Search

This study aimed to understand the relationship between reception children's experiences of the coronavirus pandemic (COVID-19) and their academic achievement and socio-emotional development during their first year at school in September 2020 to July 2021. This was an exploratory study combining parent and school surveys with children's assessments. All children in the study were in reception (YR) and therefore four to five years old. This cohort of children were three to four years old during the first lockdown (March to June 2020) with the second and third lockdowns (November 2020 and January to March 2021) taking place during their reception year. The study involved a total of 94 schools, 1,105 families, and Early Years Foundation Stage Profile (EYFSP) data for a total of 3,253 children. Recruitment took place in two phases, participation in surveys took place at three timepoints, and schools could opt to take part in all aspects of the project or provide only EYFSP data. Therefore, not all parents and schools contributed data at all points. Parent and school surveys were distributed in the autumn, spring, and summer terms 2020/2021. This included bespoke questions as well as items from the Home Learning Environment (HLE) index and Personal Wellbeing Scale. Data was coded in Excel and analysed using thematic analysis to draw out the main themes in the data. School and parent/carer surveys were used to contextualise and explain child assessment data collected at the end of YR. To measure children's language, numeracy, and socio-emotional development, the appropriate subscales from tablet-based assessment Early Years Toolbox (EYT) were used. Teacher-reported attainment data in the form of the Early Years Foundation Stage Profile (EYFSP) was also collected in the summer term 2021. For the EYFSP data, comparisons were made between the scores of pupils in the study sample and the EYFSP scores of the 2018/2019 national cohort of reception pupils to explore any differences in outcomes.

When it comes to social mobility, the goalposts are always moving. As access to any given level of education becomes more common, inequalities tend to move upwards, with those from better-off backgrounds seeking to keep their advantages. While access to undergraduate degrees has been improving, with more and more young people going onto university, there is now a risk that postgraduate degrees become the new frontier of social mobility, with better-off graduates using higher degrees to differentiate themselves in a competitive job market. This report, authored by Paul Wakeling and José Luis Mateos-González from the University of York, investigates access to postgraduate education in the UK, looking at the level of financial support available across the nations, the impact of the introduction of postgraduate loans on access in England, the growing cost of postgraduate degrees, and the likely impact of those costs on access.

The "Hallé SHINE on Manchester" (HSoM) programme is a Saturday school educational programme designed to increase the reading and maths attainment, as well as engagement with school, of underachieving and disadvantaged pupils at Key Stage 2. Developed in collaboration between the SHINE Trust and Hallé Orchestra, the intervention provides additional school-based literacy and numeracy lessons, based on musical themes, as well as visits to Hallé rehearsals, performances and other theme-based activities. Twenty-five Saturday sessions, each lasting five hours, were planned for the intervention over the course of an academic year, delivered by qualified teachers, teaching assistants, peer mentors, and professional musicians. The evaluation consisted of two randomised controlled trials (RCTs)--a pilot trial and a main trial--and a process evaluation conducted with primary schools in the Manchester area between July 2012 and July 2015. The pilot trial involved 361 Year 5 and 6 pupils in 18 schools; the main trial involved 2,306 Year 4, 5 and 6 pupils in 38 schools. The second year involved both the pilot and main trial running concurrently. The third year involved main trial schools only. Key conclusions include: (1) There is no evidence that the "HSoM" programme had an impact on the reading attainment of children in the trial. This finding was consistent across all age groups, for pupils eligible for free school meals, and for all three years of the trials; (2) There is no evidence that the "HSoM" programme had an impact on the attainment of children in mathematics, or attitudes to reading, maths, music, and school of the children in the trial; (3) Attendance of eligible pupils was often low and considered as a barrier to successful implementation. Reasons for low attendance included pupils' lack of availability to attend the Saturday sessions, variable parental engagement with the programme, and limited time at the beginning of the programme for schools to engage children and parents; and (4) The process evaluation revealed a positive picture of involvement and engagement for those pupils who attended the Saturday school activities. Evaluators observed good working relationships between the teachers and pupils, and positive and purposeful learning environments in lessons. All stakeholders felt pupils were making noticeable improvements in behaviour, confidence, and development of social skills.

