CEDAR
Newsletter ISSUE 24 WINTER 2013
Centre for Educational Development, Appraisal and Research
CEDAR’s 25th
Anniversary
CEDAR was founded in 1987 by
Professor Sir Robert Burgess. Bob is
an educational sociologist who
directed CEDAR over its first 12
years, before moving on to
become Vice-Chancellor of the
University of Leicester in 1999.
Professor Geoff Lindsay, an
educational psychologist by
background, was appointed Bob’s
replacement and has directed
CEDAR from that time.
A 25th Anniversary dinner was held in the
University’s Radcliffe House conference centre
on 22nd March 2013. An earlier event had to
be postponed because of snow and there was
a degree of uncertainty for the rearranged
event with heavy snow falling again, though
fortunately not in the immediate area during
the evening.
The event was a great success, with guests
including past and present members of staff,
work colleagues and the directors’ wives,
Professor Hilary Burgess and Professor Julie
Dockrell. Short reflections on CEDAR’s
development were provided by Bob Burgess
Professor Geoff Lindsay and Professor Robert Burgess
and Geoff Lindsay, and also by Dr Margaret
Threadgold, Chair of CEDAR’s Advisory Board
since its inception. All stressed the
philosophies and qualities that had
underpinned CEDAR’s enduring success
including commitment to multi- and interdisciplinary research, high quality research
implementation, and a willingness to broaden
research focus to address changing priorities
over time. In addition, all stressed the
fundamental importance of the quality of
Dr Margaret Threadgold and
Professor Geoff Lindsay
staff, both researchers and secretarial, with
respect not only to high levels of competence
but also to commitment, integrity and
collegiality.
CEDAR throughout its 25 years has been
highly successful, as indicated by the number
of grants, contracts and publications. This has
been recognised by the University’s continuing
support and current investment in expansion.
Working at CEDAR has also been fun!
CEDAR Newsletter...CEDAR Newsletter...CEDAR Newsletter...
Key Stage 2 Access
Arrangements
Geoff Lindsay
A fundamental requirement of any
assessment procedure is that it should be a
fair test of the abilities under examination.
Special access arrangements have been in
place for many years for pupils with health
problems or special educational needs in order
to apply this principle. The Standards and
Testing Agency (STA) devised a flowchart to
aid teachers to decide whether a pupil needs
access arrangements for Key Stage 2 (KS2)
national curriculum tests and, if so, the type
of access arrangements that are necessary.
Our study, funded by the Department for
Education, comprised three strands:
쏹
Strand 1: A national survey of primary
mainstream and special schools (teachers
and special educational needs coordinators - SENCOs) (responses from 648
schools in 128 local authorities).
쏹
Strand 2: Observations of teachers using
the flowchart in 15 schools to aid their
assessments of pupils’ needs for access
arrangements; followed by interviews with
each teacher.
쏹
Strand 3: Interviews with 27 LA officers
with responsibility for managing an LAs
system of applications for access
arrangements, examining the operation of
the current system and their views on the
benefit of the flowchart.
Educational psychologists (EPs) from four LAs
carried out Strand 2 and were themselves
interviewed about the usefulness of the
flowchart. The study took place over a short
timespan to fit the timetable from October
2012 to February 2013.
Findings
The flowchart was generally found to be
useful by respondents in all three strands of
the study. For example, the national survey
showed that teachers and SENCOs judged it
efficient (85%), clear (81%), easy to use
(84%) and fair (87%).
A large majority of teachers (95%) reported
that the flowchart drew on and respected
their knowledge of pupils and their ability to
assess pupil levels and corresponding access
needs.
2
83% concluded that the flowchart enhanced
their understanding of pupils’ access
arrangements requirements and that it was
accurate, identifying both pupils who did and
those that did not require access
arrangements.
reasonable number of children who would
require access arrangements. In practice, few
schools were willing to allocate time - SENCOs
to whom we spoke were very interested and
willing, but head teachers often didn’t see this
as a priority given other demands.
