the sutton trust – eef (2013) provides practical advice ... · web viewwhich . disadvantaged...
Post on 18-Jul-2018
213 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
Student (SID) Number: 1236168
Anglia Ruskin University
Faculty of Health and Social Care and Education
Department: Education
MA (Education)
Module Code: MOD003704
Module Title: Key Issues and Themes in Education
Pupil Premium: Closing the attainment gap between disadvantaged
pupils and their more affluent peers – a literature review.
30 Credits
Submitted May 2014
SID: 1236168
Contents Page
Abbreviations 3
Introduction and aims 4
What is Pupil Premium? 6
OECD – PISA 2012 13
Finnish Lessons 18
What role can schools play in narrowing the achievement gap? 21
The Sutton Trust – EEF Teaching and Learning Toolkit 26
Conclusion 45
References 49
2
SID: 1236168
Abbreviations
DFES: Department for Education and Schools
EAL: English as an Additional Language
EEF: Education Endowment Foundation
FSM: Free School Meals
G&T: Gifted and Talented
OECD: Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development
PISA: Programme for International Student Assessment
SEN: Special Educational Needs
TA: Teaching Assistant
3
SID: 1236168
Introduction and Aims
Pupil Premium was a term that I was unfamiliar with. It was whilst analysing the
exam results of my most recent cohort of students that it was suggested that I
reviewed the performance of my “Pupil Premium” students. I consider myself a
conscientious teacher that routinely monitors and intervenes with students that are
identified as either having special educational needs (SEN), English as and an
additional language (EAL), gifted and talented (G&T) or identified as
underperforming, however, I realised that not only did I not fully appreciate what
Pupil Premium was I did not know which students in my classes were identified as
eligible for Pupil Premium funding. My initial thought was that if these students did
not have specific learning needs, what can be done to support and raise the
attainment of this particular group of students?
It seems I was not alone in my ignorance; “a recent survey by the Sutton Trust found
that a quarter of teachers did not know what the money should be spent on at all, a
further 8% said they would just use the money to compensate for cuts elsewhere in
the budget. Others said they would spend the money on things such as reducing
class sizes to around 25 pupils, or hiring new teaching assistants. While these
programs are well intentioned, academic research shows they do not have very big
impact on student attainment” (Clifton 2013, p.21).
There is a wealth of information regarding pupil premium available with information
and advice on policy at national, local and school level. However, my ultimate focus
will be on what can be done at a classroom level to support Pupil Premium students
in secondary schools.
4
SID: 1236168
As such, the aims of this literature review are to:
Understand what Pupil Premium is and consider who is eligible.
Review how schools across the country are spending Pupil Premium funding
to close the attainment gap between disadvantaged pupils and their more
affluent peers.
Make international comparisons specifically of the performance of
disadvantaged pupils in relation to their peers and what successful countries
have done to close the attainment gap.
Investigate the most effective strategies to improve the attainment of students
eligible for Pupil Premium in a secondary school classroom.
5
SID: 1236168
What is Pupil Premium?
The Pupil Premium was introduced in 2011 by the Coalition Government. The DFES
(2014) explains that Pupil Premium is additional funding paid to both mainstream
and non-mainstream schools, such as special schools and pupil referral units, in
respect of their disadvantaged pupils. These include pupils:
Who have been registered for free school meals (FSM) at any point in the last
six years
Who have been looked after continuously by the local authority for more than
six months
Whose parents are currently serving in the armed forces. (The service
premium is designed to address the emotional and social well-being of these
pupils and will not be discussed directly in this literature review.)
Schools receive this funding in addition to their school budget to support their eligible
pupils and to narrow the attainment gap between disadvantaged pupils and their
more affluent peers.
Accountability
According to the DFES (2014) schools are free to spend the Pupil Premium as they
see fit. However, they are accountable for how they use the additional funding to
support these pupils. The achievement of students who attract Pupil Premium is
published in performance tables and schools are also required to publish online
specific information about the Pupil Premium so that parents and others have access
to meaningful and appropriate information. Ofsted also now reports on the effective
use of Pupil Premiums in schools and according to the DFES (2014) schools in
6
SID: 1236168
which disadvantaged pupils do particularly poorly, will be “expected to work with a
system leader with expertise in closing attainment gaps, to improve ahead of re-
inspection”.