Self-Regulated Strategy Development (SRSD) is a writing process model in which students are encouraged to plan, draft, edit, and revise their writing. In this evaluation 23 primary schools and their Year 6 teachers in the Calderdale area of West Yorkshire were randomly allocated to receive training in the SRSD approach from an external consultant. Twelve schools were allocated to the comparison group and 11 schools to the intervention group. The evaluation was set up as an efficacy trial to test the impact of using SRSD in conjunction with memorable experiences at the transition from primary to secondary school. The study was well conducted with independent randomisation and a moderate sample size. Intention-to-treat analysis was used (i.e., pupils were compared in the groups to which they were originally randomly assigned), blind marking of the test papers was undertaken, and the analysis was adjusted for school randomisation. Key conclusions include: (1) The approach had a strong positive effect on the writing outcomes of low attaining pupils at the transition from primary to secondary school among a sample of pupils in State schools in the West Yorkshire area; (2) The approach had beneficial effects for both free school meals (FSM) and non-FSM pupils; (3) These findings, in combination with existing evidence from the United States and elsewhere, suggest that the Self-Regulated Strategy Development approach has substantial promise as a literacy catch-up approach; (4) A larger effectiveness trial could be commissioned to test the approach on a larger scale and with other age groups; and (5) Teachers were trained in the SRSD approach by the North American developers, but adapted it in some ways for an English context.

The Discover Summer School was a four-week programme which aimed to improve the reading and writing skills of children during the summer between Year 6 and Year 7. The programme was targeted at pupils who had been predicted to achieve below Level 4b in English by the end of Key Stage 2. Pupils meeting the eligibility criteria for the study, and due to transition from Year 6 to Year 7 in 2013, were recruited through 29 primary schools in proximity to the Discover Children's Story Centre in Stratford, London, in July and August 2013. The study involved 124 pupils from 29 local schools, of whom 76 were randomly selected to attend the summer school; the remaining 48 formed a comparison group. This evaluation was set up as an efficacy trial. An individually randomised controlled trial design was employed to compare outcomes for pupils attending the summer school with outcomes for pupils in a "business as usual" comparison group who did not attend. The evaluation was unable to provide a secure estimate of the programme's impact on reading or writing attainment, due to the low number of pupils who took part and the problems with testing. The programme was relatively expensive compared to other literacy catch-up approaches delivered in the normal school year. Given the relative cost of the programme, even if the indicative impact which was detected had been secure, as a way of improving academic outcomes other approaches are likely to be more cost-effective. Participating pupils enjoyed the programme and were engaged by the literacy workshops and the enrichment activities. The specific challenges of pupil recruitment, attendance, and test completion experienced should be considered prior to undertaking any further evaluations of summer schools. [Dr. Taeko Becque contributed to the writing of the statistical analysis plan appended to this report.]

The Grammar for Writing intervention is a curriculum intervention aimed at improving writing skills by providing contextualised grammar teaching. This evaluation was set up as an effectiveness trial to test the impact of a four-week version of Grammar for Writing, delivered with the developer leading the recruitment and retention of the schools and participants and the training, and overseeing the provision of the intervention. The Education Endowment Foundation (EEF) effectiveness trials aim to test whether an intervention can work at scale, in real-world conditions. In each school, one Year 6 class was randomly assigned to the intervention group and one Year 6 class was randomly assigned to continue with teaching as usual. Within the intervention class, eligible pupils were randomised on an individual basis to receive either whole group Grammar for Writing teaching or the whole group approach plus small group Grammar for Writing teaching. At the end of the intervention period all pupils were asked to complete the Progress in English 11 (Long Form) Test developed by GL Assessment, as a measure of general writing ability. There was about 20% drop-out in terms of the primary outcome, but this was evenly spread between the groups and there was no evidence that it introduced selection bias. The process evaluation indicates the programme was delivered with good fidelity (i.e. as intended by the developer). Overall, this indicates the findings are secure. A previous trial evaluation of Grammar for Writing showed a statistically significant impact among older children, but methodological issues in the way the data were analysed means that there are doubts about the validity of the findings. Key conclusions include: (1) Grammar for Writing is not effective in improving general writing among Year 6 pupils when delivered as a whole class intervention over four weeks; (2) Grammar for Writing is modestly effective in improving writing as a small group intervention, although this is likely to be a result of small group teaching, rather than an intrinsic benefit of Grammar for Writing itself; (3) The evidence for Grammar for Writing from this evaluation is insufficient to recommend widespread adoption among Year 6 pupils; (4) Small group teaching amongst Levels 3c to 4b pupils does seem an effective strategy to increase writing skills; and (5) Possible further research question: Is small group teaching for children at Levels 3c to 4b effective and costeffective over a longer time period?