Our observations of teachers implementing the
flowchart covered pupils that were thought
likely to require access arrangements and those
that would not. The teachers’ feedback not
only confirmed the survey results, it also
provided useful information on more specific
aspects of the flowchart. For example, teachers
explained why they thought it easy to use, as
shown by this teacher’s comment:
This was aggravated further by such schools
typically serving socially disadvantaged
populations and so had the challenges
associated with these. Also, Ofsted inspections
or concerns about these limited access further.
‘It is clear, informative and very helpful - [it]
takes away the guesswork/subjectivity and
makes things much fairer for all SEN pupils.’
The interviews with LA officers provided a
broader perspective as they reviewed requests
for access arrangements from schools from
across their LA. Their views supported the
generally routine comment of teachers on the
flowchart.
Both teachers and LA officers also provided
very useful improvement suggestions to
improve the development of the draft
flowchart used in the study. For example, the
early items were generally concluded not to be
useful and to be unnecessary. Some specific
aspects of lack of clarity were also identified.
Next steps
Our research supported the introduction of a
modified version of the flowchart. It also
confirmed the STA’s intentions to produce an
online rather than paper version. This will be
used for the 2013-14 school year.
Conclusions
This study was very challenging. The research
itself was straightforward with clear research
questions and the benefit of CEDAR’s
collaboration with practitioner EPs,
psychologists from LAs as well as Ioanna
Bakopoulou in CEDAR who practises part time
as an EP. Implementation of strands 2 and 3
however was very challenging. Strand 2
required access to schools which had a
For Strand 3 the challenge was different.
Many LAs no longer have a dedicated post for
the overview of KS2 access arrangements
applications. Hence, tracking down the
appropriate person was extraordinarily
difficult.
These challenges to the research were all
addressed satisfactorily, for which we are
especially grateful to those LA and school
colleagues who did provide the time. But these
practical aspects of research in schools are
becoming more difficult despite goodwill
because of the pressures under which schools
operate.
CEDAR Newsletter...CEDAR Newsletter...CEDAR Newsletter...
Establishing Recommended
Practices for Early Childhood
Intervention training and
professional development
- a study on training conducted in Portugal and the UK Ana Teresa Brito
Dr Ana Teresa Brito Nascimento joined CEDAR on a post-doctoral research award from Portugal. Ana Teresa
is a highly experienced educator who was appointed Associate Fellow in CEDAR. Her work focuses on early
intervention. Ana Teresa is based in CEDAR during 2013, conducting fieldwork in this country.
The beginning of the
research journey
I have just started three year post-doctoral
research (2013-2016) that aims to establish
Recommended Practices for high quality
training and professional development in
Early Childhood Intervention and Early
Childhood Special Education.
At present, Early Childhood Intervention (ECI)
has a specific body of knowledge, based on
various research fields - from education to
neuroscience - which should support the
intervention of professionals, aiming to
enhance the development of children up to six
years in a situation of established, biological or
environmental risk. This body of knowledge
emphasizes the importance of intervening as
early as possible, in a family-centered approach,
based on collaborative work, performed in
natural and inclusive environments.
In this framework, training and personnel
preparation is a critical element for success,
demanding a renovation in the ECI
professionals’ attitude, towards the new
intervention requirements. These involve
technical quality - regarding knowledge,
expertise and competence held by the
professional in this field - but also the
practical and reflective expression of this
competence, founded in empathic qualities
of collaborative involvement, leading to a
transdisciplinary provision of services,
focusing on families and their natural context.
In Portugal and in the United Kingdom (UK),
issues related to ECI were, respectively, subject
to legislative review and new government
recommendations for its action. This sociopolitical framework constitutes a challenge
and an opportunity to provide high quality
services to a diverse group of children and
their families.
Although the studies conducted in UK and
Portugal emphasize training as a key factor in
the success of the intervention in Special
Education and ECI, there are no specific
recommended practices in this area, pointing
out the necessity of its development.
How are we going to reach
the research aims?
To conduct the present investigation, the
methodology - using various sources and
research tools - is based on procedures
performed for the establishment of
Recommended Practices in ECI from the
Division for Early Childhood, Council for
Exceptional Children.
