CEDAR
Newsletter ISSUE 22 SUMMER 2010
Centre for Educational Development, Appraisal and Research
Geoff Lindsay
Welcome to the 22nd CEDAR Newsletter. We send these to a wide range
of institutions and colleagues across the country, and also to specific
schools and other organisations with whom we have been working on
projects. Most of the content reports work that has been completed.
Usually there is a published research report which provides fuller
information; in some case we publish reports ourselves. In either case
access to these full reports is available through the CEDAR website
http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/fac/soc/cedar/ as well as the website of
individual research sponsors.
In this Newsletter we start by announcing the Better Communication Research Programme, funded by the
Department for Children, Schools and Families, (DCSF) now the Department for Education (DfE) which will
start to produce reports later this year and then report on other studies.
We hope you find the Newsletter informative and helpful.
Geoff Lindsay, Director
The Better Communication
Research Programme
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.
We carried out a research study to inform the
review. The government published its response
Better Communication, the speech, language
and communication needs (SLCN) action plan in
December 2008, which committed to a series of
initiatives to improve services for children and
young people with SLCN culminating in the
National Year of Speech, Language and
Communication in 2011.
The research programme is based in CEDAR
with Professor Geoff Lindsay as overall Project
Manager. The core team also comprises
Professor Julie Dockrell (Institute of Education,
University of London (ULIE)), Professor James
Law (University of Newcastle) and Professor Sue
Roulstone (University of West of England,
Bristol) as project co-directors. In addition
Professor Anna Vignoles (ULIE), Professor Jenni
Beecham (LSE), Professor Steve Strand (CEDAR),
and Professor Tony Charman (ULIE) provide
specialist inputs to the programme. A number
of researchers based at CEDAR and the partner
universities will be involved with specific
projects over the three years of the Programme.
This is an ambitious programme which has
five separate projects in Year 1. A longitudinal
study will run over the period of the Programme
focussing on children and young people with
primary language difficulties or autistic
spectrum disorders. Four more projects are
running this year and are designed to gather
information that will be both useful in itself
and provide a basis for further work in Years 2
and 3. One study is exploring the
effectiveness of interventions for the full
range of SLCN, analysing the research
literature and exploring with practitioners any
new approaches under development. Two
other studies will explore data available from
sources such as the National Pupil Database
and School Census in order to explore
patterns of prevalence and need, and also to
identify the bases for a study of cost
effectiveness. We are also working directly
with parents and young people with SLCN
themselves to identify their own preferred
outcomes for provision made.
This is a very exciting, complex research
programme designed to inform both policy
and practice. We are developing links with
other researchers and stakeholders including
the Communication Trust, I CAN, Afasic, the
Royal College of Speech and Language
Therapists, local authorities and primary care
trusts (in particular speech and language
therapy services), as well as engaging with
parents and young people with SLCN
themselves. The next Newsletter will provide
information on the five projects in Year 1.
CEDAR Newsletter...CEDAR Newsletter...CEDAR Newsletter...
Creating a Community of
Practice: CEDAR’s work with the
Royal Shakespeare Company
Sheila Galloway
Sheila Galloway
CEDAR’s work with the Royal Shakespeare
Company’s (RSC) Learning and Performance
Network (LPN) has over almost three years
produced final reports on two separate
projects. This relationship developed against
the University’s partnership with the RSC in the
Creativity and Performance in Teaching and
Learning (CAPITAL) Centre funded by the
Higher Education Funding Council for
England.
The LPN began in 2006, in the context of the
RSC as a whole aiming to become a ‘learning
organisation’. It works to revitalise teaching
and learning about Shakespeare’s plays,
creating a community of practice through
developing teachers’ expertise. The
continuing professional development (CPD)
focuses on connections between the rehearsal
room approach, literacy and speaking and
listening, promoting active learning which
reflects the ‘Stand up for Shakespeare’
manifesto published by the LPN: ‘Do it on
your feet. See it live. Start it earlier.’
The Network is as much about pedagogy as
about ‘the Bard’. It provides over three years
high quality tailor-made CPD via clusters of
hub schools with associated partner schools.
The schools selected would find it difficult to
access the opportunities on offer, and most
are coping with socio-economic disadvantage.