Ever6
The DFES (2013, p.5) states that evidence shows that “poverty is the single most
important factor in predicting a child’s future life chances.” The DFES (2013, p1-2)
further explains that “FSM is the only pupil level measure of deprivation available
and the link between FSM eligibility and underachievement is strong and data on
FSM is easily collected and updated annually... Children who have been eligible for
FSM at any point in the past generally have poorer academic results than those who
have never been eligible for FSM.” As there is also “under-reporting of FSM
amongst secondary school pupils, extending eligibility to those eligible for FSM in the
past six years means that a child previously registered in the last year of primary
education will remain eligible for the Premium up to year 11.” The decision to widen
the coverage of the Premium to include those eligible for FSM at any point in the last
six years (known as the Ever 6 FSM measure) was introduced in April 2012 and is
estimated to include an extra 555,000 pupils (Ofsted 2012, p.8).
How much is Pupil Premium?
Ofsted (2012, p.7 ) explain that total funding has increased from £625m in 2011-12
to £1.25bn in 2012-13. According to Ofsted (2012, p.7) up to £50m of the £1.25bn
was used to support a summer school programme to help the most disadvantaged
pupils make the transition from primary to secondary school. The DFES (2014) state
that funding rose to £1.875bn in 2013-14. The level of Pupil Premium per pupil has
risen from £488 in 2011-12, £623 in 2012-13 to £900 for each eligible secondary-
7
SID: 1236168
aged pupil and £953 for each primary-aged pupil in 2013-14. According to
information published by the DFES (2014) in the 2014 to 2015 financial year, Pupil
Premium funding will increase to £1,300 for each eligible primary-aged pupil and
£935 for each eligible secondary-aged pupil. Funding to support looked-after
children will increase to £1,900 for each eligible pupil. The DFES (2014) states that
eligibility for funding will be extended to all children who:
have been looked after for 1 day or more
were adopted from care on or after 30 December 2005
left care under a Special Guardianship Order on or after 30 December 2005 or
a Residence Order on or after 14 October 1991
Pupil premium figures are based on the number of FSM pupils on each school’s roll
on January school census day (DFES 2014).
According to the Pupil Premium 2011-12 school tables published by the DFES the
average amount of Pupil Premium Funding received by all schools nationally in
2011-12 was £30,940 and the median was £19,520. An average-sized secondary
school with the average proportion of pupils eligible for FSM would have received
around £77,000. However, for many schools the Pupil Premium represents only a
relatively small proportion of their overall budget. An illustration of individual school
funding based on responses from 142 school leaders responding to additional
questions at inspection is shown in Figure 1.
8
SID: 1236168
Figure 1: Variation of funding levels received by the schools surveyed
(no. of schools)
(Ofsted, 2012, p.8)
How are schools using the Pupil Premium funding to raise achievement for
disadvantaged pupils?
In September 2012 Ofsted published a report (Ref: 120197) based on the views of
262 school leaders gathered through inspections and telephone interview
questionnaires conducted by Her Majesty’s Inspectors. The aim of the survey was to
identify how schools were using their Pupil Premium money to raise achievement
and improve outcomes for their disadvantaged pupils. According to the report
“school leaders often expressed concern that the funding was not truly ‘additional’
but replaced other funding streams that had been withdrawn.” In addition “schools
stated that Pupil Premium funding did not cover the costs of the initiatives that they
undertook to support disadvantaged or vulnerable pupils... The survey found the
range of uses that a school made of its Pupil Premium funding often depended on
the total amount it received (Ofsted 2012, p.9). Uses of Pupil Premium is illustrated
9
SID: 1236168
in Figure 2. “The most common use of the Pupil Premium reported by school
leaders was to fund existing or new staff, who were often involved in a range of one-
to-one or small-group tuition provision” (Ofsted 2012, p.10).
Figure 2: ‘What is the Pupil Premium funding being used for in your
school?’ (Based on multiple answers provided by 119 school leaders
responding to the telephone survey and 142 school leaders responding to
additional questions at inspection.)
Exam entries
Motivational
Buildings
School assessment & tracking
Staff CPD
Support for specific groups
Uniform and equipment
Out of school hours care
Non-academic intervention
Small group tuition
Additional curriculum
Subsidising trips
1:1 tuition
Staff
2
8
10
10
12
32
40
44
56
81
83
84
100
204
(Ofsted, 2012 p.10)
According to Ofsted (2012, p.10-11) “around three quarters of school leaders said
that they had used the Pupil Premium to fund staffing in one or more areas”, as
shown in Figure 3. “Often, they said that the funding had allowed them to maintain
or enhance current levels of staffing rather than to create entirely new roles.”
10
SID: 1236168
Figure 3: ‘What is the Pupil Premium funding being used for in your
school?’ (types of staffing) Based on multiple answers provided by 119
school leaders responding to the telephone survey and 142 school leaders
responding to additional questions at inspection.