This methodology includes: (1) conducting a
comprehensive literature review, analyzing the
evidence supported training practices, in which
the training/professional development led to
better results in the intervention, (2) observation
and description (based on document analysis,
observation and semi-directive interviews)
from two training contexts on ECI (Portugal
and UK), with regard to initial training courses,
continuing / in-service and specialized training
in ECI, focused on their training contents and
processes, (3) Conducting focus groups with
key informants in both countries (families,
practitioners and experts in ECI), to gather
recommendations for practices based on
experiences and values, (4) Combining the
results obtained in (1), (2) and (3) - deleting
duplications, merging similar practices and
adding new practices - with the purpose of
listing the set of recommended practices,
formatted into a questionnaire, to be
addressed at a wide range of ECI experts,
practitioners and families, in both countries,
checking and validating their suitability, (5)
Establishing, based on the articulation of all
the work done, Recommended Practices for
high quality training/professional
development in Early Childhood Intervention.
Timings, places and the
“team around the research”
The first part of the investigation will be
carried out in the UK, between January and
December 2013, with CEDAR as the host
institution, thus enabling a privileged
inclusion in a prestigious research team. Its
Director, Professor Geoff Lindsay, coordinator
of reference studies in the fields of childhood,
parenting and training, is responsible for the
orientation of the research.
From January 2014 until January 2015, the
study will continue in Portugal, following the
methodology described in sections 1, 2 and 3,
under the guidance of Teresa Brandão - from
FMH, Universidade Técnica de Lisboa recognized expert in ECI, and Nair Azevedo from UIED, Universidade Nova de Lisboa specialist in training and professional
development.
Between February and December 2015, the
aim is to achieve proceedings 4 and 5, with
the ultimate goal of establishing and
disseminating Recommended Practices for
high quality training on ECI that include the
results obtained in the research.
With this research, we persevere in representing
and reconnecting to understand the world
that surrounds us - using conceptual tools that
allow us to distinguish without separating
and associate without reducing - seeking to
produce and share useful evidenced-based
knowledge for quality personnel training and
development, considering the demanding need
to truly enhance their technical, relational and
human competencies. We intensely desire a
better future for children and their families especially those who are at increased risk and
vulnerability - and find in doing this
investigation the driving force that allows us
better to understand and act progressively in
the world we live.
The large “team around the investigation” including the voices of all involved, from
researchers to families, young children to
practitioners - will undoubtedly enrich this
truly exciting research journey!
1 This research is financed by the
Foundation for Science and Technology
(FCT) whose mission consists in promoting
the advancement of scientific and
technological knowledge in Portugal.
3
CEDAR Newsletter...CEDAR Newsletter...CEDAR Newsletter...
CANparent Trial
The Department for Education is funding a
two year study of the CANparent universal
parenting classes trial (2012-14). This is
taking place in three areas where parents of
children aged 0-5 years are able to use a
voucher to access a parenting class. The areas
are Camden, High Peaks in Derbyshire and
Middlesbrough. These vouchers, with a face
value of £100, are being made available in a
number of early years and health settings,
e.g. children’s centres and GP surgeries, from
Boots the Chemist and on the web. There is
also a comparison non-trial area, Bristol.
Fourteen providers were accredited by the DfE
to run the classes following an accreditation
process. The providers are working across the
three voucher trial sites with different numbers
of providers offering classes in each site.
CANparent is a universal parenting class
initiative. It is designed to make classes
available to every parent of children aged 0-5
years in these areas. Its aim, therefore, differs
from the Parenting Early Intervention
Pathfinder Programme (PEIP: 2006-11) which
CEDAR evaluated as PEIP was a targeted
initiative, for parents with children exhibiting
or at risk of developing behavioural,
emotional and social difficulties.
The ultimate aim of the trial is to stimulate the
supply of, and demand for, universal parenting
classes nationally. Hence the aim of the trial
is to stimulate the market to provide a
sufficient incentive to providers to start
offering additional parenting classes nationally.
Although the trial focuses on parents of
children 0-5 years, the aim is to stimulate
provision for parents of older children also.
The main aim of our research is to evaluate
whether the free provision of parenting classes
in three areas will provide sufficient incentives
to providers to start offering additional
universal classes nationally, including for
parents of children beyond the foundation
stage, and whether its universal approach can
normalise and de-stigmatise parenting classes.