The CPD takes several forms. Two hub school
lead teachers work for a Postgraduate
Certificate in the Teaching of Shakespeare,
which has been delivered largely through
residential weekends and sessions at Stratford
and the University. Each completes an action
research study in his or her school, now
amounting to a substantial body of
knowledge. RSC’s education practitioners
facilitate CPD locally with all cluster teachers.
They work with pupils especially during the
rehearsal phase for regional festivals when
participating schools mount a production.
One school’s group later performs at The
Courtyard Theatre in Stratford. Alongside this,
the LPN funded two part-time post-experience
students to study for a Warwick MA, to
deepen its evaluation work through
The Learning and Performance Network is an
innovative programme and we have been glad
to watch it develop in such a dynamic way.
http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/fac/soc/cedar/projects/completed2010/royalshakespeare
Sheila Galloway
2
CEDAR’s research and development project
involving Sheila Galloway and Steve Strand
enabled us to support the MA students and
the LPN as it developed its evaluation
approach, and to conduct baseline and followup surveys of students to assess their attitude
to Shakespeare. In 2009, the Training and
Development Agency for Schools (TDA)
commissioned additional research on the
Network, especially how the clusters operated.
This project involved Jonothan Neelands,
Sheila Galloway and Geoff Lindsay. It
produced a survey of lead teachers and others
and a series of case studies of clusters, as well
as an analysis of teachers’ action research
reports.
aLink:
Ageing in Europe:
the ASPA project
CEDAR’s collaboration on a major project under
the European Union’s Framework 7 Programme
Activating Senior Potential in an Ageing Europe
(ASPA) is co-ordinated by the University of
Utrecht team. The UK research is led by
Warwick’s Institute for Employment Research
(IER). CEDAR’s input in a series of case studies
builds on Sheila Galloway’s previous research on
continuing professional development in
different contexts. This project takes forward
IER’s 2006 AEIGP report to the EU on
identifying good practice in the employment of
older workers. The ASPA research, led by
Professor Robert Lindley, includes Beate Baldauf
and Dr Bernard Casey, began in 2008 and ends
in spring 2011. ASPA partners are university
teams in the Netherlands, Sweden, Denmark,
France, Germany, Italy and Poland.
investigations with a longer timescale.
The ageing of society and the workforce is a
feature of modern European societies.
Demographic changes generate challenges
about the best deployment of older workers. In
many countries people are having to work
longer to meet economic demands and to
reduce the costs of pensions and welfare
systems. However, skilled mature workers can
face challenges such as stereotyping,
competition/cost differentials or health issues.
Concerns are voiced too about low rates of
volunteering by older people and about
pressures, particularly on older women, to
combine paid work with practical elder care
responsibilities.
ASPA teams examine the policies and practices
of employers, civil society organisations and
governments. Researchers are investigating
how employers and civil society organisations
use older workers’ skills and experience and
how public and organisational policies respond
to the pressures of an ageing society. Country
teams are analysing data on activity rates of
people aged 50 to 70 and identifying policy
strategies to support their labour market and
civil society participation.
The multi-method approach uses in each
country employer surveys, analysis of public
policies, secondary analysis of statistical data
and two major sets of case studies.
Organisational case studies explore ‘pathways
of practice’ promoting the recruitment and
retention of older workers. Case studies in
voluntary organisations explore opportunities
and barriers for older people to participate in
civil society. Here, we focus on three sectors:
health and social care, the cultural sector, and
education, all identified as major users of
volunteers in the UK. Research on age
management will inevitably attract growing
attention as countries encounter more acute
demographic and economic pressures.
CEDAR Newsletter...CEDAR Newsletter...CEDAR Newsletter...
Thinking in Three Dimensions:
Public Art and Learning Potential
Arts Council England West Midlands funded
CEDAR to do research in collaboration with the
University of Warwick's Mead Gallery on
sculpture trails and their use by schools. This
produced a new resource for teachers planning
out of school trips and for gallery professionals.
The web pages give information regionally
about sculpture trails and also a guide
for teachers planning a trip.