Additional leaders
Physical, speech & language specialists
Attendance workers
Inclusion managers
Counsellors
Parent support workers
Behaviour support workers
Mentors
Teachers
Teaching assistants
9
10
12
16
20
23
23
37
72
113
(Ofsted, 2012, p.11)
In the autumn term 2012, Ofsted followed up the findings of their initial survey by
visiting a range of primary and secondary schools to see how effectively the schools
were spending the funding to maximise achievement. According to this Ofsted
report inspectors found that “however much funding the schools had, there were
common characteristics to the most successful spending – spending that had led to
standards rising and opportunities broadening for the most disadvantaged pupils”.
An overview of their findings is published in report no.130016; The Pupil Premium:
How schools are spending the funding to successfully maximise achievement.
11
SID: 1236168
For schools to maximise the impact they can make on the attainment and progress
their students, it is advisable for schools, local authorities and governments to look
beyond their door step and not only contemplate the national comparisons provided
by Ofsted but also to appreciate what governments and schools are doing
internationally, and seek inspiration where success is apparent.
12
SID: 1236168
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) – PISA
2012
The Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) is a triennial
international survey which aims to evaluate education systems worldwide by testing
the skills and knowledge of 15-year-old students. PISA’s most recent survey in 2012
focussed on mathematics, with reading, science, problem-solving and financial
literacy but also examines how well students can extrapolate from what they have
learned and can apply that knowledge in unfamiliar settings. 65 countries
participated, representing over 80% of the world economy as illustrated in Figure 4.
The survey assessed the extent to which around 510,000 15-year old students
across the world had acquired knowledge and skills that are essential for full
participation in modern societies. According to PISA (2012, p.3) “results reveal what
is possible in education by showing what students in the highest performing and
most rapidly improving education systems can do”. PISA allows governments and
educators to identify effective policies that they can adapt to their local contexts.
13
SID: 1236168
Figure 4: Map of PISA 2012 countries and economies (PISA 2012, p.8)
PISA - Key Findings
The results from PISA 2012 (p.1) show that “the United Kingdom performs around
the average in mathematics and reading and above average in Science, compared
with the 34 OECD countries that participated in the 2012 PISA assessment of 15-
year olds... When compared with PISA 2006 and PISA 2009, there has been no
change in performance of any of the subjects tested... The United Kingdom is listed
26th in mathematics performance. Its performance is similar to Czech Republic,
Denmark, France, Iceland, Republic of Ireland, Latvia, Luxembourg, New Zealand,
Norway and Portugal. The United Kingdom has higher GDP and spends more on
education than the average in OECD Countries, as well as higher levels of tertiary
education and a lower share of the most socio-economically deprived groups.
However, these comparative advantages do not have a clear relationship with
educational outcomes. As in many other countries, socio-economically
14
SID: 1236168
disadvantaged students in the United Kingdom are less likely to succeed at school
than their more advantaged peers. However, some countries are more successful
than the United Kingdom in reducing the influence of socio-economic status on
student performance.” The question is what are these countries doing to close the
attainment gap and can these strategies be applied to education systems in the
United Kingdom?
PISA 2012 (p.4) found that “across OECD countries, 15% of the variation in student
performance in mathematics is attributed to differences in students’ socio-economic
status”. They continue to explain that a more socio-economically advantaged
student scores higher in mathematics – the equivalent of nearly one year of
schooling – than a less-advantaged student. A similar pattern was found in the
United Kingdom. Clifton (2013, p.20) also reports that “children from poorer homes
currently score about half as well as their wealthier peers at GCSE. As a result they
find it harder to go onto further education, get into a good university and
subsequently get a decent job”. PISA 2012 (p.13) suggests that this pattern may be
“because advantaged families are better able to reinforce and enhance the effects of
schools, because students from advantaged families attend higher quality schools,
or because schools are simply better equipped to nurture and develop young people
from advantaged backgrounds.” Despite this, it is interesting to note that “Australia,
Canada, Estonia, Finland, Hong Kong-China, Japan, Korea, Liechtenstein and
Macao-China achieve both high levels of performance and an above-average level
of equity in education outcomes in PISA 2012.” Further investigation of policy in
these countries could provide valuable insight on how to further close the attainment
gap between disadvantaged students and their more affluent peers.
15
SID: 1236168
“Across OECD countries, some 26% of disadvantaged students – the equivalent of
7% of the entire student population – are “resilient”, meaning that they beat the
socio-economic odds against them and exceed expectations, when compared with
students of a similar socio-economic background in other countries” (PISA 2012,
p.4). The United Kingdom’s figures are in line with these averages however, it is
worth highlighting that students in some countries are more successful in beating the
odds against them. “For example, in Hong Kong-China, Korea, Macao-China,
Shanghai-China, Singapore and Viet Nam, more than half of disadvantaged
students, or 13% of the overall student population, are resilient” (PISA 2012, p.4).
