Search

This study investigated the impact of school closures for COVID-19 on the attainment of pupils in Key Stage 1 in reading and math, and on the gap between the attainment of disadvantaged and non-disadvantaged children. It explored pupils' attainment compared with pre-pandemic samples, as well as any changes in attainment over the course of the academic year 2020/21. It also investigated schools' strategies and approaches to learning during closures and reopening for Year 1 and Year 2 pupils. It aimed to determine the parts of the curriculum that children are struggling with, and also explored pupils' social skills and wellbeing. The research was carried out over the course of the academic year 2020/21, using termly assessments (autumn 2020, spring 2021, summer 2021). Interim papers were published on the results of the autumn and spring assessments. This study focused on children in Key Stage 1. The youngest children in the study had not completed their Reception year before the first set of school closures. Similarly, Year 1 children moving into Year 2 missed much of their first year of formal education. The study involved a total of 12,311 pupils from 168 primary schools (or schools with Key Stage 1) in England. School retention in the sample was high over the three terms: 168 took part in autumn, 155 took part in the spring term and 152 in the summer term. This was an observational study in which the samples' attainment outcomes were compared to standardisation samples from previous years using NFER reading and mathematics assessments (as well as a 2019 national curriculum assessment paper in summer for Year 2 pupils). For each National Foundation for Educational Research (NFER) assessment, comparisons were made between the 2020/21 scores and the standardisation sample scores from previous years (and for the national curriculum assessments to the 2016 national assessment scaled scores) -- to identify any gap in scores -- i.e., the COVID-19 gap. Further analysis compared the scores of pupils eligible for free school meals (FSM pupils) and those not eligible (non-FSM pupils) to explore the disadvantage gap. In addition, the authors analysed how the COVID-19 gap and the disadvantage gap changed from one term to another using a repeated measures analysis. The authors explored the impact of school closures on pupils' social skills using the teacher-completed Child Self-Regulation and Behaviour Questionnaire (CSBQ) with a sub-sample of pupils in the autumn and summer terms (during 2020/21). Additionally, the authors collected information and views on strategies schools used during closures and reopening via a school survey and in-depth teacher telephone interviews. They also invited schools to provide pupil-level information on catch-up support.

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).]

Following on from a previous study of what happened to provision in special settings during lockdowns, this study reports what effects Headteachers felt the pandemic has had on pupils with Education, Health and Care Plans (EHCPs). It involved a representative survey of Headteachers in special schools and colleges in England, followed by depth interviews with a sample of Headteachers and parents of pupils in these settings. Findings show that: (1) Pupils in special settings experienced greater learning losses than pupils in mainstream settings due to the pandemic; (2) Pupils with EHCPs have experienced further developmental losses; (3) Legally required Health and Care input has been severely disrupted; (4) The wellbeing of families and staff has been negatively impacted; and (5) Proposed recovery support does not meet the needs of pupils with SEND. [This report was co-published with ASK Research (United Kingdom).]

On May 10th, 2020 the Prime Minister announced a phased return of some children to school in England from June 1st. Schools had 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 autumn. The National Foundation for Educational Research (NFER) conducted a national survey of 1,233 senior leaders and 1,821 teachers in publicly funded, mainstream primary and secondary schools in England. This report contains information on sampling and analysis. It is part of a larger research project focusing on schools' responses to COVID-19. [For a related summary report, see "Schools' Responses to COVID-19: Key Findings from the Wave 1 Survey" (ED608586).]

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.]

Catch Up® Literacy is a structured one-to-one literacy intervention for pupils between the ages of 6 and 14 who are struggling to learn to read. It teaches pupils to blend phonemes (combine letter sounds into words), segment phonemes (separate words into letter sounds), and memorise particular words so they can be understood without needing to use phonics strategies to decode them. The intervention matches books to pupils according to their reading ability, which pupils then read to a teaching assistant (TA), so it is intended to also support the development of their comprehension skills. In this evaluation, the intervention was delivered through two 15-minute sessions per week over 30 weeks at the transition from primary to secondary school, with a break for the summer holidays. Pupils were identified by their Year 6 teachers in their feeder primary schools as being struggling readers who were predicted to achieve below level 4b in reading. Each secondary school employed two part-time TAs to deliver the intervention in the last few weeks of Year 6 and after the pupils transitioned to secondary school. The TAs delivering Catch Up® Literacy were supplied with detailed session plans and received three half-day training sessions led by Catch Up®. Key conclusions include: (1) The pupils that received Catch Up® Literacy made more progress than pupils that did not. However, this difference was not statistically significant so we cannot be confident that it was not due to chance; (2) Catch Up® Literacy did have a statistically significant impact on pupils' attitudes to school, self-assessed ability in reading, and their confidence in and enjoyment of writing; (3) Schools should ensure that Catch Up® Literacy sessions are located in a private and quiet location, and that teaching assistants are given adequate time to prepare before each lesson; (4) Teaching assistants reported a number of benefits for their own professional development. These include increases in confidence, knowledge of literacy support and overall job satisfaction; and (5) Future research could test the impact of Catch Up® Literacy against an "active" control group that receives the same amount of one-to-one tuition as the pupils who receive Catch Up® Literacy. Appended are: (1) Evaluation of Catch Up® Literacy, Student Questionnaire; (2) Evaluation of Catch Up® Literacy, Teaching Assistant Survey; (3) Evaluation of Catch Up® Literacy,Teaching Assistant Survey (Literacy Sessions) and Padlock Rating; and (4) Consent Letter, and Cost Rating. [This report was produced with the research assistance of Claire Easton, Claire O'Beime, and Gill Featherstone.]

