CEDAR
Newsletter ISSUE 23 SUMMER 2011
Centre for Educational Development, Appraisal and Research
Parenting Early
Intervention
Programme
Geoff Lindsay
We recently completed the evaluation of the
national roll out of the Parenting Early Intervention
Programme (PEIP) 2008-11. We previously
evaluated the Pathfinder in 18 local authorities
(2006-08), the results of which were positive
and contributed to the previous government’s
decision to roll the PEIP out across all English LAs.
Local authorities were funded to implement
evidence-based parenting programmes designed
to improve parenting skills and reduce children’s
behavioural difficulties. Initially, LAs could use
one or more of five specified programmes:
Incredible Years, Triple P, Strengthening Families,
Strengthening Communities, Families and
Schools Together (FAST), and the Strengthening
Families Programme 10-14. Later, this was
relaxed and other programmes were added to
the list of permitted interventions.
were being implemented drawing on the views
of key participants in this process about their
effectiveness: parents, group facilitators, LA
operational and strategic lead officers, and
other LA parenting support professionals. We also
investigated the qualifications and experience
of facilitators to explore whether these were an
important factor in programmes’ success.
Did parents improve?
The PEIP results were very positive for the four
programmes for which we had sufficient data
(unfortunately the FAST sample was too small
to include in our main analyses). Two measures
of inappropriate parenting style, laxness and
over-reactivity, reduced substantially and this
improvement was maintained over the year
following the programme. These changes were
statistically highly significant, which is partly a
Our study had two important, complementary
result of the large sample, but the effect size
components. First, we wanted to see whether
was also large. Another way of reporting these
these programmes would still be effective when results is that about three quarters of parents
rolled out on this very large scale. Efficacy had
improved on these two measures. Parental
been demonstrated by previous studies,
mental well-being also improved over the
especially randomized control trials (RCTs).
programme and after one year continued to be
These are highly controlled, rigorous studies but highly significantly better than at the start.
typically of relatively small numbers of parents,
with parenting groups led by a small number of Figure 1 shows the improvements (reduction)
for the Parenting Scale which combines the
facilitators compared with over 1000 in our
laxness and over-reactivity scores.
study. We investigated this by using parent
completed questionnaires as they started and
completed their programmes, which differed in Did the children improve?
length from about 7-18 or more sessions. We
The parents also reported substantial
also carried out a one-year follow up.
improvements in the children’s behaviour: the
Secondly, we examined the way these programmes proportion of children with serious problems (in
Figure 1
48
Mean Score with 95% confidence interval
Geoff Lindsay
46
44
42
40
38
36
34
32
30
Pre-course
Post-course
Follow-up
the top 10% nationally) reduced from 56% to
38%, a reduction of about a third. Although
highly significant, this improvement was less
than that shown in the parents’ scores; this is
reasonable as the programmes were addressing
parent behaviour which would then be
expected to have an effect on their children’s
behaviour as parenting styles improved.
Did programmes differ?
The four programmes for which we had
sufficient data were all effective in improving
parent and child outcomes. Parents were also
very positive about all five. There were some
differences which we explore in our report but
Continued on page 2
CEDAR Newsletter...CEDAR Newsletter...CEDAR Newsletter..
these were relatively small compared with the
overall positive effects. It is also important to
note that the aims of the programmes varied.
Were programmes cost-effective?
effective. LAs used different delivery models
(core team, multi-agency and commissionedout, plus a hybrid). No single model emerged as
‘best’: rather, it was a case of ‘best fit’ to local
circumstances.
This was an excellent opportunity for CEDAR to
carry out a combined methods study delivered
by a multi-professional team. The study
required support from LAs to implement and
The facilitators were a diverse group. The success was complex so we are very grateful to all LAs
factors included having sufficient capacity to
that contributed, especially the LAs in our main
deliver and having the qualities, skills, knowledge sample. We presented our findings at a CEDAR
and experience to enhance parents’ experience. conference in May where representatives from
Having a diverse pool of facilitators supported
each of the five programmes also presented,
recruitment, engagement and retention of
along with a DfE representative who indicated
parents which were enhanced when a prior
current and future policy. We are continuing to
relationship existed between the parent and a
collect 1-year follow up data and are providing
professional.
a service to LAs to continue local evaluation.