PISA 2012 (p.5) found that in general students in the UK and across the OECD
countries lacked intrinsic motivation. They explain that “intrinsic motivation refers to
the drive to perform an activity because of the pleasure and interest in the activity
itself.” PISA 2012 (p.5) also found that across most countries and economies, socio-
economically disadvantaged students were less engaged with school, had less drive
and motivation to learn, and held negative self-beliefs about their ability to learn. It
would therefore make sense to encourage the use of any strategies that promote
engagement and motivation in the classroom. PISA 2012 (p.22) suggests that
“education systems can also promote motivation to learn by ensuring that all
students are surrounded by excellence.” Such methods would benefit all students
and not just those that are disadvantaged. However, understanding that deprived
students are more likely to fail due to lack of drive may allow the teacher to focus her
attention accordingly.
16
SID: 1236168
PISA 2012 (p.4) found that “punctuality and attendance at school have strong
associations with performance across all countries.” In particular they found that
“disadvantaged students tended to be more likely to report that they had arrived late
or skipped classes” (PISA 2012, p.5). Whilst in many schools there is an attendance
officer that monitors and intervenes where necessary with issues relating to
punctuality and attendance, in my own experience it is essential that the individual
teachers closely monitors, reports and intervenes at a classroom level before these
poor habits have a major impact.
17
SID: 1236168
Finnish Lessons
Despite the many barriers that schools face in raising attainment it is encouraging to
read that “some high-performing countries in PISA 2012, like Estonia and Finland,
show small variations in student scores, proving that high performance is possible for
all students” (PISA 2012, p.9). Sahlberg (2012, p.20) explains that “Finland is
special because it has been able to create an educational system where students
learn well and where equitable education has translated into little variation in student
performance between schools in different parts of the country.” He further surmises
that “the equitable Finnish education system is a result of systematic attention to
social justice and early intervention to help those with special needs, and close
interplay between education and other sectors – particularly health and social
sectors – in Finnish society... Complimentary school lunches, comprehensive welfare
services, and early support to those in need have been made available to all children
in all Finnish schools – free of charge”.
Accoring to Sahlberg (2012, p.22) Finland introduced a new comprehensive school
system termed Peruskoulu in 1972 and abolished ability grouping in all school
subjects. Career guidance and counselling became a compulsory part of the
comprehensive school curriculum in all schools. Sahlberg (2012, p.22) continues to
explain that “career guidance was intended to minimize the possibility that students
would make inappropriate choices regarding their futures” Peruskoulu also “required
that teachers employ alternative instructional methods, design learning environments
that enable differentiated learning for different pupils, and perceive teaching as a
high profession” (Sahlberg, 2012, p.23). Education reform in 1979 also placed
emphasis on professional development and research-based teacher education. “It
18
SID: 1236168
was assumed very early in Finland’s reform process that instruction is the key
element that makes a difference in what students learn at school, not standards,
assessments or alternative instruction programs.” The belief is that “the success of a
high-stakes testing policy is determined by whether it positively affects student
learning, not whether it increases student scores on a particular test” (Sahlberg,
2012, p.23). Unfortunately, I believe that there is pressure on many teachers in UK
schools to focus on exam preparation rather that fully prepare students for life.
Indeed this feeling is reiterated considerably in the press. The Telegraph published
an article in 2008 stating that “children are missing out on a well-rounded education
as schools ‘teach to the test’ to inflate their position on national league tables,
according to Ofsted”.
“Finland adopted a strategy of early intervention and prevention to help those
individuals who have special educational needs of some kind. This means that
possible learning and development deficits are diagnosed and addressed during
early childhood development and care, before children enter school” (Sahlberg,
2012, p.24). Finland also dramatically reduced the number of students repeating a
school year as not only was it deemed an inefficient way of promoting learning, it
was deemed demoralising, provided the child with a stigma and promoted social
inequality.
Sahlberg (2012, p.40) explains that “scores of news articles on Finnish education
have concluded that trust, teacher professionalism, and taking care of those with
special needs are the factors that distinguish Finnish schools from most others”.
However, as Stuart Kauffman states (as cited in Sahlberg 2012, p.40) “separate
elements of a complex system rarely function adequately in isolation from their
19
SID: 1236168
original system in a new environment” -a noteworthy point when drawing conclusions
in a literature review such as this!
20
SID: 1236168
What role can schools play in narrowing the achievement gap?