Steve Strand
Sheila Galloway
You can see this at:
http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/services/art/resources/sculpturetrail/
For an analysis of how young children respond to sculpture see:Galloway, S., Shalgosky, S. and Lloyd Smith, M. (2009) 'Thinking in Three Dimensions: How do
Young Children Engage with Modern Sculpture?' International Journal of the Arts in Society
Vol 3 No 6 pp 43-56.
Drivers and Challenges in Raising
the Achievement of Pupils from
Bangladeshi, Somali and Turkish
Backgrounds
Steve Strand
The achievement of Bangladeshi students
relative to White British students has improved
markedly over the last 20 years. Despite extremely
high levels of socio-economic deprivation, the
average achievement of Bangladeshi students
at age 16 does not differ significantly from the
White British average. However other groups,
particularly Somali and Turkish pupils, continue
to under achieve relative to White British
students. This research was commissioned by
the Department for Children, Schools and
Families (DCSF) in December 2008 to explore
both facilitators and barriers to the achievement
of Bangladeshi, Turkish and Somali pupils in
both primary and secondary schools.
The research involved both quantitative and
qualitative data collection and analysis and had
five main strands: (1) An analysis of pupil data
from the National Pupil Database to explore
patterns of attainment and progress in recent
years and the range of factors that impact on
progress; (2) an analysis of detailed data from
the national Longitudinal Study of Young
People in England (LSYPE); (3) a telephone
survey of a stratified sample of 284 Heads of
Inclusion/Ethnic Minority Achievement (EMA) at
primary and secondary schools with higher than
average concentrations of pupils from
Bangladeshi, Somali and Turkish/Kurdish
backgrounds; (4) Interviews with individuals
responsible for EMA at the Local Authority and
school level, with teachers who worked closely
with Bangladeshi, Somali and Turkish pupils,
and focus groups (in single gender groups) with
pupils in secondary schools; (5) Focus groups
and in-depth interviews with parents/carers of
pupils from Bangladeshi, Somali and
Turkish/Kurdish backgrounds.
The research indicated that the underattainment of Bangladeshi, Somali and Turkish
pupils appears to be significantly explained by
poverty and social deprivation. Particular
resilience factors for Bangladeshi students
included high parental educational aspirations
for their child, pupils’ own high educational
aspirations, parental supervision, student
planning for the future, strong academic selfconcept and high levels of motivation and
effort. Somali students as a group were also
above average in relation to positive attitudes
to school, strong academic self concept and
high educational aspirations by parents for their
child and by the pupils themselves, but were
not achieving the same return in relation to
these evident positive factors as either White
British or Bangladeshi students. Bangladeshi
parents appeared to have more positive
expectations of their children’s education than
Turkish or Somali parents. Despite a desire to
help their children, parental involvement was
often restricted by the parents’ own lack of
formal education, lack of time, difficulties in
speaking and reading English, and limited
understanding of the education system and of
the curriculum. Many parents, in particular
Turkish and Somali parents, were not fully
familiar with the education system and did not
always know how to support their children’s
education. Unless schools dedicate considerable
resources towards supporting these parents,
they may be left unable to engage as full
partners in their children’s education.
aLinks:
The full report was published in April 2010 and can be accessed as shown below:
Strand, S., De Coulon, A., Meschi, E., Vorhaus, J., Ivins, C., Small, L., Sood, A., Gervais,
M.C. & Rehman, H. (2010). Drivers and challenges in raising the achievement of pupils from
Bangladeshi, Somali and Turkish backgrounds (Research Report DCSF-RR226). London:
Department for Children, Schools and Families.
http://publications.dcsf.gov.uk/default.aspx?PageFunction=productdetails&PageMode=
publications&ProductId=DCSF-RR226&
http://publications.dcsf.gov.uk/default.aspx?PageFunction=productdetails&PageMode=
publications&ProductId=DCSF-RR226&
3
CEDAR Newsletter...CEDAR Newsletter...CEDAR Newsletter...
Preventing teenage
pregnancy
Mairi Ann Cullen and Liz Davis
Mairi Ann Cullen
Liz Davis
confidential parent-to-parent
support. The large demand
for its online leaflets about
talking to children about sex
was the spur to developing a
community programme
designed to offer one to one
and small group sessions to
help parents of children at
highest risk of teenage
pregnancy. The Time to Talk
Community Programme was
piloted, as part of the action
plan for England’s teenage pregnancy
reduction strategy, in five local authorities with
persistently high rates of teenage pregnancy.
support for parents to feel comfortable talking
with their children about sex and relationships
was more willingly received if offered by skilled
workers in the context of established groups
and activities, rather than as a stand-alone
activity. For example, the topic was usefully
introduced in more general parenting sessions
with the offer of a more specific course to
follow.