We examined cost-effectiveness in a subsample
of 15 LAs. We found that LAs varied greatly in the
costs of implementing PEIP and consequently
cost-effectiveness also varied greatly. The overall
cost of a parenting programme was £1658 for
each parent who completed, averaged across
all LAs and the four programmes; the lowest
cost was £536 per parent in one LA. This
indicates that implementation of parenting
programmes can be very cost-effective but in
practice this would depend both on the
Are the programmes sustainable?
programme (costs varied, especially with
The PEIP was initially funded by a ring-fenced
number of sessions required) and also LA
DfE grant but this was relaxed so that virement
organisation to ensure optimal use of resources.
could occur. There was high commitment to
the parenting programmes locally and to their
What supported effective
continuation. The cutbacks by the coalition
implementation?
government have seriously challenged this and
sustainability has varied, a result of overall LA
Strategic and operational leadership was a
decisions on budgets rather than a judgement
crucial factor: when these were not effectively
of the programmes’ usefulness.
in place the PEIP was less efficient and cost-
Stephen Cullen
The government selected parenting
programmes to support on the basis of a
review of research literature; we then evaluated
the 18 LA Pathfinders; as a result, a national roll
out was funded for all 150 LAs and this too
was evaluated. This was an excellent example
of evidence-based policy and practice.
The final report can be found at:
https://www.education.gov.uk/publications
/eOrderingDownload/DFE-RR121A.pdf
DfE investment in teacher
workforce skills in relation to Special
Educational Needs and Disabilities
(SEND) evaluation
May 2011 saw the publication of CEDAR’s Final
Report on the evaluation of investment by the
Department for Education (DfE) in a number of
initiatives designed to improve teacher workforce
skills in relation to SEN and disabilities (SEND).
The initiatives included: the Training and
Development Agency (TDA) Training Toolkit and
SEND extended placements in specialist settings
for ITT providers and students; support for ITT
provider regional cluster groups; the Inclusion
Development Programme (IDP) for the teaching
workforce; IDP Regional Hubs for LAs; the
Stammering Information Programme (SIP)
developed at the Michael Palin Centre; and
specialist training for teachers of pupils with
sensory impairment. The initiatives were
designed to increase teaching workforce skills,
with a focus on pupils with SEND.
CEDAR’s evaluation started in December 2008
and continued until March 2011. The evaluation
was constructed around qualitative, interviewbased work with LA IDP leads, ITT staff, school
staff, and parents of children with SEND, and
surveys. Primary and secondary ITT providers
(both undergraduate ITT, and PGCE provision)
were interviewed at three stages in the
2
Final comment
Stephen Cullen
evaluation. Data were also gathered concerning
changing awareness, skills and knowledge with
respect to SEND among teacher trainees, and in
the provision of teacher education, in the context
of competing demands within ITT. In addition,
e-surveys of teacher trainees at ITT institutions
taking part in the evaluation generated data
related to trainees’ perceptions of SEND education
at their institutions, and the impact of the TDA
toolkit and the extended specialist placements.
A range of school staff was interviewed at three
stages of the evaluation. Finally, parents of
children with SEND were interviewed to build a
picture of best-practice for pupils, and provide a
parent voice in relation to SEND.
CEDAR’s evaluation key findings were:
쏹 The
initiatives, taken together, represent a
possibly unique comprehensive approach to
improving the knowledge, attitudes, skills,
behaviour, and confidence of the teacher
workforce in relation to SEND.
쏹 The
materials to support trainee teachers and
those in practice have been welcomed and
found to be effective.
쏹 The
dissemination methods were effective,
and produced a substantial platform for
further dissemination.
쏹 Taken
as a whole, the evidence provided
support for the proposed initiatives to
develop teacher training and continuing
professional development set out in the
recent Green Paper, Support and Aspiration:
A new approach to special educational needs
and disability (DfE, 2011).