Clifton and Cook (2012, p4) explains that “a child’s educational development is
influenced by a complex range of factors, including their individual characteristics,
the wider family environment, the neighbourhood where they live and the schools
they attend. This has led to a longstanding and fierce debate about the role that
schools specifically can play in narrowing the achievement gap. On one side,
commentators argue that the factors influencing low attainment lie outside the control
of individual schools, and that it is not possible for them to overcome the wider
problems of poverty and disadvantage. They highlight issues such as
homelessness, poor health, violence and a lack of education materials that cannot
be rectified by schools alone (see for example Cody 2012). On the other side,
commentators point to excellent schools that have succeeded in raising achievement
among disadvantaged students and argue that improving the quality of schools
should be sufficient to narrow the gap. They reference schools like Mossbourne
Community Academy in Hackney to make the case that poverty should not be ‘an
excuse’ for low achievement (see for example Wilshaw 2012a, Dobbie and Fryer
2011).”
The link between deprivation and academic achievement is consistently reported in
the literature. Clifton and Cook (2012, p.7) have clearly illustrated in Figure 5 that
those pupils living in the most deprived postcodes score on average 320 points at
GCSE, or the equivalent of about eight Cs, and the results gradually improve as you
move towards the least deprived postcodes.
21
SID: 1236168
Figure 5: Capped GCSE points by postcode deprivation
(Clifton and Cook, 2012, p7)
Clifton and Cook (2012, p13) further explain that “a key feature of the world’s best
education systems is that they have only a few students performing at a low level
and stretch those at the top”. As Clifton and Cook (2012, p16) have illustrated in
Figure 6 “the UK therefore faces a two-horned challenge both to stretch those at the
top and to raise the performance of those falling behind”. Clifton (2013, p.21) boldly
states that “we need to pay much more attention to supporting those at the bottom.
Sadly these pupils are often not the focus of government performance targets, which
encourage schools to focus more heavily on those pupils likely to get a grade C at
GCSE in traditional subjects”. In my own experience, the majority of intervention
from schools has been placed on C/D borderline students. However, unless the
requirement to publish results in league tables is removed, this is unlikely to change.
22
SID: 1236168
Figure 6: Distribution of GCSE Results by free school meals eligibility
(percentage of pupils) (Clifton and Cook (2012, p16)
Clifton and Cook (2012, p18) explains that “class gaps in education begin very early
in life. This is because children from wealthier families are exposed to more
stimulating environments and a larger vocabulary in their early years, which enables
them to develop their cognitive abilities at a faster rate... we estimate that around half
of the achievement gap we witness at age 16 was already present when these pupils
started secondary school”. This finding has two main implications as summarised by
Clifton and Cook (2012, p19); “First, it will be hard for secondary schools to do all
the work in narrowing the attainment gap – primary schools and early years services
will also have their part to play. Second, it will not be sufficient for secondary
schools to simply ensure that all pupils make equal levels of progress. Rather, they
will have to actively target those pupils who are already falling behind when they
start out in year 7. Targeting pupils who fall behind in late primary school and early
23
SID: 1236168
secondary school will be particularly important, as research shows the attainment
gap widens very quickly between the ages of 7 and 14 (Goodman et al 2010)”.
Clifton (2013, p.20) further explains that a big divide exists even before pupils start
primary school. As a result the UK has seen investment in early years services such
as Sure Start which help children develop and start school on a more equal footing.
Clifton (2013, p.20) states that “evidence from Boston in the US shows that high
quality pre-school programmes, with well trained staff, can help to achieve this
outcome”. The Sutton Trust-EEF (2013) also report an effect of around six months
progress suggesting that quality early years and pre-school intervention is beneficial.
They also state that in particular “disadvantaged children benefit from good quality
programmes, especially where these include a mixture of children from different
social backgrounds, and a strong educational component”.
Michael Wilshaw (2012), the chief inspector of schools argued that “[pupils from
disadvantaged areas] are the very young people most likely to attend a weak school
and receive a substandard education”. It makes sense then for Governments to
concentrate its efforts to improve the overall performance of all schools. However,
as Clifton and Cook (2012, p.21) point out “while policies focused on school
improvement can help to raise overall achievement, they will not be sufficient to
close the attainment gap between rich and poor pupils. This is because although
disadvantaged children get better results in outstanding schools, so do all the other
pupils”. It is clear that poorer pupils perform worse than wealthier pupils whichever
school they are in. As such Clifton and Cook (2012, p24) explain that “policies
designed to reduce educational inequality must therefore focus on tackling the
24
SID: 1236168
variation in results that occurs within each school”. So what can governments and
schools do to tackle this ‘within school variation’?