However, for personal or professional reasons,
some professionals were uncomfortable talking
to parents about sex and relationships, and so
were initially unwilling to signpost parents to
the programme. The community programme
workers had to win the trust of these
professionals before they were able to gain
access to parents. This was one factor delaying
local implementation and limiting the numbers
of parents participating. Nevertheless, parents
who did take part were positive about the
experience and reported feeling more confident
about their role as parents in general, more
understanding of their children and more
willing to be age-appropriately open with their
children about sex and relationships.
There is a need to support parents to feel more
knowledgeable and confident in talking to their
children aged 8 to 13 about sex and relationships.
Wary parents were more likely to become
The evaluation ran from September 2007 to
engaged by workers with excellent interpersonal
March 2008. By the end, it was clear that
and communication skills, who adopted a family
and community needs-led approach. These
aReference:
were the key findings from the evaluation of
Parentline Plus’s Time to Talk Community
Davis L., Cullen M.A., Davis, H., Lindsay, G., 2010. Evaluation of Time to Talk Community
Programme conducted by a team from CEDAR
Programme. Research Report DCSF-RR207. Nottingham: DSCF Publications.
and the Centre for Parent and Child Support,
Kings College, London (Davis et al., 2010).
The full report is available as a PDF from:
http://www.dcsf.gov.uk/research/data/uploadfiles/DCSF-RR207.pdf
Parentline Plus (www.parentlineplus.org.uk) is a
national charity that offers free and
Where Next for Excluded
Pupils?
Mairi Ann Cullen
A small-scale, longitudinal study (Pirrie et al.,
2009) has found substantial delays in identifying
a subsequent placement for pupils who were
permanently excluded from special schools or
pupil referral units (PRUs - now known as ‘short
stay schools’). The permanent exclusions usually
resulted from a violent assault on a member of
staff. Other contributory factors were persistent
disruptive behaviour, often involving systematic
bullying of younger children, physical assault
and damage to property.
The qualitative study of 24 young people revealed
that these young people lived in family situations
which service providers viewed as disrupted or
difficult. All of them had multiple and complex
learning needs, exacerbated in many cases by
severely disrupted education prior to their
permanent exclusion. Poor attendance, repeated
periods of exclusion, serial school placements and
substantial periods out of school were characteristic.
Complex needs and the cumulative effects of
previous educational histories made it extremely
difficult for local authorities to identify a suitable
placement following the permanent exclusion
from special school or PRU. Outreach tuition for
4
a few hours a week was a common interim
arrangement.
Parents felt little sense of agency in the process
of seeking a subsequent placement for their
child, partly because of limited options available
in any given locality. Eight of the young people
returned to a mainstream school or a local
authority special school (not the same one from
which they had been permanently excluded),
four moved to independent special schools,
while the other 12 young people were
subsequently educated in a wide range of
alternative provision. The alternatives included
voluntary sector provision, college placements,
training placements, continued part-time
outreach support, long-term placement in PRUs,
hospital-based provision in a psychiatric day unit
and justice system provision in secure units.
During the study, three of the 24 young people
served custodial sentences. From the perspective
of service providers and families, the most
successful subsequent placements were those
offering personalised support in a nurturing
environment with peer group contact.
The study also highlighted discontinuities in
professional support experienced by the young
people and their parents. Professionals who had
never met the young person were sometimes
taking important decisions about them.
Although the Common Assessment Framework
was viewed as aiding multi-agency working, it
was at different stages of implementation across
the country. Professionals interviewed wanted to
see greater collaboration between education
and social services in these complex cases.
aReference:
Pirrie A., Macleod G., Cullen M.A., McCluskey G., 2009. Where Next for Pupils Excluded
from Special Schools and Pupil Referral Units? Research Report DCSF-RR163.
Nottingham:DCSF Publications.