Our research has a number of objectives.
쏹
The development of the market for
universal parenting classes - both supply
side (e.g. has provision increased inside
and outside the trial areas?) and demand
side (e.g. what is the take up rate? Are
parents willing to pay for classes in the
absence of vouchers?)
Geoff Lindsay
쏹
Parents’ experiences of the parenting class
offer.
쏹
Impact on parents’ perceptions of
skills/confidence in parenting.
쏹
The development of universal parenting
classes outside the trial areas.
The research is based in CEDAR and
comprises a research team with three other
partner organisations: TNS-BMRB, BrysonPurdon Social Research and London
Economics. The CEDAR team comprises
Mairi Ann Cullen (Project Manager), Stephen
Cullen and Ioanna Bakopoulou, and also
includes Professor Jane Barlow from the
Warwick Medical School.
Strand 1 is being carried out by CEDAR. This
comprises interviews with lead personnel
from all parenting class providers and local
support, voucher services and parenting
commissioners for each area. We completed
the first round in the summer of 2012,
exploring with providers the setting up of the
trial, their areas and business plans,
perceptions of the market model and how
this might develop, and plans for
development. Two more rounds are planned.
These will examine the development over
time of the providers’ offers and how they
react to the trial. Also, by phase 3 we will be
examining in particular their intentions for
expansion outside the trial areas after the
end of the trial. Interviews and focus groups
with the local support and voucher providers,
and with parenting commissioners (or
equivalent) will also take place over these
phases to explore developments.
Strand 2 comprises two large scale face-toface surveys conducted by TNS-BRMB of
parents in the three voucher trial areas and in
16 comparison non-voucher areas (including
Bristol). The first took place during the
summer of 2012 and the second will be
carried out at the end of 2013. These
penetration surveys seek to capture parental
attitudes towards parenting classes. The first
survey also captured early awareness of the
trial and take-up of the vouchers. We also
used it to provide comparative data from the
non-voucher trial areas of the measures we
are using to examine changes shown by
parents who attend the parenting classes.
Also as part of Strand 2, CEDAR is collecting
data on parents who participate in the
parenting classes. A sample of parents drawn
from classes put on by all the providers will
complete measures pre and post-class. These
will provide information on changes over this
period in mental well-being, satisfaction with
being a parent, sense of efficacy as a parent,
and coping with ‘daily hassles’. In addition, a
brief 2-question survey will be conducted on
all parents that start a parenting class to
capture a general overview of parents’ views
of their experiences.
Strand 3 will comprise a cost effectiveness
analysis and be carried out by London School
of Economics. This will explore the costs
associated with the provision of parenting
classes; a detailed assessment of costs
associated with different voucher options and
means of distribution; the development of
cost effectiveness indicators; and willingness
to pay analysis to understand the extent to
which parents might pay for parenting classes
in the absence of vouchers; and the
sustainability of parenting class provision.
This is a challenging research project with
substantial complexity. It differs in focus from
our previous work in the Parenting Early
Intervention Programme as that was a
targeted intervention - focusing on parents of
older children (8-13 years) with a risk of
developing behavioural, emotional or social
difficulties. CANparent, by contrast, is a
universal programme aiming to provide all
parents with support to help them with the
challenging task of parenting young children.
In addition to the many elements of the study
described above, one important issue is the
question of stigma and acceptance. Parenting
support has, in the past, often been
characterised as a ‘nanny state’ action,
interfering with parents. It is of substantial
interest therefore to examine whether a
universal provision of parenting classes will be
seen in this way or whether the CANparent
trial will help to normalise the idea of parenting
classes receiving acceptance and engagement
similar to that afforded by other support such
as ante-natal classes. The findings from the
first face-to-face survey suggest that parents
do not see attendance of parenting classes as
stigmatising.
The project is due to end in March 2014. The
interim report reporting on the first phase of
the trial has been published by the DfE. There
will be a second interim report autumn 2013
and a final report at the end of the trial.
쏹
The relative effectiveness of different
voucher distributors.