25
SID: 1236168
The Sutton Trust – Education Endowment Foundation (EEF) Teaching and
Learning Toolkit
Whilst governments can plough funding into disadvantaged schools and schools can
target spending at particular groups of pupils “PISA results show that beyond a
certain level of expenditure per student, excellence in education requires more than
money: how resources are allocated is just as important as the amount of resources
available” (PISA 2012, p.24). In order to help schools spend their budgets effectively
The Sutton Trust-EEF teaching and Learning Toolkit has been developed to provide
guidance for teachers and schools on how best to use their resources to tackle the
variation that exists within schools and improve the attainment of its disadvantaged
pupils.
The Sutton Trust – EEF (2013, p.3) explain that “at school level, it is clear that
different ways of spending school budgets can have very different impacts on pupil
attainment, and choosing what to prioritise is not easy. Even once a decision to
implement a particular strategy has been taken there are a wide variety of factors
which determine its impact. [The Sutton Trust-EEF] believes that educational
research can help schools get the maximum ‘educational bang for their buck’, both in
terms of making an initial choice between strategies, and in implementing a strategy
as effectively as possible.” As a consequence The Sutton Trust-EEF has
researched and developed a Teaching and Learning Toolkit. According to The
Sutton Trust- EEF (2013, p.3) “it is an accessible summary of educational research
which provides guidance for teachers and schools on how to use their resources to
improve the attainment of disadvantaged pupils”. It is this resource that schools are
recommended to engage in prior to allocating their Pupil Premium funding but as
26
SID: 1236168
The Sutton Trust – EEF (2013, p.5) explains “the evidence it contains is a
supplement to rather than a substitute for professional judgement”. A summary of
the most effective approaches to improving pupils’ attainment is illustrated in Figure
7.
Figure 7 A Summary of the Teaching and Learning Toolkit (Higgins et al (2013)
27
SID: 1236168
The Sutton Trust – EEF (2013, p.3-4) provide the following information to help
interpretation of the table in Figure 7 (further detailed information is provided in their
publication):
“Average impact is estimated in terms of additional months progress you
might expect pupils to make as a result of an approach being used in school,
taking average pupil progress over a year is as a benchmark.
Cost estimations are based on the approximate cost of implementing an
approach in a class of twenty five pupils. Where the approach does not
require an additional resource, estimates are based on the cost of training or
professional development which may be required. Approaches marked with £
££ or less could be funded from the 2012-13 pupil premium allocation of £623
per eligible pupil.
Evidence estimates are based on: the availability of evidence (i.e. the number
of systematic reviews or meta-analyses and the quantity of primary studies
which they synthesise); the methodological quality of the primary evidence;
the magnitude of the impact (in terms of effect size); and the reliability or
consistency of this impact across the studies reviewed.”
Whilst there is extensive literature available to inform whole school policy I shall
focus my discussion on strategies that have the most significant and direct impact on
teaching and learning in a secondary classroom.
28
SID: 1236168
Teaching Assistants
Ofsted (2012, p11) reported that “the single most commonly given use of Pupil
Premium funding was to employ teaching assistants. In just over two fifths of
schools the Pupil Premium funding was being used to fund new or existing teaching
assistants and/or higher-level teaching assistants... Teaching assistant support was
commonly being used to maintain or increase support in lessons or to deliver support
through small-group interventions, particularly in literacy and numeracy.” However,
recent research from The Sutton Trust – EEF (2013) has suggested that as TAs
salaries are in the region of £17,000, TAs can have low or very low impact for high
cost. The average impact of teaching assistants is rated as 0 months progress by
The Sutton Trust – EEF (2013). They state that “overall, research shows that
students in a class with a teaching assistant present do not on average outperform
those in one where only a teacher is present”. They continue to explain that
“comparisons with qualified teachers suggest that TAs are consistently less effective
in terms of raising attainment (achieving about half the gains). It is suggested that
where overall negative impacts have been recorded TAs have effectively been
substitutes rather than supplementary to teaching from teachers.”
Conversely, a visiting OECD team confirmed that “the Finnish approaches to
equitable schooling rely on multiple and reinforcing forms of intervention with support
that teachers get from others, including special education teachers and classroom
assistants” (Sahlberg 2012, p.27). Clearly the discussion on the effectiveness and
use of teaching assistants is extensive and contradictory.