The full report can be downloaded from the DCSF website at
http://www.dcsf.gov.uk/research/data/uploadfiles/DCSF-RR163.pdf
A Research Brief is also available at
http://www.dcsf.gov.uk/research/data/uploadfiles/DCSF-RB163.pdf
CEDAR Newsletter...CEDAR Newsletter...CEDAR Newsletter...
The Parenting
Early Intervention
Programme
Susan Band
Susan Band
The Parenting Early Intervention Programme
(PEIP), funded by the Department for
Education, extends to all Local Authorities (LAs)
in England. LAs are able to select one or more
of the five programmes approved by the
National Academy of Parenting Practitioners
(NAPP): Incredible Years (IY), Triple P,
Strengthening Families, Strengthening
Communities (SFSC), Families and Schools
Together (FAST) and the Strengthening Families
Programme 10-14 (SFP 10-14).
Our evaluation of the Programme runs until
March 2011 and uses a combined methods
approach to examine both process issues (e.g.
LA implementation) and outcomes. Our first
Interim Report (Lindsay et al, 2010) covers the
period September 2008 to August 2009 and is
based on interviews with key staff in the LAs,
the results from parent completed measures
administered at the start of the parenting
groups and LA data on numbers of parenting
Stephen Cullen
encouraging links between PEIP and the
extended school offer, parent support
advisers, parenting experts and the Think
Family agenda.
쎱
Pre-course data on the 714 parents
indicated that they are comparable to those
who participated in the Pathfinder, with
children of most concern to parents
demonstrating high levels of behavioural,
emotional and social difficulties and the
parents having parenting styles characterised
by laxness and over-reactivity.
groups run and parents starting and finishing
their group.
The parenting support system has developed
and grown since the start of the earlier
Pathfinder (2006-8). The addition of parenting
Some key findings at this early stage were:
experts and PSA leads, as well as the
쎱 Triple P was the parenting programme most
extension of PEIP, provides a body of staff
commonly used by LAs implementing the PEIP. with relevant experience and expertise who
are developing services to take account of
쎱 Increasingly high levels of referrals were
local contexts. As a national strategy, Think
made to PEIP programmes irrespective of the
Family has the potential to provide an
programme offered.
overarching framework to support coherent
쎱 The PEIP is becoming embedded in LAs’
development, an issue that we shall be
examining as the PEIP progresses.
parenting strategies and there were
aReference:
Lindsay, G., Cullen, S, Band, S, Cullen, M.A., Strand, S, 2010.Evaluation of the Parenting Early
Intervention Programme: 1st Interim Report. Research Report DCSF-RR193 University of
Warwick; Research Brief ISBN 978-1-84775-645-9
Available online at: http://www.dcsf.gov.uk/research/programmeofresearch/projectinformation
DfE investment in teacher
workforce skills in relation to
Special Educational Needs and
Disabilities evaluation
This DfE-funded study is multi-faceted and
includes evaluation of several initiatives to
support the teaching workforce to work with
children and young people with SEND. The
initiatives include: 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 are designed
to further the government’s policy of increasing
teaching workforce skills, with a focus here on
pupils with SEND. In addition, policy priorities
related to developing inclusive education are
also of key relevance to the SEND initiatives.
Stephen Cullen
CEDAR’s evaluation started in December 2008,
and will continue until March 2011. The
evaluation is constructed around qualitative,
interview-based work with LA IDP leads, ITT
staff, school staff, and parents of children with
SEND. Primary and secondary ITT providers
(both undergraduate ITT, and PGCE provision)
are being interviewed at three stages in the
evaluation. The intention is to include providers’
opinions on the TDA toolkits; extended
placements in specialist provision; and their in
regional clusters. Data will also be 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 will generate data relating 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 - NQTs, experienced
teachers, members of school Senior
Management Teams (SMTs), and SENCOs - will
be interviewed at three stages of the
evaluation. These interviews will track the
implementation and impact of the three phases
of the IDP in participating schools. The
interviews will also seek to explore the
embeddedness of SEND training, CPD for
teachers in this area, and understanding of, and
commitment to, SEND teaching and learning.
Finally, parents of children with SEND will be
interviewed to build a picture of best-practice
for pupils, and provide a parent voice in relation
to SEND.