쏹
The relative effectiveness of different
types of vouchers and information
provided to parents.
http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/fac/soc/cedar/canuniversalparentingevaluation/
http://www.canparent.org.uk
쏹
Parents’ awareness of, and attitudes
towards, parenting classes.
For the 1st Interim report see:
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/canparent-trial-evaluation-first-interim-report
4
For more information see the CEDAR and CANparent website.
CEDAR Newsletter...CEDAR Newsletter...CEDAR Newsletter...
Better Communication
Research Programme
Geoff Lindsay
In 2008 a Review group led by John Bercow MP,
now the Speaker in the House of Commons,
published its report on services for children and
young people with speech, language and
communication needs (SLCN). A research study
based in CEDAR comprising senior researchers
from several universities had carried out the
study which informed this Review. The Better
Communication Research Programme (BCRP:
2009-2012) was commissioned as part of the
Better Communication Action Plan, the
Government’s response to the Bercow review.
This had recommended a programme of
research ‘to enhance the evidence base and
inform delivery of better outcomes for children
and young people’.
The BCRP was a programme of inter-related
projects addressing a broad range of issues
identified in the Bercow Review designed to
develop organically. The first year’s programme
of five projects was agreed between the
research team and the Department for
Education. Once underway, as a research team
we engaged with a range of partners to review
emerging results and shape the next phases of
the research programme. Overall we conducted
ten research projects as part of the BCRP.
The Communication Trust, and policy
development, including the Special
Educational Needs Green Paper.
The BCRP officially ended in March 2012
when we produced our reports. However, as
the BCRP was deliberately developed to
engage with policy and practice, we produced
a range of different outputs and are now
engaged in working with others to bring the
research directly to policy makers,
commissioners and practitioners.
A total of 19 reports were published by the
DfE. This is a formidable number, but reflects
the amount and range of the research
programme. Also, we agreed a 3-level
reporting strategy with the DfE. This is
intended to bring different kinds of reports to
different audiences. We have produced:
쏹
An overview report, which draws on the
evidence across the BCRP and presents the
main recommendations from the research
programme. This report is aimed
particularly at non-specialist policy makers
and commissioners, and parents.
쏹
Four thematic reports: these are intended
to be the main source of information for
policy makers, commissioners, practitioners,
and researchers with expertise in SLCN.
The BCRP was conceived as addressing the
interface between research, practice and policy. It
was designed as a programme of research that
was rigorous but also of direct relevance and
usefulness to practitioners, researchers, policy
makers and commissioners, and to the parents
and young people with SLCN themselves. In
particular the BCRP addressed the following
issues as a basis for developing
recommendations for future policy and practice,
and guidance for some areas of practice:
쏹
쏹
쏹
The perspectives of children and young
people who have speech, language and
communication needs, and their parents.
쏹
The relationship between speech,
language and communication needs
(SLCN) and behavioural, emotional and
social difficulties (BESD).
쏹
Effectiveness, costing and cost
effectiveness of interventions for
children and young people with speech,
language and communication needs
(SLCN).
Trajectories of development of children with
SLCN over time, in differing contexts.
Support and interventions being offered
currently by schools and by speech and
language therapists.
쏹
Evidence base for current practice including
indicative costs.
쏹
Perspectives of parents and children
regarding the services they use and the
outcomes they value.
During the research programme we provided
inputs based on the developing research to
other initiatives, where appropriate. For
example, 2011 was the Year of Communication
(the ‘Hello’ campaign) led by the Government’s
Communication Champion Jean Gross and
with whom I presented to its three regional
conferences. Members of the team also
presented papers at research conferences,
meetings of voluntary sector bodies including
쏹
쏹
Understanding speech language and
communication needs - Profiles of need
and provision.
Ten technical reports presenting the full
details of the research.
Furthermore, although the BCRP finished in
March 2012, work is continuing. The
Communication Trust has been funded by the
DfE to disseminate findings over 2013-15. We
developed practical resources, including a webbased version of the What Works review of
interventions for children and young people with
SLCN which had 10548 hits between March
and September and the dissemination of the
Communication Supporting Classrooms
Observation Tool. This was very well received in
over 100 schools with reception and key stage
1 children, as an aid to teachers to assess the
characteristics of their classrooms and teaching
that our research showed support the
development of communication ability. It will
soon be available from The Communication
Trust.