The Sutton Trust – EEF (2013) states that “there is some evidence of greater impact
when TAs are given a well-defined pedagogical role or responsibility for delivering
specific interventions, particularly when training and support are provided... There is
29
SID: 1236168
also evidence that pupils’ perceptions and attitudes may be more positively affected,
and also of positive effects in terms of teacher morale and reduced stress of working
with a TA.” From my own experience, working successfully with a TA can have
dramatic impact when trying to co-ordinate more complex activities. However, rather
than simply expecting assistance with managing tasks I fully agree with the advice
from The Sutton Trust – EEF (2013) to identify specific activities where TAs can
support learning as opposed to just ensuring that pupils finish their work. It is also
inherent “that teachers do not reduce their support or input to the pupils supported by
TAs”.
Ofsted (2013, p.14) explain how a primary school located in an area of high socio-
economic deprivation were effective in using TAs to help raise standards. “There
was a clear target for each support strategy led by teaching assistants and they were
fully aware of the difference they needed to make to pupil outcomes. Teaching
assistants had a great deal of responsibility for planning how to reach these targets
and were held to account for the impact of their work with pupils. The teaching
assistants had risen to the challenge of this responsibility and as a result the
strategies to support pupils were inventive, fluid and well matched to pupils’ needs.”
The Sutton Trust-EEF (2013) also encourages schools to provide “support and
training for teachers and TAs so that they understand how to work together
effectively”. I am personally guilty of not always making effective use of the TAs
available to me, either through poor planning or lack of time for me to fully explain
my expectations of their role in my classroom. Ofsted (2013, p.14) suggest
extending or revising the TAs’ hours to enable them to work more closely with
30
SID: 1236168
teachers to plan and review pupils’ learning. From a practical point of view, even this
can be difficult as in a secondary school such as my own, we can have five lessons
a day each with a different TA and support is not always consistent. Ofsted (2013,
p.15) did however report that a headteacher of a primary school set in an area of
high economic deprivation did successfully use a small amount of their Pupil
Premium funding to extend the assistants’ hours. “This allowed them to review the
day’s learning with teachers, help to identify gaps in pupils’ knowledge and
understanding and to be well informed about the learning planned for the next day.”
Reducing Class Size
Ofsted (2012, p.11) reported that “more than a quarter of the schools had used some
or all of the Pupil Premium to fund new or existing teachers... In secondary schools
in particular they were often being used to help reduce class sizes and/or to deliver
out of hours learning such as revision sessions and holiday schools”.
Although it is logical that reducing class sizes should improve the quality of teaching
and learning, with the teacher being able to provide greater quality feedback, give
more one-to-one attention and manage difficult behaviours more easily, The Sutton
Trust – EEF (2013) explains that “overall the evidence does not show particularly
large or clear effects, until class size is reduced to under 20 or even below 15”. The
reduction in class size needs to be large enough to permit the teacher to change
their teaching approach and in turn allow pupils to change their learning behaviours.
The Sutton Trust – EEF (2013) suggests the idea that “deploying staff (including
teaching assistants) so that teachers can work more intensively with smaller groups
may be worth exploring”.
31
SID: 1236168
The Sutton Trust – EEF (2013) also explains that “there is some evidence that
reducing class sizes are more likely to be effective when supported with professional
development to learn and develop teaching skills and approaches... Additionally
teachers may potentially further develop their teaching skills and approaches in a
smaller class”.
Repeating a Year
Repeating a year is an option for pupils who do not reach a given standard of
learning at the end of a school year. According to The Sutton Trust – EEF (2013)
“repeating a year is relatively common in the USA where the No Child Left Behind
Act (2002) recommended that students be required to demonstrate a set standard of
achievement before progressing to the next grade level. Students can also be
required to repeat a year in some countries in Europe including Spain, France and
Germany. In Finland, pupils can repeat a year in exceptional circumstances, but this
decision is made collectively by teachers, parents and the student rather than on the
basis of end of year testing.” According to Sahlberg (2012, p.26-27) “being sent
back to the same grade with younger students was often demoralizing and rarely
made way for the expected academic improvements among students. After all,
repeating an entire grade was an inefficient way of promoting learning because it did
not focus on those parts of the curriculum in which a student needed targeted help...
The educational stigma normally had a dramatic negative impact on students and
lowered teachers’ expectations regarding these students’ abilities to learn”.
According to The Sutton Trust – EEF (2013) “negative effects [of repeating a year]
have been found consistently over the last fifty years in studies from Europe and
North America, where much of the research has been conducted... The negative
32
SID: 1236168
effects are disproportionately greater for disadvantaged pupils, for pupils from ethnic
minorities and for children born in the summer months.” As such, the practice of
repeating a year in the UK is now rare but the extensiveness of the research made it
noteworthy for discussion.