Links below access our Final Report, the associated Research Brief, and the Interim
Report, and its associated Research Brief:
https://www.education.gov.uk/publications/RSG/publicationDetail/Page1/DFE-RR115
https://www.education.gov.uk/publications/RSG/publicationDetail/Page1/DFE-RB115
https://www.education.gov.uk/publications/RSG/publicationDetail/Page1/DFE-RR058
https://www.education.gov.uk/publications/RSG/publicationDetail/Page1/DFE-RB058
Links:
. CEDAR Newsletter...CEDAR Newsletter...CEDAR Newsletter...C
Sheila Galloway
Evaluation of
Ballet Birmingham
and Me
Sheila Galloway
The aim for young people to play a major role in
the project’s management and delivery happened
formally through the Youth Artistic Board. After
a tentative start, this group gradually developed
a strong and mature voice, becoming a channel
between the youth centres and the adults
ultimately responsible for project outcomes.
Other young people showed their commitment
over more than eighteen months, attending
sessions sometimes twice weekly and at weekends
in youth centres and at BRB’s city centre studios.
In 2008, Birmingham Royal Ballet began a
project with partners Birmingham Youth Services
(BYS) and Birmingham Association of Youth Clubs
(bayc) to give young people in the city the chance
to take part in the arts. Dr Sheila Galloway and
Professor Jonothan Neelands evaluated the
project, which culminated in a performance of
a young people’s version of ‘Cinderella’ at The
Hippodrome in December 2010.
This project operated through five youth
centres in areas of the city with little access to
cultural events. Youth workers supported it
strongly, alongside professional dancers and
other staff from Birmingham Royal Ballet (BRB).
Very few participants had classical ballet
experience, but they performed a remarkable
‘Cinderella’ on the Hippodrome stage,
scheduled alongside the premiere of David
Bintley’s new production of ‘Cinderella’ by
Birmingham Royal Ballet. In all, 141 young
people participated and the adults involved
included 33 youth workers, 103 members of
BRB staff and 25 freelance artists.
Funding came from the Big Lottery Fund,
Dancing for the Games, Birmingham City
Council, Creative Futures, and Inspire. With
kind support (from Birmingham Royal Ballet,
Birmingham City Council and Birmingham
Association of Youth Clubs) overall project costs
were about £760,000.
The vision for BB&Me originated at a time
when there was a national commitment to
disadvantaged communities and to what was
termed ‘complex cultural activity’. However it
operated with increasing economic uncertainty
for partner organisations, and impending job
cuts in the Youth Service.
40 young people gained Arts Award
Accreditation at Bronze level and one at Silver
level. 30 gained an ASDAN award at Bronze
level. It proved difficult to ensure work
experience while energy focused on the
December production, but this is still open to
young people as part of BB&Me’s legacy. Work
continues on healthy lifestyles and in further
reachout activity, a long-standing feature of
BRB’s Learning Department.
Participants had three opportunities to perform
publicly. They did technical work in ballet
classes, drama workshops, sessions with
practising artists generating ideas, intensive
training events and a demanding regime of
rehearsals in autumn 2010. The youth service
arranged events including a team building day
and a young people’s evaluation session.
The project met six defined aims:
� Young people had opportunities to take part
in the arts, develop skills and learn about the
creative industries.
� Learning outcomes were formally accredited.
� There were varied professional development
opportunities for BRB staff and youth workers.
� The aim of achieving excellence was
achieved, combining BRB’s high
performance standards with its commitment
to inclusion, inherent to the original vision.
� BB&Me broached barriers to attendance,
promoting ballet for all, encouraging young
people with no ballet background to sustain
their commitment.
� The reputation of all partners was increased
through local and regional media attention,
personal and community contacts, a postproduction ‘Celebration’ event and a DVD.
Performance photo: Roy Smiljanic. Rehearsal photo: Tim Cross; BRB Learning
3
Overall, the style, quality and rigour of
CEDAR Newsletter...CEDAR Newsletter...CEDAR Newsletter...
workshops and support for the young people
was impressive, with no compromises made for
an easy life. Meanwhile, young people had role
models in professional artists who work at
international level and others who are expert
arts practitioners. The evaluation noted the
strong impact on the young people involved.
BB&Me was especially effective in creating a
climate where professional artists, youth
workers and participants helped young people
with special educational needs to play a full
part in rehearsals and the Hippodrome
performance.
We looked particularly at how the partnership
operated with very different working practices
and organisational cultures being negotiated, and
at professional development, considered across
organisations, for dancers/choreographers, and
for other BRB staff. BB&Me, a complex project,
was outstanding in this respect and the report
comments on the different pedagogic styles.
