CEDAR
Newsletter ISSUE 21 SUMMER 2009
Centre for Educational Development, Appraisal and Research
Mairi Ann Cullen
The Parent
Support Adviser
pilot evaluation
Inside this issue...
More CEDAR projects
New Projects
CEDAR Staff news
Mairi Ann Cullen
Parent Support Advisers (PSAs) have been
welcomed as 'very helpful' by parents in the 20
local authorities (LAs) where the new role was
piloted during 2006 -2008. This was the main
finding of CEDAR's second interim report of the
evaluation (Lindsay et al., 2008).
Parents interviewed (105, of whom 92 were
mothers) typically found PSAs to be
approachable, friendly and pleasant. They told
CEDAR researchers that PSAs were able to help
them sort out specific problems and provide
more general support. Over 8 out of 10 parents
interviewed felt 'listened to', 'respected' and
'understood' by PSAs. A key feature of the PSAparent relationship was the availability of the
PSA - almost half of the parents said they had
seen their PSA more than 20 times.
The new role of PSA was announced in 2005
(HM Treasury and DfES, 2005) with a focus on
improving attendance and preventing
behaviour problems through early intervention
and support. The role was linked into the
development of extended schools. At the start
of the pilot in September 2006, there were
three types ('models') of PSA. Model 1 were
those based in one school (primary or
secondary) who focused on early intervention
around attendance and behaviour, including
supporting parents at times of transition, for
example from primary school to secondary
school. Model 2 PSAs worked across a group of
schools providing one-to-one support to
parents, running parenting classes and
increasing opportunities for adult and family
learning. Model 3 PSAs worked in one school
but supported families of pupils who had been,
or were likely to be, excluded. Some of each
model of PSA were also given their own
budgets to use to buy services and equipment
to support families.
CEDAR's evaluation found that PSAs offered a
wide range of support to parents, ranging from
informal support, through individual and group
support, to intensive support for parents in
substantial need. This intensive support
sometimes highlighted a local gap in specialist
services for adults, particularly around support
for adult mental health. A minority of PSAs
were supporting children rather than parents.
The majority of PSAs were female and mainly
supported mothers. Views about the relative
lack of support for fathers were explored in the
final stage of the evaluation.
In The Children's Plan (DCSF, 2007), published
in December 2007 during the final phase of the
evaluation, the government announced
funding to expand Parent Support Advisers to
cover 10-15 schools in every local authority in
England.
The final report of the evaluation will present
findings from the third phase interviews with
PSAs and their managers, plus more
quantitative data on the impact of PSAs,
including analysis of a questionnaire to PSA line
managers (mainly headteachers or deputy
headteachers), and of a database completed at
LA level designed to capture important
information about the pupils and parents with
whom the PSAs were involved, including pupil
outcomes such as attendance and exclusions. In
addition, the final report will incorporate a
national analysis of pupil outcomes
(attendance, exclusions, attainment) in the PSA
schools compared to all other schools. This
additional work means publication of the final
report is now due in summer 2009.
References:
Department for Children, Schools and
Families, 2007. The Children’s Plan. Building
Brighter Futures. Norwich: TSO (The
Stationery Office)
HM Treasury and Department for Education
and Skills, 2005. Support for Parents: The
Best Start for Children. Norwich: HMSO.
Lindsay, Geoff, Cullen, Mairi Ann, Band,
Sue, Cullen, Stephen, Davis, Liz, Davis,
Hilton, 2008. Parent Support Advisor Pilot
Evaluation. Second Interim report. Research
Report DCSF-RR037. Nottingham: DCSF
Publications. Available online at
http://www.dcsf.gov.uk/publications - search
for DCSF-RR037.
CEDAR Newsletter...CEDAR Newsletter...CEDAR Newsletter..
CEDAR... New projects
Lamb Inquiry
into parents'
confidence with
the system for
children and
young people
with special
educational needs
Nick Peacey (University of London, Institute of
Education - ULIE) and Geoff Lindsay (CEDAR)
have been appointed consultants to the Lamb
Inquiry together with Penelope Brown (ULIE).
This project is due to report in the autumn 2009.
Evaluation of the impact of DCSFfunded investment in initiatives
designed to improve teacher
workforce skills in relation to SEN
and Disabilities, 2008-2011
This DCSF-funded study is multi-faceted and
includes evaluation of several initiatives to
support the teaching workforce to work with
children and young people with SEN. These
include the Inclusion Development Programme
for those in the teaching workforce and new
support materials and specialist placements for
those in initial teacher training. We shall also
be studying the development and
implementation of the Stammering Information
Programme developed at the Michael Palin
Centre and specialist training for teachers of
pupils with sensory impairment.