An interim report is expected in September
2010, with the final report due at the end of
March 2011.
5
CEDAR Newsletter...CEDAR Newsletter...CEDAR Newsletter...
Geoff Lindsay
International review of the diagnostic
procedures/tools used to diagnose a disability
and the assessment procedures/tools used to
identify the special educational needs arising
from the diagnosed disability (NCSE) Geoff Lindsay
This study was commissioned by the National
Council for Special Education in Ireland which is
undertaking a review of policy regarding special
educational needs (SEN). One of several
commissioned studies, ours focussed on the
important area of policy and practice regarding
both practical but also important conceptual
issues regarding diagnosis and assessment.
In the past, disability was to a large extent
identified by the ‘medical model’: a focus on
biological factors (e.g. deafness) and also
conducted by medical practitioners. It was also
accompanied by a tendency to match provision
to disability, e.g. a school for the deaf. This
approach has changed, but to different
degrees, across the world. There has been an
increase in the involvement of educationists and
psychologists as well as medical and
paramedical colleagues. Importantly, the
conceptual framework has also changed away
from a focus on disability to the child’s needs.
Martin Desforges and I reviewed the system in
eight different countries to provide evidence on
the roles of diagnosis and assessment. These
included Ireland itself and England, but also
countries across the world. We found a
substantial variation. Not all countries required
a diagnosis of disability when assessing SEN
(the position in Ireland for low incidence
conditions) and we found variations in
terminology, categorisation of disability both
between, but also within, countries and even
professions. Furthermore, none of the countries
We made 12 specific recommendations for the
NCSE on the basis of this substantial review.
The Council is due to publish the report, as one
of several it commissioned to guide its thinking,
Summer 2010.
Report to the National Council for Special Education
http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/fac/soc/cedar/projects/current/intreview
Geoff Lindsay
analysis of a largely web-based survey of four
groups: parents, school staff, other professionals,
and pupils. A second study examined eight
projects funded by the DCSF to support LAs to
undertake initiatives to improve parent
confidence. We also undertook a review of
evidence on school inspection and accountability.
The surveys received over 3400 responses
including 1941 parents. This was an open
access exercise and this is reflected in a profile
of parents who responded: in particular they
were not representative of parents of children
with SEN nationally in terms of relative
prevalence of different types of SEN.
Nevertheless, important issues were raised that
do resonate with other evidence. For example,
The Inquiry was set up with Brian Lamb as chair. these parents stressed the importance of both
social and academic outcomes from their
Nick Peacey and I, with two researchers,
children’s education. Good teaching was
Penelope Brown and Anthony Russell, were
stressed and contrasted with limited teaching
commissioned to undertake several pieces of
methods, failure to set work at the appropriate
work to inform the Inquiry. One comprised the
6
Furthermore, countries varied in their access to
different professionals, whose training also
varied. Assessment approaches, including the
methods used (e.g. tests) also varied.
aLinks:
The Lamb Inquiry - studies
commissioned to inform
the Inquiry
Many parents of children with special
educational needs, especially those with
significant SEN, lack confidence in the SEN
system. The Special Educational Needs and
Disability Tribunal, was set up to provide a
formal process to address parents’ complaints,
but of course this is an ‘end of line’ measure,
implemented after a failure to satisfy parents
earlier in the process. There are many difficult
and sensitive issues to address when decisions
are made about the nature of a child’s SEN and
the provision to be made to meet these needs:
not least the financial implications, but also the
wider policy on, for example, inclusive
education. Nevertheless, any system should
strive to optimise parental confidence.
reviewed relies solely on one of the two major
internal systems of classification (DSM and ICD),
both of which have been through changes (e.g.
DSM-V is currently in preparation).
level and inflexible teaching styles, and an
inappropriate curriculum, which were often
mentioned as hindering their children’s
learning. The bureaucracy associated with the
SEN system was also criticised and reported to
be stressful. Parents were often only able to
navigate the system with help from school staff,
parent partnership services or voluntary bodies,
support which was judged invaluable. However,
only 2% of parents suggested the possibility of
separating assessment from provision in the
way the SEN system operated.