Tracking the project’s management over two
years helped identify which features worked
well within this model. These areas are covered
fully in our final report, published by
Birmingham Royal Ballet in July 2011.
For the full report contact
Dr Sheila Galloway, CEDAR 024 7652
2196 Sheila.Galloway@warwick.ac.uk
Pearl Chesterman, Director for Learning,
Birmingham, Royal Ballet, 0121 245 3556
PearlChesterman@brb.org.uk
The full text of the evaluation will be
accessible on CEDAR’s web site and the
illustrated report will be available from
Birmingham Royal Ballet in August 2011.
The Better Communication
Research Programme: Tracking
children with speech, language
and communication needs
Jessie Ricketts
The Better Communication Research
Programme is part of the government’s
response to the Bercow Review of provision for
children and young people with speech,
language and communication needs, published
in July 2008. Professor Geoff Lindsay and Dr
Jessie Ricketts from CEDAR are working with
Professor Julie Dockrell, Professor Tony
Charman and Dr Olympia Palikara at the
Institute of Education, University of London
(ULIE) on one aspect of the programme, the
prospective longitudinal study. This aspect of
the programme is tracking the needs of
children and young people with primary
language difficulties or autism spectrum
disorders. We are working with approximately
170 children and young people in over 85
schools in London and the South East of
England. So far, we have conducted a number
of individual sessions with each pupil, observed
them in the classroom context, interviewed
their parents and asked both parents and
teachers to complete questionnaires. Here are
some of our preliminary findings:
Working individually with
pupils: Language, literacy and
socio-emotional well-being
쏹
쏹
As expected, pupils with identified language
difficulties perform poorly on a large range
of tasks tapping language and
communication. Many pupils with autism
spectrum disorders also find language and
communication difficult.
Literacy difficulties can be observed in both
groups but are more common in pupils with
language difficulties than those with autism
spectrum disorders.
쏹
Our initial findings on socio-emotional wellbeing are mostly positive and pupils with
language difficulties and autism spectrum
disorders did not seem to differ from pupils
without special educational needs in terms
of their well-being, including their physical
health, friendships and attitudes to school
and learning.
Information from parents
Through telephone interviews, parents have
expressed a range of views, including the
following:
쏹
Parents identified a range of strengths in
their children. The most frequently reported
strengths were athletic ability, computer
knowledge and use, artistic ability and
sensitivity to others’ feelings.
쏹
When they were asked about their children’s
academic progress in school over the last
year, most parents reported that progress
was good or quite good.
쏹
Some parents indicated that they would like
to play a larger role in making decisions
about the support that their children receive
in school.
Information from teachers
We asked teachers to tell us about the support
pupils have been receiving in the classroom and
the strategies that are being used to facilitate
their learning:
쏹
The majority of pupils are supported by
teaching assistants or learning support
assistants in the classroom or in small groups
or individually outside of the classroom. A
few pupils also have additional support from
teachers and the school SENCO.
쏹
The curriculum is being differentiated for
most of the children and the most
commonly employed strategies are the use
of extended examples and limiting the
number of concepts presented at any one
time. Use of technology (such as a computer
or tape recorder) and special programmes
were the least reported strategies.
We now have a large data set, which we will be
analysing more fully over the coming months.
For the remainder of the project we will
continue to work with pupils, schools and
families and we will continue to raise awareness
of language and communication needs by
presenting our research to policy makers and a
range of professionals who work with pupils
including teachers, educational psychologists
and speech and language therapists. We are
also presenting our findings at national and
international conferences and this will allow us
to describe our findings to practitioners and the
wider academic community. Our research is
funded by the Department for Education and
the results will be used by the government to
guide provision for children with language and
communication needs. We will be submitting a
report to the Department for Education next
year and the next Newsletter will provide
further details of this report.
4
CEDAR Newsletter...CEDAR Newsletter...CEDAR Newsletter..