Directed by Professor Geoff Lindsay (CEDAR)
and Professor Julie Dockrell (University of
London, Institute of Education) the team
includes Dr Steve Strand, Mairi Ann Cullen
and Dr Stephen Cullen and Professor Seamus
Hegarty (all CEDAR), Professor Morag Stewart
(ULIE), Dr Dimitra Hartas (Warwick Institute of
Education), and Christ Hasluck (IER).
Parenting Early TDA RSC
Intervention
project
Programme
CEDAR
Seminars
Details of forthcoming
seminars and events
will be posted on the
CEDAR website:
www.warwick.ac.uk/fac/soc/CEDAR
2
Following our evaluation of the Parenting
Early Intervention Pathfinder (2006-08) in 18
LAs the government is funding an extension
across the whole country. Our evaluation of
this initiative funded by DCSF will last until
March 2011. It will examine the whole, large
scale project but include a focus on the new
parenting programmes DCSF will allow LAs to
use in addition to the three studied in the
Pathfinder. We shall be carrying out the same
approach as with the Pathfinder, examining
both process issues (e.g. LA implementation)
and outcomes. In addition we shall be
following up parents one year after they
complete their groups.
The project is directed by Professor Geoff
Lindsay and the team comprises Professor
Hilton Davis (Kings College London), Professor
Jane Barlow (Warwick Medical School) and
Chris Hasluck (Warwick Institute for
Employment Research) together with Dr Steve
Strand, Dr Ray Evans, Mairi Ann Cullen, Sue
Band and Dr Stephen Cullen all from CEDAR.
Since January we have worked on a project
for The Training and Development Agency for
Schools to examine the Learning and
Performance Network (LPN) of the Royal
Shakespeare Company. Through its hub and
cluster model involving 250 schools, the LPN
promotes active ways of teaching
Shakespeare’s plays with teachers, both
primary and secondary. This initiative is not
purely about teaching Shakespeare’s plays,
but about developing pedagogy. Lead
teachers from each school cluster do a
practice-based postgraduate certificate in the
Teaching of Shakespeare at the University of
Warwick. One element of this is an action
research project. TDA was interested in how
this programme can inform its development
of the new Masters in Teaching and Learning
being trialled this autumn. We have used
surveys, a review of action research reports
and case studies to assess the experience of
participants in the LPN.
The project is led by Professor Jonothan
Neelands of Warwick’s Institute of Education,
working with Professor Geoff Lindsay and Dr
Sheila Galloway from CEDAR .
. CEDAR Newsletter...CEDAR Newsletter...CEDAR Newsletter...C
Birmingham Royal Ballet
and Joint Birmingham Youth
Services Project: Evaluation
Sheila Galloway
Sheila Galloway
In a new partnership between Birmingham
Royal Ballet and Joint Birmingham Youth
Services young people aged 13 to 19 are being
offered the chance to participate, create, lead
and watch dance activities and to learn about
all aspects of producing performances. The
project aims to inspire and develop confidence
and understanding and to help participants to
achieve their full potential. Potential learning
outcomes include changes in self-esteem, team
building and other core skills, and young people
will play a part in developing and managing the
project through a consultative focus group.
Encouraged by Birmingham City and initiated
by Birmingham Royal Ballet’s Department for
Learning, this work builds on the company’s
experience in the successful 2006 ‘Ballet Hoo’
programme, televised by Channel 4.
In the spring of 2009 the programme
was developed around the company's recent
production of David Bintley's very popular 'Still
Life'. 'Taster' workshops in five youth clubs and
centres saw dancers and musicians working
with young people to prepare for a
performance at the end of May at The
Hippodrome's Patrick Centre. This was 'Still
Life: A Celebration'. From mid 2009 there will
be the chance to take part in a major new
production by young people for young people.
This will be produced alongside the
company's new production of 'Cinderella' by
Artistic Director David Bintley.
Participants are chosen and supported by Joint
Birmingham Youth Services staff, particularly in
gaining accreditation for those who wish it.
Dancers, technical and administrative staff from
Birmingham Royal Ballet are working with the
young people in different ways to give direct
experience of the sector and the range of skills
needed in the creative industries. This project
also offers professional development
opportunities to the adults involved, aiming to
develop capacity within the company and
within the Joint Youth Services.