The interaction between deprivation and education is a critical relationship with profound implications for a country's economic prosperity and the social mobility of its citizens. This is highlighted by the Welsh Government which states that: "A good education is critical to better life chances and a commitment to achieving this has been an important part of the culture of modern Wales since devolution." Because of this the Welsh Government commissioned the National Foundation for Educational Research (NFER) to carry out a research study to replicate research undertaken for a report on deprivation and education published by the Department for Children, Schools and Families (2009). The study aims to provide an analysis which replicates the data tables presented in the DCSF report with data relevant to Wales and additional tables and charts specific to the Welsh context. Further analysis looked at the progression between Key Stage 2 and Key Stage 4 and provided a descriptive commentary identifying the content of the tables and the differences contained within them. Key Findings from the report reveal: (1) Pupils eligible for FSM are more likely to be absent from school than non-FSM pupils. In secondary schools the absence rate of FSM pupils is around double that of non-FSM pupils between Years 8 and 11; (2) Pupils eligible for FSM have, on average, lower attainment than other pupils throughout their progression in the education system in Wales. The gap in attainment identified at Foundation Phase remains at the end of Key Stage 2 and the gap widens further in secondary education; and (3) The attainment gap at GCSE has decreased over time but the attainment of FSM pupils at GCSE remains comparatively low.

This study aimed to identify the pathways, intentions and relevant perceptions of (non-UK) European Union (EU) students entering English higher education. It sought to identify why students wished to obtain an English HE qualification, their attitudes towards the uptake and repayment of tuition fee loans and their future career plans. Drawing on longitudinal data from the Higher Education Statistics Agency (HESA) and from a national survey of (non-UK) EU students in English Higher Education Institutions (HEIs), it aimed to provide a better understanding of their views on (and use of) the Student Loans system, in order to inform government policy and strategy in this area. Following chapter 1, Introduction, this report divides into 4 more chapters. Chapter 2 provides a national profile of non-UK EU students studying in England, the courses they were following and their post-graduation destinations, where known. It also provides a profile of the non-UK EU students who responded to the survey, examining their routes to higher education in England, their reasons for coming to England and their expectations with regard to academic, economic and social provision in English universities. Chapter 3 explores the financial circumstances of non-UK EU students, looking at their expectations and experiences, their knowledge and take-up of financial support mechanisms (particularly tuition fee loans) and their approaches to debt and to the repayment of loans. In Chapter 4 the report looks at the factors that appear to be predictors of the post-graduation status of both UK and non-UK EU students, drawing on the HESA destinations survey data, before exploring the plans of the non-UK EU students who responded to the survey. Finally, in Chapter 5, the implications of the findings from the study, particularly in relation to student pathways, intentions and financial and occupational behavior, are summarized and explored. Throughout the report, references are made to the 42 tables that can be found in Appendix 3. Other appendices include (1) Drawing the Sample; (2) EU Member States and Date of Accession; (4) Changes in Non-UK EU Population; and (5) Higher Education Institution Recruitment and Liaison. (Contains 42 tables.) [This report was written with Helen Robertson.]

In 2006, the National Foundation for Education Research (NFER) conducted an independent evaluation of the new inspection process for maintained schools in England, introduced in September 2005. The aim of the research was to assess the extent to which schools felt that the new inspections contributed to school improvement. The research methods used were a survey of all schools inspected over a six month period, statistical modelling, case-study visits to 36 schools and a desk-top review of case-study school documents. Key findings include: (1) The majority of schools were satisfied with the inspection process and it was generally perceived as contributing to school improvement; (2) Most schools agreed with the inspection report recommendations, valued the confirmation, prioritisation and clarification of improvement areas and felt that the report had provided an impetus to drive forward progress; (3) Although the majority of interviewees reported that it was time-consuming to complete the Self-Evaluation Form (SEF), there was also a view that it had been effective as a means of identifying school strengths and weaknesses; and (4) Research revealed a positive, and statistically significant, relationship between constructive oral feedback and overall satisfaction with the inspection process. Approximately half of the interviewees suggested changes, primarily related to perceptions that the SEF should be simplified, more time should be allowed for inspectors to observe lessons, inspections should be less data-driven and that there should be more consistency across inspection teams. Four appendixes are included: (1) Detailed results from multinomial logistic modeling--satisfaction; (2) Detailed results from multinomial logistic modeling--impact; (3) Impact of s5 Inspections--School Context for Primary Schools; and (4) Impact of s5 Inspections--School Context for Secondary Schools. (Contains 6 footnotes, 5 figures, and 41 tables.)