Activating Senior Potential
in Ageing Europe (ASPA)
Sheila Galloway
Activating Senior Potential in Ageing Europe
(ASPA) has been a three-year collaboration for
CEDAR in a project funded by the European
Commission’s 7th Framework programme under
the Socio-economic Sciences and Humanities
Theme. It has been led in the UK by Warwick’s
Institute for Employment Research (IER), and
involved partner research organisations from the
Netherlands, Denmark, France, Poland, Sweden
and Italy. CEDAR’s role has been in two areas:
the participation of older people in work and
their participation in civil society through
volunteering. In both cases, however, the focus
has been on the behaviour of the organisation the employer or voluntary body - rather than
the individual.
training and diversity, lifelong learning and
knowledge transfer, career development and
job mobility, bonus and salary systems, flexible
working practices and working time
arrangements over a life span. Other
dimensions included health and well-being
promotion, workplace design, redeployment,
and transition to retirement. Previous research in
CEDAR on professional development in various
sectors links directly to several of these
‘dimensions’.
Since the start of this project, significant
changes to the state pension system in the UK
have given more prominence to this area. The
research on volunteering has also moved
centre-stage, given expectations associated
with the idea of the ‘Big Society’. Some case
studies involve charities and organisations
which have relied on volunteer activity for some
decades and have increasingly professionalised
their management of unpaid (older) people’s
time, skills and experience. The cross-national
report explores the needs of and opportunities
offered by voluntary organisations as well as
the motivation of volunteers and rewards
gained by them.
The UK research has already been presented to
policy-makers and academics at a presentation
in London to TAEN – The Age and Employment
Network (October 2010) and a seminar for HR
professionals convened by Wright Hassall in the
Midlands (April 2011). European research
One aspect of the research explores the notion
of ‘family friendly’ policies in an ageing society, findings on ‘Activating Senior Potential in
Organisations – A Case Study Approach’ were
conventionally focused on flexible working
patterns for people with children. They do not given at the VII International Association of
necessarily recognise that older employees may Gerontology and Geriatrics European Congress
Sheila Galloway has worked with IER colleagues have caring responsibilities for spouses, partners on ‘Healthy and Active Ageing for All
or very elderly and frail relatives. Much previous Europeans’ in Bologna (April 2011). A
(Robert Lindley and Beate Baldauf) to carry out
presentation on ‘Learning from European
international comparative research has sought
this research. In addition, the project has
Experience: Pathways of Age Management
to identify good practice ‘destinations’ ie
included a survey of employers and a broad
Practice’ was made to a Seminar on the theme
current good practice. An innovation in the
analysis of public policy developments in
of ‘From Early Retirement to Active Ageing:
ASPA project, led by Warwick, has been to
different countries.
Are European Labour Markets ready?’
introduce the idea of exploring ‘pathways of
The project aimed to identify key policies and
practice’ because a strategy introduced under a organised by the Directorate General Research
practices which encourage the development and
and Innovation of the European Commission.
specific management style, a particular
deployment of the skills, knowledge and expertise
This took place in Brussels in June 2011.
economic climate, or a local demographic
of older workers (people aged 50 or more) to the
situation can stall or may have to be adjusted or
In September 2011 the project outcomes and
benefit of the individual and the organisation.
even cut to meet changing priorities or
reports will be available on the ASPA web site:
Case studies have focused on dimensions of
pressures.
www.aspa-eu.com.
practice in areas such as recruitment, awareness
Banging your head on
the ceiling:
Steve Strand
Social and economic factors and their relationship to the differential
attainment of Southwark schoolchildren Steve Strand
The research undertook a detailed analysis of
the 2008 Key Stage 2 (KS2) test results of all
2,875 eleven-year old pupils attending Southwark
primary schools. In particular it focused on
equity gaps including the impact of ethnicity,
gender and socio-economic status (SES), along
with other factors, on attainment and
educational progress at school. In addition to
the national test data, the report drew on pupil
level data from the School Census, new
attendance monitoring data and the Southwark
Pupil Voice survey to create measures which
might help explain equity gaps in educational
attainment and progress. The overall aim was
5
to identify which groups of pupils (defined
particularly by different combinations of
ethnicity and socio-economic disadvantage) had
low attainment or made poor progress at
primary school in Southwark.
The main results of the analysis were as follows:
쏹 Low
attainment at the end of primary school
is a key risk factor for subsequent low
attainment at school leaving age, for leaving
education at age 16, and for long term
employment and occupational outcomes. In
terms of equity gaps, SES had the biggest
association with attainment. Pupils from low
SES backgrounds, whatever their ethnic
group, had the poorest outcomes at age 11.