CEDAR’s evaluation of the project includes the
project partners, participants, funding bodies
and artists and will consider how far the
programme achieves the aims which it has for
young people in the city and for the main
partner organisations. Sheila Galloway and
Jonothan Neelands are pleased in this case to
be able to log the programme’s development
from its inception to the final production. Our
substantial existing portfolio of research and
evaluation on innovative arts-related initiatives,
both regional and national, is being extended
by this work with Birmingham Royal Ballet.
Evaluation of Rosetta
Life partnership projects
Sheila Galloway
Rosetta Life is recognised as a UK leader in
delivering innovative arts activities to people
receiving Palliative Care. Its programme gives
opportunities for creative expression to people
with life-threatening diseases. This involves a
variety of art forms and different platforms to
share their artistic output, from live events in
the hospice community and at public venues, to
dissemination on-line. The programme has
previously drawn on acclaimed artists, who
have worked with hospice users. The NHS PanBirmingham Palliative Care Network is
supporting Rosetta Life activities with an
evaluation of its work, focusing on three
partnership strands in 2008-09. These are:
쎱
A drama project involving three hospices
and Birmingham Repertory Theatre.
3
쎱
쎱
Movement projects with a Midlands Respite
Care Home and a community forum for
people living with MS, and with service users
living with Motor Neurone Disease.
A documentary film about living with lifethreatening disease around the clock.
This collaboration between Sheila Galloway of
CEDAR and Professor Gillian Hundt of
Warwick’s Institute of Health includes Claudette
Bryanston, a freelance theatre director and
CAPITAL Fellow, and Maria Stuttaford, an
independent researcher in health and social
care and Associate Research Fellow in the
Institute of Health.
The project will take account of recent research
and evaluation in the area of the arts and
health. The multi-disciplinary team will
쎱
evaluate the impact on the health and wellbeing of participants in Rosetta Life activities
쎱
explore the artistic process
쎱
seek to understand the experience of
participating in these activities for
participants, families, carers and artists
쎱
assess the effect of performances on the
audience.
Methods include focus groups and interviews
with different participants, staff and artists, and
observation and feedback from audiences and
staff.
CEDAR Newsletter...CEDAR Newsletter...CEDAR Newsletter...
Parenting Early
Intervention
Pathfinder
Geoff Lindsay
Geoff Lindsay
During 2006-08 we evaluated the Parenting Early
Intervention Pathfinder (PEIP). This was one of
several DCSF- funded projects designed as part
of the Respect Agenda Plan to support parents
and to improve the behaviour of children and
young people. In the case of PEIP the focus was
on parents of children 8-13 as a gap in support
at this age period had been identified. This DCSF
project involved the funding of 18 local authorities
(LAs) to implement one of three evidence-based
parenting programmes: Incredible Years, Triple P
and Strengthening Families Strengthening
Communities. These parenting programmes
had a number of similarities but also differences
in their content, structure, training
requirements and length. However, all were
designed to support parents to develop their
skills and confidence as parents. The DCSF
allocated each programme to six LAs and the
study also had two LAs (a third LA had
declined) as non-funded comparisons.
allowed us to examine change over the period
of the programme. We examined the parents’
perceptions of the behaviour of their target child,
their own mental well-being and two measures
of parenting: one assessed over-reactivity and
laxness, the other assessed parents' sense of
their satisfaction with being a parent and their
efficacy.
The results indicated highly significant
improvements on all scales which indicated
substantial positive effects. In addition, parents
indicated in general a very positive opinion of
their group experience.
We examined cost effectiveness by analysing
both number of groups run and parents
supported by each LA and compared these
with the DCSF grant support they had received.
In addition we were able to compare the
effectiveness and cost effectiveness of the three
programmes. Interestingly, overall, the three
programmes were of comparable effectiveness.
Cost effectiveness, however, did vary, with
Incredible Years showing lower cost effectiveness.
This was the most intensive/longest
programme, a factor that was a major
contributor to its cost. Some LA's delivering
Incredible Years invested some of their funding
in developing key staff which at least in the
short term, adjusted cost effectiveness.
However, it is important to stress that the study
was short term and we do not therefore know
what the longer term outcomes will be.
which provide more details about the process
evaluation. Our evidence of the positive impact
of the PEIP was used by DCSF to gain ministerial
support for funding a further roll out across the
whole of the country (150 LAs). I am pleased
to say that we were successful in our proposal
to evaluate this new project - see New Projects.