Our dissemination programme is addressing
specific issues relevant to different children and
young people with SLCN, and how our
research findings can help shape policy and
practice. The Communication Trust is working
with us to target research findings to its
member organisations, so that our findings are
relevant to children and young people with
different SLCN.
We are working with the voluntary body for
children with SLCN and their parents, Afasic,
and with practitioners and commissioners of
services in order to support the development
of practice. We are also engaging with the DfE
and others to contribute to policy development
resulting from the BCRP. For example, we
provided evidence from the BCRP to inform the
work of the All Party Parliamentary Group, led
by Lord Ramsbotham, whose work examined
the relationship between SLCN and
disadvantage.
In summary, the BCRP comprised a substantial,
multi-faceted research programme whose
findings are now being used to further raise
awareness among parents, professionals and
policy makers of the nature of SLCN and the
issues involved in improving identification and
assessment of needs, development of provision
and the evaluation of the effectiveness of
interventions.
Accessing the BCRP reports
All reports are published on the DfE website at:
https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/department-foreducation/about/research#better-communication-research-programme-bcrp
The What Works for SLCN and Communication Supporting Classroom Observation Tool are
available from The Communication Trust at: http://www.thecommunicationtrust.org.uk/
Our own BCRP website will provide a link to all the reports and other information:
http://www.warwick.ac.uk/go/bettercommunication
5
CEDAR Newsletter...CEDAR Newsletter...CEDAR Newsletter...
Support for children
affected by parental
substance misuse
Mairi-Ann Cullen
To improve outcomes for children affected by
parental substance misuse, Addaction, a leading
substance misuse treatment charity, used DfEfunding to pilot two interventions during 201113 which were evaluated by CEDAR.
‘First Steps’ for children’s
centre staff
‘First Steps’ was a two-tier intervention for
children’s centre staff. Tier one involved a oneday training course for all staff, to raise their
awareness, knowledge and understanding of
the effects of parental misuse of alcohol and/or
drugs. The training also helped them learn how
to start conversations about substance use with
parents, and how to offer stigma-free access to
holistic support and treatment. Over 2300
participants were almost all hugely positive
about this training, valuing its practical
application and the opportunity to explore
attitudes to alcohol and drug use. Significant
increases in knowledge, skills and confidence
were maintained at follow-up six months later.
Tier two involved 15 pilot children’s centres
working intensively with an Addaction family
development manager to embed in the
everyday work of the centre best practice
around support for parents with an alcohol or
drug problem and their children. From this
partnership work, core standards and practice
guidance were developed and made available
nationally. In each of the 15 centres, positive
changes in practice were evidenced. For
example, previously hidden parental substance
misuse was identified and successful long-term
engagement of these families led to appropriate
support being put in place for the adults and the
children. As one parent said, ‘Because of alcohol
issues, I had a [children’s centre] family support
worker. She couldn’t do enough for me and my
daughter. Always really, really good with her,
taking her to a hospital appointment and stuff
like that. They didn’t have to do that but they
chose to.’
The full report is available here:
http://www.addaction.org.uk/page.asp?section=
134&sectionTitle=Research+reports
‘Skills 4 Change’ for secondary
school students
Aimed at secondary school pupils affected by
parental substance misuse, Skills 4 Change was
a 6-session group intervention designed to build
children’s resilience to cope with their situation
at home. It covered goal-setting, healthy eating,
information about risks associated with alcohol
and drug use, First Aid, team-building and an
outdoor activity. It was delivered during school
hours in 115 schools across 10 areas of England,
reaching 1626 pupils.
The evaluation found that the pupil cohort who
took part was heavily skewed to educational
vulnerability with levels of poverty, special
educational needs, truancy, and exclusion very
much higher than the national average. Prior to
Skills 4 Change, few had received support or
recognition of the situation they were in.
Schools greatly valued the opportunity Skills 4
Change gave to support these pupils. This
showed how important it is for schools to
understand and support pupils affected by
parental substance misuse. At cohort level, the
intervention was successful in improving
attendance, reducing exclusion, improving
educational attainment and raising resilience
and confidence (although these remained
relatively low). There was no significant
difference in self-esteem.
