 and 3, the contribution of the qualitative analysis suggests that longer term progress should be viewed as a shared responsibility between Centres and schools. Recommendations for those managing PfS at local and national levels as well as for PfS Centres and their partner schools include: (1) Government, local authorities and sponsors should continue to support PfS with further consideration given to the opportunities for pupils to transfer their learning from PfS to other contexts; (2) Given that this study has found evidence of greater long term impact among lower-attaining pupils, Centres may wish to reconsider their selection criteria; (3) Local authorities and Centre Managers should consider carrying out their own studies of longer term progress; and (4) PfS should share information about best practice in contributing to longer term impact. Three appendixes are included: (1) Procedure and Approach to Quantitative Data Analysis; (2) PfS and Comparison Groups' Background Characteristics; and (3) Multilevel Models. (Contains 16 footnotes, 9 figures and 8 tables.)

The aim of the National Foundation for Educational Research (NFER) evaluation was to examine the effectiveness and impact of the work of the National Remodelling Team (NRT) in completing the third phase of the remodeling program and its effectiveness in applying its model, tools and techniques to the extended schools program. This evaluation has shown that the work of the NRT is considered to be effective and is having a positive impact on local authorities, schools, children and young people and local communities. Key informants were highly satisfied with the training and support offered, although there was an acknowledged need for further refinement and development of the NRT's processes and materials as the remodelling and extended schools initiatives develop and spread. Two appendixes are included: (1) High-level timeline of NRT work in 2005; and (2) Questionnaires. A list of resources for further reading is included. (Contains 36 tables and 13 notes.)

On behalf of the National Education Research Forum (NERF), the Department for Education and Skills (DfES) commissioned two issues of an evidence-based bulletin for practitioners, aimed to provide a conduit for research to reach teaching communities across England. The effectiveness of the Bulletin was evaluated by obtaining a representative cross-section of views from teachers and LEA staff. Reported findings include: (1) NERF Bulletin is well positioned among other kinds of products available for communicating research to teachers and lecturers; (2) Bulletin offers quality-assured research summaries with potential appeal to teachers and support staff; (3) Teachers tend to skim-read the Bulletin, choosing to read items of particular relevance to their own work; (4) Current appearance of the Bulletin is not sufficiently appealing and would deter teachers from wishing to engage with it; and (5) Teachers use the Bulletin in various ways, including general information, to follow up items of particular interest with further reading, to recommend items to colleagues, to contribute to further study, to inform their own research, and to validate/change their practice. Study recommends continued publication of a redesigned and more-widely-promoted Bulletin. Simple Description and Methodology is appended.

This report sets out to provide the National Remodelling Team (NRT) with comprehensive details on stakeholders' views about the second year of the remodelling programme. This report is divided into nine chapters: (1) Introduction; (2) outlines the aims of the evaluation and the methodology used; (3) describes the findings from the survey of local education authority (LEA) Remodelling Advisers as well as reporting the findings from interviews conducted with a sample of LEA Remodelling Advisers; (4) reports the findings from the survey of Regional Trainers, and interviews conducted with a sample of them; (5) describes the findings from interviews conducted with Regional Advisers; (6) details the findings from interviews with Regional Centre (RC) Directors and Programme Managers; (7) findings from each of the key stakeholders involved in the evaluation are compared and summarised; (8) raises issues for consideration; and (9) suggests recommendations for future evaluation. The overall aim of the NFER evaluation was to examine the effectiveness and impact of the work of the NRT during its second year of operation. The sub-aims of the evaluation were to: (1) examine the effectiveness and impact of the work of the NRT in its second year of operation; (2) explore the change to the remodelling programme's delivery between year one and two; (3) examine the supplementary remit the Department for Education and Skills (DfES) gave to the NRT in year two to provide training to LEA staff to deliver workshops to schools on financial management and implementing Planning, Preparation and Assessment (PPA) time; and the effectiveness of the NRT in adapting to this remit; (4) explore the effects of regionalisation on the delivery of the programme; and (5) ascertain the number of schools involved in year two. Appended are: (1) Interview schedules; and (2) Questionnaires. (Contains 24 tables and 1 footnote.)