The eight projects provided interesting evidence
of what could be achieved in order to improve
parent confidence. The funding was modest
(£20k - £40 per LA for a year) to support one of
five types of project, the most popular being i)
sharing best practice in developing good
relationships between the LA and parents, and
ii) effective practice by schools and LAs in
meeting the needs of children at School Action
Plus (i.e. children receiving support from an
outside professional but not having a
statement). Our study identified several key
success characteristics which were likely to
support similar projects in other LAs including:
쎱
parents should be involved throughout the
project: design, evaluation and future planning
쎱
the project should have a clear parent
focus with parents actively involved in the
project itself
CEDAR Newsletter...CEDAR Newsletter...CEDAR Newsletter...
쎱
it should address an issue of importance for
policy/practice, and
쎱
evaluation should be built in so that learning
can influence subsequent practice and
sustainability.
We recommended that similar projects could be
beneficial in other LAs. These would benefit from
central support (from the National Strategies at
this time) and by bringing LAs together so that
LA officers and parents could share their work.
The Secretary of State accepted all of Brian
Lamb’s recommendations and we look forward
aLinks:
CEDAR report:http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/fac/soc/cedar/projects/completed2010/lambinquiry
The Lamb Inquiry page
http://www.dcsf.gov.uk/lambinquiry/
The Parent Support
Adviser Pilot
Geoff Lindsay
The Parent Support Adviser Pilot was funded
by DCSF over the period September 2006 July 2008 at a cost of £40 million in DCSF
grant payments to 20 local authorities (LAs).
Authorities were funded to employ PSAs, for
their training and for the infrastructure to
support the development of the service. The
DCSF worked with the Training and
Development Agency for Schools (TDA): the
DCSF was the lead department for the policy
and financial framework, the TDA allocated
funding to LAs and worked with authorities to
develop the PSA role, including an initial
training package and the Support Work in
Schools (Parent Support) level 3 qualification.
The TDA also took the lead in disseminating
practice.
well as interviews with the strategic leads
from all 20 LAs.
The PSA Pilot built upon existing support for
parents but this was patchy. Some LAs had
similar posts (e.g. family liaison officers) but
the innovative elements for the PSA Pilot
included the partnership between DCSF and
TDA which included the development of
bespoke training (initial and the subsequent
SWiS qualification) and an attempt to explore
different models of practice. These included
single school v cluster models and a focus
ranging from parents of pupils at risk of
exclusion, through to a broader support of
parents of a wide range of pupils.
Our overall judgment was that the PSA Pilot
could be judged a success. Over 700 PSAs
The PSA Pilot was one of several government
were recruited, trained (albeit a relatively brief
initiatives designed to support parents. For
training) and deployed across over 1100
example, we also evaluated the Parenting Early
schools. Although there were parameters set
Intervention Pathfinder over the same period
by DCSF to guide implementation (e.g. the
and are currently evaluating its successor, the
model of practice originally determined by the
Parenting Early Intervention Programme which
LA) the reality was a development by schools,
is being rolled out across all English LAs over
teachers and their PSAs of diversity
2008-11 – see Sue Band’s article. In the case
determined locally, e.g. some schools
of the PSA Pilot the aim was to support
prioritised the recruitment of members of their
parents in a variety of ways ranging from
local minority ethnic communities as PSAs.
improving their parenting skills through to
There was substantial targeted work with over
engagement with the education system.
20,000 parents but also a wide range of ‘light
Consequently, the Pilot’s focus was on the
touch’ involvement with many more. Where
support to parents but the impact on their
direct work was concerned, the most common
children, in particular their behaviour, was also
presenting issues concerned a child’s
of central importance.
Using a database developed for the Pilot, we
gathered data on over 20,000 parents in 18
LAs. We also conducted a survey of line
managers in 1165 schools across the Pilot
and analysed the schools’ data in the
National Pupil Database in comparison with
non-PSA schools. A strong qualitative strand
focused on 12 LAs, selected to represent the
range of those involved. This comprised
interviews over the phases of development of
the Pilot including 245 in total with PSAs, 144
with line managers and 105 with parents as
to actions that may improve parent confidence
in the SEN system.
behaviour, including attendance. A high
proportion of pupils had special educational
needs (9% had statements, about three times
the national average) and over half were
eligible for free school meals (55% compared
with 17% nationally). Most engagement was
with mothers (86%),
There were a number of indicators of positive
impact. About nine out of ten of PSAs’ line
managers (typically head teachers) had positive
views of their work including improved pupil
attendance, parental engagement with their
child’s learning and the school, and improved
relationship between school and the parent.