As a final point, it is interesting to reflect on this
study as an example of research informing
policy. The original three programmes were
selected by DCSF following a literature review
(by other researchers). This led to a Pathfinder
study in 18 LAs. The issue here was not ‘do
these programmes work?’ - the earlier research
had shown there was good evidence of their
effectiveness. The point of the Pathfinder was
to examine whether they still worked as
effectively when rolled out on a large scale and
also to explore the support systems that
optimised their delivery by LAs. Finally, the
evaluation of the national roll out will examine
what happens when new programmes are
included, the scale becomes national (150
compared with 18 LAs) and LAs are given more
freedom to develop their parenting
programmes as part of a wider strategy to
support parents with different types and levels
of need. The DCSF new agenda ‘Think Family’
includes the new Parenting Early Intervention
Programme as well as other initiatives: the
focus is on supporting families as a whole
rather than, as often happens, independent
actions with children and parents.
A combined methods approach was taken to
this research into the effectiveness of the PEIP
as a whole. We examined the processes
whereby LAs implemented PEIP and the
structures and internal support systems they set
up. About half way through the project DCSF
asked us to extend the research to examine in
more detail the relationship between PEIP and
the development of extended schools. The
services offered by extended schools included
parent support and we found there was a
positive and interactive development involving
the two: schools were often encouraging
Our reports on the Pathfinder project are as
Our research has been published in both a
parents to attend, hosting parenting sessions,
below.
substantial
final
report
and
also
interim
reports
school staff were often trained to be group
facilitators and use of the parenting programme
allowed a school to meet some obligations
aLinks:
under its core offer by supporting parents.
Final Report
We undertook a large number of interviews with
Research Report DCSF-RW054 on DCSF website
LA strategic leads, LA operational leads, group
http://www.dcsf.gov.uk/research/data/uploadfiles/dcsf-rw054.pdf
facilitators, parents, head teachers, and other
professionals. We also examined policy and other
documents and explored how the PEIP fitted in
with the LA's evolving parenting strategy. Our
qualitative examination of these processes
provided a rich and varied evidence base regarding
the development of the PEIP in these 18 LAs.
We also conducted a study of the effectiveness
and cost effectiveness of the PEIP. For the former
we asked parents to complete questionnaires at
the start and end of their programme. This
Additional Study of the Involvement of Extended Schools
Research Report DCSF-RW036 on DCSF website.
http://www.dcsf.gov.uk/research/data/uploadfiles/dcsf-rw036.pdf
2nd Interim Report
Research Report DCSF-RW035 on DCSF website.
http://www.dcsf.gov.uk/research/data/uploadfiles/dcsf-rw035.pdf
1st Interim Report
http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/fac/soc/cedar/projects/completed08/peip
4
CEDAR Newsletter...CEDAR Newsletter...CEDAR Newsletter..
Effective and efficient use of resources
in services for children and young
people with speech, language and
communication needs.
Geoff Lindsay
of weakness (Law, et al, 2000).
The Secretaries of State for Children, Schools
and Families, and for Health, invited John
Our key findings were as follows:
Bercow MP to lead an independent review of
쎱 There is substantial variation in service
services for children and young people with
SLCN. The Department for Children, Schools
provision and practice across the six case
and Families commissioned a review to provide
studies.
empirical evidence to assist the Review Group's
쎱 Terminology and categorisation of needs
deliberations. The study was undertaken by
also vary, undermining consistency and
Professor Geoff Lindsay and Dr Martin
rendering assessment of the efficiency and
Desforges (CEDAR), Professor Julie Dockrell and
effectiveness of different arrangements
Nick Peacey (Institute of Education, London),
problematic.
Professor James Law (Queen Margaret
University) and Professor Jennifer Beecham (LSE) 쎱 Although LAs are data rich and these data
over the period March to June 2008.
are also available in aggregated form to
explore the national picture, this resource is
The research explored these two issues:
under-exploited at present; Primary Care
i) Whether there is evidence on which to base
Trusts lack such an extensive resource.
recommendations to improve the effective
쎱 There is a lack of integration of data from
and efficient use of resources in services for
LAs and PCTs.
children and young people with speech
language and communication difficulties
쎱 LAs and PCTs differ in terms of the
(SLCD); and
coherence of the integration of education
and health services: the development of
ii) The feasibility of a cost benefit analysis for
integrated practice remains under
investment in services for this group of
developed; where there is such integration,
young people.
the results appear positive.