The purpose of this study was to investigate the extent to which school populations reflect the profile of the local communities in which they are located, to support the development of policy and debate around school admissions and parental choice. The investigation also aimed to examine the effect that one school's intake has on another local school, by comparing the proportion of pupils eligible for free school meals (FSM) admitted to schools situated within the same communities. Findings include: (1) Some voluntary-aided schools appear to admit lower proportions of pupils eligible for free school meals (FSM) than the proportions living within the local communities, even when compensating for the fact that such schools may serve a larger geographical area; (2) Academy schools appeared to be admitting higher proportions of pupils with lower key stage 2 (KS2) ability and eligible for FSM compared to the proportions living within the community; (3) Pupils of black and ethnic minority (BEM) origins appear to attend schools outside of their local communities more than schools within their local communities; and (4) When there are two community schools serving the same postcode area, there are occurrences where there are differences in the proportions of pupils eligible for FSM in the two schools. Although the differences are highlighted, the study could not provide reasons for the differences. In order to investigate the reasons for the highlighted differences, it is suggested that further qualitative research be conducted to examine: (1) Whether particular characteristics are associated with families making successful and unsuccessful applications for places at particular schools; (2) Whether particular characteristics are associated with families' preferences for particular schools; (3) Reasons why voluntary-aided schools admit pupils from a wider geographical area; and the admissions criteria used for selection at this level; (4) Reasons why voluntary-aided schools tend to admit lower proportions of pupils eligible for FSM, with special educational needs (SEN) and with lower KS2 ability than the proportions within and outside of the local communities; (5) Reasons why pupils of BEM origin appeared to attend schools outside their local communities; (6) Characteristics of particular local authority admissions policies to investigate how these link to the overall representativeness of school intakes; and (7) Situations that lead to some community schools and some voluntary-aided schools admitting lower proportions of pupils from disadvantaged backgrounds than might be expected. Two appendixes include: (1) Admissions of Pupils with Particular Characteristics to Different Types of Schools and Split by Type of Area; and (2) Primary Schools within Each Local Authority that Fall Outside the Specifically Defined Parameters. (Contains 4 footnotes and 17 tables.) [This report was published in the Local Government Association (LGA) Educational Research Programme series,]

Aimhigher: Excellence Challenge (initially known as Excellence Challenge) was specifically established by the Department for Education and Skills (DfES) in 2001, with the aim of increasing the number of young people from disadvantaged backgrounds who had the qualifications and aspirations necessary to enter higher education. The analysis conducted for this report aimed to address some key research questions about the extent to which Aimhigher: Excellence Challenge had made an impact on young people's attainment and on their aspirations towards obtaining a place in higher education. The report begins with an overview, in Chapter 2, of the datasets included in the analysis, before providing a profile of the responding cohorts in Chapter 3. This profile outlines a range of background factors (such as sex, ethnic background, socio-economic and family variables) and attainment at Key Stages 3 and 4 (split by pupil background characteristics and school characteristics). Chapter 4 explores the relationship between attainment, attitude, aspirations and educational interventions, taking into account background variables at pupil and school level. It presents the findings from a series of multilevel cross-sectional and longitudinal models. For pupils in Year 11, these include multilevel models that examine the relationship between interventions and best (or capped) eight GCSE scores, and logistic multilevel models examining the probability of a young person achieving five or more GCSEs at A* to C. It also includes models exploring the relationship between policy-related interventions and young people's attitudes to learning, young people's behaviour and young people's aspirations to higher education. Chapter 5 explores the links between the statistically significant findings from the modelling process and the results of both quantitative and qualitative analysis carried out elsewhere in the evaluation and looks at the implications of these findings for the wider Aimhigher policy. The following are appended: (1) Tabular breakdown of the number of responses, by year and from treatment and comparison schools; (2) Tables showing representativeness of the young people (in Year 11) who responded to the surveys in 2001/02, 2002/03 and 2003/04 compared with all pupils in these cohorts in England; (3) Tables listing the range of background variables, derived variables and interaction terms used in the models; (4) List of all Aimhigher: Excellence Challenge reports; and (5) Information about the evaluation. (Contains 12 tables, 10 figures, and 65 footnotes.) [This report was produced by the Department for Education and Skills.]