Tellingly, over half of line managers reported
that benefits for parents were above their
expectation and 48% judged value for money
positively against 16% judging it negatively.
Furthermore, nine out of 10 parents rated
their PSA highly in terms of their support style
and in making them feel better about
themselves and more confident to tackle
problems. On the other hand, the Pilot
generally had failed to make much inroad into
the difficult issue of engaging fathers and
male carers: a ‘gender-blind’ approach was
not successful whereas specific ‘Dads’
initiatives were more so.
Following our evaluation the government
decided to roll out funding for PSAs
nationwide, but at a reduced level per LA.
Nevertheless, there has been a growth in PSAs
in the new LAs, and the TDA has continued to
develop training support. The challenge now is
to integrate further the PSAs into a planned,
coherent policy and practice of parent support
within each LA.
In addition to the research report and brief I
produced a guide for schools, PSAs and parents.
aLinks:
Lindsay, G. (2009). Parent support advisor pilot evaluation: A guide.DCSF-RR151A.London:
DCSF. (30pp) http://www.dcsf.gov.uk/research/data/uploadfiles/DCSF-RR151A.pdf
Lindsay, G., Davis, H., Strand, S., Cullen, M.A., Band, S., Cullen, S., Davis, L., Hasluck, C.,
Evans, R., & Stewart-Brown, S. (2009). Parent support adviser pilot evaluation: Final report.
DCSF-RR151. London: DCSF. (174pp)
http://www.dcsf.gov.uk/research/data/uploadfiles/DCSF-RR151.pdf
7
CEDAR Newsletter...CEDAR Newsletter...CEDAR Newsletter...
New appointments
Two new
colleagues have
joined CEDAR
as Honorary
Professors
Seamus Hegarty is Chair of
the International
Association for the
Evaluation of Educational
Achievement (IEN). He
served as Director of the
National Foundation for
Educational Research in
England for 12 years until his retirement in 2005.
Seamus also serves on the National Council for
Special Education in Ireland where he chairs the
Research and Communication working group.
Andy Miller was Special
Professor of Educational
Psychology in the
Department of Psychology,
University of Nottingham
until his recent retirement.
Andy was Educational
Psychology Group Director
and also Senior Educational Psychologist with
Derby City. He is currently Director of the postqualification doctoral programme in educational
psychology. In 2009 Andy was presented with
the first ever Distinguished Contribution to
Educational and Child Psychology Award by the
Division of Educational and Child Psychology of
the British Psychological Society.
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
Educational assessment, the use of assessment
data to support teaching and learning and the
analysis of differential pupil progress and school
effectiveness.
Susan BAND
Higher education, employee development, special
needs, evaluation, qualitative research, lifelong
learning, education in the performing arts.
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
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
Principal Research Fellow:
Sheila GALLOWAY
Secondary school education, adult education,
gifted and talented education.
Special educational needs.
The visual arts and education.
Research on arts education, the cultural sector
and the creative industries, continuing
professional development, work-based learning,
supply teaching. Qualitative research methods.
Jessie RICKETTS
Niki PHILLIPS
Senior Research Fellows:
Elisabeth ARWECK
Religious education, inclusive education.
Literacy, language and communication
difficulties, autistic spectrum difficulties.
Gifted and talented education.
Honorary Professor:
Seamus HEGARTY
Dyslexia.
Special educational needs, educational evaluation.
Secondary education.
Andy MILLER
Gail TREML
Educational psychology services, student
behaviour in schools.
CEDAR
Fax No: 02476 524472
E-mail: J.P.McElroy@warwick.ac.uk
Website:
www.warwick.ac.uk/fac/soc/CEDAR
Anne SHEPPARD
Margaret THREADGOLD
Special educational needs.
Published by:
CEDAR, University of Warwick,
Coventry, CV4 7AL
Edited by: Alison Baker
©Centre for Educational Development,
Appraisal and Research 2007
ISSN 0959-6763