The main method used was the examination of
쎱 The lack of agreement about terminology,
six Local Authority (LA) and Primary Care Trust
the lack of effective data collection and
(PCT) case studies. Interviews were held with
analysis systems and the lack of targeted
the senior LA manager for special educational
research and evaluation studies of
needs and the PCT senior manager for speech
interventions seriously restricts any individual
and language therapy in each case study. A
LA/PCT pair in assessing effectiveness and
further 23 interviews were held with heads of
efficiency.
schools or specialist provision for SLCD. Policy
documents were also examined.
쎱 It is not possible, at present, to assess the
efficiency and effectiveness of different
Our study focussed on the ways in which
arrangements for organising and providing
children with SLCD are being supported in the
six case studies, selected to represent different
types of LA/PCT pairs e.g. urban/rural,
geographic spread and prevalence of children
with SLCN. Our main focus was on children
and young people with a primary language
difficulty rather than those for whom language
difficulties were associated with other
developmental problems such as hearing
impairment. However, we were particularly
interested in how the LA or PCT collaborated as
an earlier study involving James Law, Nick
Peacey and myself had identified this as an area
5
services for children and young people with
SLCN.
쎱
At present there is a lack of evidence on cost
effectiveness from studies; in addition, there
is a lack of suitable data available, or at least
used in practice, within LAs and PCTs.
This was a relatively short and intensive research
study as it had to fit into the timescale of the
Review. We reported our findings to the
Review Group to aid their deliberations. As a
result, we were asked to provide additional
guidance to John Bercow and the Review
Group on the development of their report. In
addition to our empirical work we also provided
advice on the research evidence available that
was pertinent to the Review's terms of
reference.
This project was challenging as there was such
a short timescale but it was also very rewarding
as we were able to feed in our results and
recommendations directly into the Review's
report. Furthermore, Ed Balls, Secretary of
State, took a personal interest and assured John
Bercow that his Review's findings would be
acted upon and that has indeed been the case:
the DCSF has produced an action plan to
address the Bercow Review’s recommendations.
This was also an example of an area of policy
development that had cross party support
exemplified by the responses to the All Party
Parliamentary Group on Speech and Language
Difficulties by Ed Balls and spokespersons for
both the Conservative (Michael Gove MP) and
Liberal Democrats (David Law MP).
Links:
Links below will access our own report1, the Bercow Review 2 and the DCSF action plan3
� Lindsay, G., Desforges, M., Dockrell, J., Law, J., Peacey, N., & Beecham, J. (2008). Effective
and efficient use of resources in services for children and young people with speech,
language and communication needs. CDSF-RW053, Nottingham: DCSF.
http://www.dcsf.gov.uk/research/data/uploadfiles/DCSF-RW053.pdf
� http://www.dcsf.gov.uk/slcnaction/downloads/7771-DCSF-BERCOW.pdf
� http://www.dcsf.gov.uk/slcnaction/downloads/Better_Communication_Final.pdf
.. CEDAR Newsletter...CEDAR Newsletter...CEDAR Newsletter...
CEDAR Staff: Research interests are as follows
Director:
Geoff LINDSAY
Senior Research Fellows:
Susan BAND
Associate Fellows:
Martin DESFORGES
Special needs and inclusive education,
quantitative methods, baseline assessment,
ethical dilemmas.
Higher education, employee development,
special needs, evaluation, qualitative research,
lifelong learning, education in the performing
arts.
Special educational needs, inclusion, the needs
of minority ethnic groups.
Reader:
Steve STRAND
Educational assessment, the use of assessment
data to support teaching and learning and the
analysis of differential pupil progress and school
effectiveness.
Principal Research Fellow:
Sheila GALLOWAY
Continuing professional development, workbased learning, supply teaching, research on
arts education, the cultural sector and the
creative industries. Qualitative research
methods.
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
Raymond EVANS
The needs of and provision for looked after
children and of disaffected young people.
Chrystalla KALOYIROU
Bullying at school.
Mel LLOYD-SMITH
Special educational needs
The visual arts and education.
Secondary school education, adult education,
gifted and talented education.
Niki PHILLIPS
Honorary Professor:
Seamus HEGARTY
Anne SHEPPARD
Support for parents and parenting
programmes.
Gifted and talented education.
Dyslexia.
Margaret THREADGOLD
Secondary education.
Gail TREML
Special educational needs.
CEDAR
Fax No: 02476 524472
E-mail: J.P.McElroy@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