This study set out to provide an evidence base concerning the effectiveness of the transition from the Foundation Stage (which applies to children aged three to five years) and Year 1 (for children aged five to six). The study had two main aims: (1) to provide a solid evidence base about the effectiveness of the transition from the Foundation Stage to Key Stage 1; and (2) to improve understanding about how best to support children's learning during this transition. The findings suggest that there are some issues that present challenges for children, staff and parents during children's transition to Year 1: (1) Teachers said that they were able to manage the transition, but felt that some areas remained problematic. The biggest challenge was posed by the move from a play-based approach in the Foundation Stage to a more "structured" curriculum in Key Stage 1. The introduction of the full literacy hour and the daily mathematics lesson was identified as challenging because it was difficult to get young children to sit still and listen to the teacher; (2) School staff thought that children needed certain skills in order to make a good start in Year 1. These included being able to care for themselves and to carry out tasks without adult support, an ability to listen to the teacher and to sit still; (3) While staff thought that most children coped well with the transition to Year 1, certain children were identified as more likely to experience problems. These included children who were younger/less mature, were less able, had special educational needs or spoke English as an additional language; (4) Interviews with children highlighted the influence of the curriculum and pedagogy on children's enjoyment of learning. Children valued their experiences in Reception and regretted the loss of opportunities to learn through play. Some were worried by the workload expected in Year 1, found writing difficult and were bored by the requirement to sit and listen to the teacher. On the other hand, children enjoyed the status of being more grown up, and some welcomed the learning challenges presented in Year 1; (5) Parents wanted more information about transition. They wanted to know what would be expected of their children, so they could help them prepare for Year 1. They would have liked to meet their child's new teacher before the beginning of Year 1; and (6) The case-study schools had adopted a variety of strategies aimed at smoothing transition. These tended to focus on three areas: induction of children into Year 1, continuity of practice between Reception and Year 1, and communication between staff, parents and children. Appended are: (1) Search strategy and methods adopted in the literature review; and (2) Sampling characteristics of the telephone interviews and case-studies. The findings from this study indicate that the transition to Key Stage 1 does pose challenges for schools, children and parents. On the positive side, most staff felt they were managing the situation and most children seemed to be coping well with the move to Year 1.

Education in European countries is subject to many competing demands which have an influence on the organisation and content of arts education. Increasing globalisation has brought both benefits and challenges, including those arising from increased international competition, migration and multiculturalism, advancements in technology and the development of the knowledge economy. The education system may be viewed as a means of preparing children for their role in an increasingly uncertain world. Schools have a part to play in helping young people to develop a secure sense of themselves, both as individuals and members of various groups within society. There is also a recognised need to encourage young people to develop a wide range of skills and interests, to identify and foster their potential and to encourage creativity. These developments pose a number of challenges for arts education, as evidenced by the debates within policy and research. Previous research on the potential of arts education to enhance the creativity of young people has underlined the need to continuously improve its quality. To help meet this need and help identify best practices, Eurydice has produced this overview of the state of artistic and cultural education in Europe. The study contains comparative information on the provision of arts and cultural education within the curricula of 30 European countries. It covers the aims and objectives of such education, its organisation, the provision of extra-curricular activities, as well as initiatives for the development of arts and cultural education. In addition, it includes important information on pupil assessment and teacher education in the arts. It clearly shows, for example, that music and visual arts are the most widespread subjects taught in schools at primary and lower secondary level, and that the participation of professional artists in arts education is quite limited. The study draws attention to the importance of collaboration among the various actors in arts education. Changes in arts education planned or implemented after 2007 are appended. A glossary in included. (Contains 13 figures and 28 footnotes.)

This article reports findings arising from a systematic review of literature relating to mentoring new head teachers. The review found that all major studies of formal mentoring programmes for new heads reported that such programmes have been effective, and that the mentoring of new heads can result in a range of perceived benefits for both mentees and mentors. However, the nature of the research evidence presented to support such findings is inconclusive and there are notable gaps in the evidence base. With a view to advancing academic knowledge in the field, the authors highlight those areas where further research is most needed.

Data from a sample of 4,000 British 6- and 7-year olds in math, science, and English showed significant differences. Important factors were age at start of school (those starting close to age four did less well) and length of schooling (positive relationship to achievement for older children). (SK)