CEDAR used a Social Return on Investment
methodology to conclude that the financial
investment was worthwhile. The estimated
financial value of the social outcomes achieved
was greater than the finance invested by a ratio
of 1:1.05. Addaction is now working with the
Amy Winehouse Foundation to continue to
offer a resilience building programme developed
from Skills 4 Change.
The full report will be made available on the
Addaction and CEDAR websites.
Success of autism training
for school staff
Mairi-Ann Cullen
Over 10,000 school staff have attended new
training which has successfully improved
knowledge, skills and confidence around
educating pupils with autism. Commissioned by
the Autism Education Trust (AET), the training
programme was evaluated by CEDAR.
The training programme
The AET was funded by the Department for
Education to commission the development
and delivery of autism training during 201113, augmented by the development of the
6
AET Competency Framework, against which
individual staff could assess their practice and
create a personal action plan, and the AET
national Standards, against which school
senior leaders could assess whole school
systems and create a school action plan.
Training materials pitched at three levels were
developed by teams led from ACER, the
University of Birmingham. The three training
levels were: Level 1, awareness-raising for all
staff; Level 2, developing good practice for
staff working with pupils with autism; and
Level 3, establishing autism-friendly whole
school systems for staff in leadership positions.
The training at Level 2 was linked to the newly
developed Competency Framework. Level 3
training was linked to the new AET National
Standards. The training was delivered through
seven competitively-awarded hubs, each led
by trainers highly experienced in delivering
training about autism to school staff.
More information is available here:
http://www.aettraininghubs.org.uk/traininghubs/
CEDAR Newsletter...CEDAR Newsletter...CEDAR Newsletter...
The evaluation findings
The AET training hubs programme was highly
effective. The training materials, Competency
Framework and National Standards were
developed on schedule. Training delivery
targets at each level were surpassed.
Participants’ views of the training were highly
positive. Intention to use the Framework and
Standards was higher than actual use,
indicating the time needed for schools to plan
in professional development work. Qualitative
follow-up in schools found that staff had
made positive changes in practice. Staff and
parents interviewed reported positive changes
for pupils with autism too. One parent said: ‘I
know the class teacher is now using more of
[my son’s] special interest to engage him in his
work and it’s having huge effects. He’s now
saying he enjoys literacy.’
Expansion phase
Following the success of the 2011-13
programme, the AET was awarded further
DfE funding to expand the programme
geographically across a further four training
hubs, and age-wise to early years and post16. CEDAR has won the contract to evaluate
this next phase over 2013-15.
The full report is available to download here:
http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/fac/soc/cedar/proj
ects/current/autismeducationtrust
New CEDAR Staff
Vaso Totsika
I am Vaso Totsika and I joined CEDAR on 28th
October 2013. I am very excited to join this
vibrant research department and very much
look forward to collaborating with CEDAR
colleagues on a host of new projects. With a
first degree, MSc and PhD in Psychology, I have
worked as a researcher in Oxford University,
conducting research in educational psychology,
and Bangor University, where most of my
research was in the field of intellectual disability
and autism. In parallel, I worked as a Lecturer
in the North Wales Clinical Psychology
Programme, teaching research methods,
statistics, meta-analysis and supporting clinical
psychology trainees in their research. My
research there mainly focused on the caring
environment (families and support services) of
people with an intellectual disability and/or
autism, both from an evaluation point of view
but also as basic applied studies, examining
the relationship between environmental
characteristics and the well-being of
individuals with a disability. My research
interests are in quantitative designs, and most
of my current work involves secondary
analyses of national datasets with a focus on
early family experiences and their association
with children’s developmental outcomes.
Professor Richard Hastings BSc PhD CPsychol FBPsS FIASSIDD
I joined CEDAR as a Professor in 2013, having
moved from the School of Psychology at
Bangor University. My first degree and PhD
were both in Psychology and from the
University of Southampton. In addition to
carrying out teaching and research in
Southampton, I have worked at the Institute
of Child Health (University College London),
and Bangor University. In Bangor, I was the
Research Director for the doctoral programme
in clinical psychology and spent time in senior
management roles including as Head of the
School of Psychology. My research focuses
mainly on families of children with disabilities
and special educational needs, mental health
problems in children and adults with disabilities,
and evidence-based educational interventions
for children with special educational needs
and disabilities. In addition to carrying out
research, I am a Trustee for Mencap, and
expert external advisor for Ambitious about
Autism, and the research advisor for Sibs (the
UK charity for siblings of disabled children).