쏹 White
British low SES pupils were the lowest
attaining group and their low attainment is
as much of a concern as other ethnic groups.
However among pupils from middle SES and
high SES backgrounds Black pupils had
substantially lower attainment than their
similarly advantaged White British peers.
Control for contextual factors (age, gender,
SEN, attendance, pupil mobility, EAL and
school composition) attenuated but did not
Continued on back page
.. CEDAR Newsletter...CEDAR Newsletter...CEDAR Newsletter...
substantially change the above outcomes.
쏹 In
terms of progress between age 7-11 it was
notable that pupils from low SES
backgrounds, whatever their ethnic group,
fell further behind their more advantaged
peers during the course of primary school,
and that Black pupils from middle and high
SES backgrounds were particularly at-risk,
making far less progress that medium and
high SES White British pupils.
쏹 The
Pupil Voice survey was used to generate
a substantial number of measures of pupil,
home and teacher factors, and to establish
whether there were associations between
these factors and pupils’ attainment and
progress. However only parental support for
the pupil, frequency of engaging in cultural
leisure activities (attending local library, art
galleries, theatre or museums) and frequency
of reading for fun outside of school added
further to the explanation of attainment and
progress. The pattern of significant SES
effects, and significant underachievement by
Black Caribbean pupils from medium and
high SES backgrounds, was not affected
substantially by including these variables.
Around half the variation between schools in
terms of ‘raw’ KS2 results can be statistically
explained by variation in the prior attainment
and demographic characteristics of their pupil
intakes. However very substantial school effects
remain. The school level accounts for around
25% of the measured variance in pupil progress
which is high compared to previous studies.
Unmeasured factors such as leadership and
management, school ethos, or the quality of
teaching may account for these substantial
school-related differences in outcomes.
Like much data, this analysis does not provide
clear cut answers to the cause of gaps in
educational attainment or direct remediation
strategies in relation to such gaps. However it
has articulated more clearly where such gaps
lie. The value of this report is in identifying the
nuances in the data and in raising questions for
more focussed further research.
The final report can be found on the CEDAR
website (see below).
Strand, S. (2010). Banging your head on the
ceiling: Socio-economic factors and their
relationship to differential attainment in
Southwark primary schools. London:
Southwark Childrens Services.
The final report can be found on the
CEDAR website
http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/fac/soc/cedar/s
taff/stevestrand/strand_2010_southwarkfinal-report.pdf
CEDAR Staff: Research interests are as follows
Director:
Geoff LINDSAY
Special needs and inclusive education, language
and communication difficulties, parenting and
parent support, ethical dilemmas of professionals.
Professor of Education:
Steve STRAND
Equity issues in educational attainment and
progress (particularly ethnicity, social class and
gender) and the interface with school
effectiveness and improvement.
Principal Research Fellow:
Sheila GALLOWAY
Research on arts education, the cultural sector
and the creative industries, continuing
professional development, work-based learning,
supply teaching. Qualitative research methods.
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
Secondary school education, adult education,
gifted and talented education.
Jessie RICKETTS
Literacy, language and communication
difficulties, autistic spectrum difficulties.
Honorary Professor:
Seamus HEGARTY
Special educational needs, educational evaluation.
Ann LEWIS
Special educational needs and disability,
children’s voice.
Andy MILLER
Associate Fellows:
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.
Chrystalla KALOYIROU
Bullying at school.
Mel LLOYD-SMITH
Special educational needs.
The visual arts and education.
Niki PHILLIPS
Gifted and talented education.
Anne SHEPPARD
Dyslexia.
Margaret THREADGOLD
Secondary education.
Educational psychology services, student
behaviour in schools.
Gail TREML
CEDAR
Tel No: 02476 523638
Published by:
CEDAR, University of Warwick,
Coventry, CV4 7AL
Fax No: 02476 524472
Edited by: Diana Smith
E-mail: J.P.McElroy@warwick.ac.uk
©Centre for Educational Development,
Website:
www.warwick.ac.uk/fac/soc/CEDAR
Appraisal and Research 2007
Special educational needs.
ISSN 0959-6763