From 1 January 2014, I will also have the title
of Cerebra Chair of Family Research. Cerebra
have awarded me funding as one of their
Academic Chairs to carry out research focused
on families of children with intellectual
disability and/or autism.
Professional standing
Fellow of the British Psychological Society
Fellow of the International Association for the Scientific Study of Intellectual and Developmental
Disability
Social media and web links
Twitter - @ProfRHastings
Blog - profhastings.blogspot.co.uk
My Google scholar profile - http://scholar.google.co.uk/citations?user=F-tUp4wAAAAJ&hl=en
Mencap - http://www.mencap.org.uk/
Ambitious about Autism - http://www.ambitiousaboutautism.org.uk/page/index.cfm
Sibs - http://www.sibs.org.uk/
Cerebra - http://www.cerebra.org.uk/English/Pages/home.aspx
7
CEDAR Newsletter...CEDAR Newsletter...CEDAR Newsletter...
Staff
Professor Steve Strand moved from CEDAR in
January 2013 to take up a chair in the
Department of Education Studies, University
of Oxford. Steve was appointed in 2005 to a
.33 post in CEDAR and .66 in the Warwick
Institute of Education. Steve has collaborated
on the large scale studies we have undertaken
over this period, leading on the quantitative
methods of our combined research methods
studies. Steve also has his individual research
agenda analysing the large datasets (e.g.
National Pupil Database and School Census),
in particular to explore the relationships
between pupil attainment with ethnicity. We
were very sorry to see Steve go but he is
continuing to work with us on the CANparent
universal parenting classes trial for the DfE.
CEDAR Staff: Research interests are as follows
Director:
Geoff LINDSAY
Honorary Professor:
Seamus HEGARTY
Special needs and inclusive education,
language and communication difficulties,
parenting and parent support, ethical dilemmas
of professionals.
Special educational needs, educational
evaluation.
Richard HASTINGS
Special educational needs and disability,
children’s voice.
Special educational needs, intellectual disability,
autism, families.
Senior Research Fellows:
Ioanna BAKOPOULOU
Language and communication difficulties.
Mairi-Ann CULLEN
Special educational needs, gifted and talented
young people, alternative education for
disengaged young people, alternatives to
exclusion from school, values education, adult
education, evaluation. Qualitative and
quantitative methods.
Stephen CULLEN
Parenting, fathers, early intervention.
Vaso TOTSIKA
Developmental outcomes of children with a
disability, intellectual and developmental
disabilities, autism, parenting and families of
children with a disability.
Ann LEWIS
Andy MILLER
Sheila GALLOWAY
The arts, museum services and the cultural
sector.
Jean GROSS
Speech, language and communication needs,
educational policy, effectiveness of
interventions.
Ian H JONES
Educational psychology services, student
behaviour in schools.
Educational implications of pupil migration.
Associate Fellows:
Susan BAND
Bullying at school.
Higher education, employee development,
special needs, evaluation, qualitative research,
lifelong learning, education in the performing
arts.
Secondary education.
Chrystalla KALOYIROU
Margaret THREADGOLD
Gail TREML
Special educational needs.
Ana Teresa BRITO
Early intervention.
Martin DESFORGES
Special educational needs, inclusion, the needs
of minority ethnic groups.
Raymond EVANS
The needs of and provision for, looked after
children, and disaffected young people.
CEDAR
Tel No: 02476 523638
Fax No: 02476 524472
E-mail: Diana.Smith@warwick.ac.uk
Website:
www.warwick.ac.uk/fac/soc/CEDAR
Published by:
CEDAR, University of Warwick,
Coventry, CV4 7AL
Edited by: Alison Baker
©Centre for Educational Development,
Appraisal and Research 2007
ISSN 0959-6763