Ability Grouping
Sahlberg (2012, p.24) explains that in Finland “after abolishing streaming in the mid
– 1980s and making learning expectations the same for all students, the
achievement gap between low and high achievers began to decrease”. Indeed The
Sutton Trust – EEF (2013) reports that “on average, ability grouping does not appear
to be an effective strategy for raising the attainment of disadvantaged pupils, who
are more likely to be assigned to lower attaining groups”. They go on to explain that
“ability grouping appears to benefit higher attaining pupils and be detrimental to the
learning of mid-range and lower attaining learners”.
According to research on ability grouping completed by Ireson et al (1999) “effect
sizes differ from one curriculum subject to another and pupils attaining higher levels
on entry to secondary school make greater progress in schools adopting setting in
mathematics, but not in English or science.” This is in contrast to my own view as a
secondary Science teacher that whilst I acknowledge the drawbacks of ability
grouping summarised by the teach-nology website as feelings of segregation,
devising fair methods of division and the difficulties in maintaining teacher
expectations, these are outweighed by the benefits of matching the pace of the
lesson to its students, boosting the confidence of those students no longer in the
shadow of more intelligent peers and allowing the teacher to provide greater
33
SID: 1236168
individual attention, notwithstanding resolving the issue of the level of differentiation
required to deliver a vast and varied curriculum to a heterogeneous classroom.
Intervention
Ofsted (2013, p.3) report that schools that were spending Pupil Premium
successfully to maximise achievement “thoroughly analysed which pupils were
underachieving, particularly in English and Maths... [Schools] allocated their best
teachers to teach intervention groups to improve mathematics and English, or
employed new teachers who had a good track record in raising attainment in those
subjects... [These schools also] used achievement data frequently to check whether
interventions or techniques were working and made adjustments accordingly, rather
than just using the data retrospectively to see if something had worked.” This
systematic approach of monitoring and providing targeted and specific intervention is
something that can be implemented by all teachers at a classroom level alongside
departmental and school level intervention schemes.
This is an approach used by world-class education systems. “In Finland, early
detection mechanisms, such as periodic individualised assessments of students by
several groups of teachers, allow educators to identify struggling students and offer
them the necessary support early on, before they become stuck and cannot continue
their education at the same pace as their peers (PISA 2012, p.14).” Clifton (2013,
p.21) further explains that “in Finland, nearly half of pupils receive some form of
catch-up tuition during their school career”. The extent to which so many pupils
receive this sort of intervention across their school career no doubt also helps to
remove any stigma attached to receiving catch-up tuition. Indeed it is essential in my
34
SID: 1236168
mind to target all low performing students not just those with low socioeconomic
status.
The Sutton Trust – EEF (2013) suggests that behaviour interventions can also
produce “large improvements in academic performance along with a decrease in
problematic behaviours... Effect sizes are larger for targeted interventions matched
to specific students with particular needs or behaviour issues”.
Small Group Tuition and One-to-One Tuition
Evidence reviewed by The Sutton Trust-EEF (2013) suggests that one-to one tuition
and small group tuition is extremely effective and can enable learners to catch up
with their peers. They give an effect size of +4 months progress for small group
tuition and +5 months progress for one-to-one tuition. The Sutton Trust – EEF
(2013) explain that “short, regular sessions (about 30 minutes, 3-5 times a week)
over a set period of time (6-12 weeks) appear to result in optimum impact”. Small
group tuition (for groups of 2-5 students) usually provides intensive support for “lower
attaining learners or for those who are falling behind, though it can also be used as a
more general strategy to ensure effective progress, or to teach challenging topics or
skills”. They also make clear that programmes which used “a qualified teacher is
likely to achieve greater progress than support staff or volunteers, and training and
professional development are likely to be beneficial for both teachers and support
staff.”
The Sutton Trust – EEF (2013) explain that “as a rule of thumb, the smaller the
group the better...[but] given the closeness in impact between various forms of small
35
SID: 1236168
group tuition and its much lower cost, it may be useful for schools to trial small group
tuition as an alternative option to one-to-one tuition.” They also explain the variability
in their findings is firstly due to “the quality of the teaching in small groups may be as
or more important than the group size, and there is evidence of the benefits
professional development on pupil outcomes. Second, it is important to evaluate the
effectiveness of different arrangements as the specific subject matter being taught
and composition of the groups may influence the outcomes”.
Peer Tutoring
Peer tutoring encompasses a range of approaches that essentially involves an older
pupil being paired with a pupil that is falling behind in a lower year. The Sutton Trust
– EEF (2013) reports that “the evidence of impact is relatively high – typically
equating to about a GCSE grade.... [and that] there is some evidence that children
from disadvantaged backgrounds and low attaining pupils make the biggest gains”.
According to The Sutton Trust – EEF (2013) it is suggested that the greatest gains
are when the age gap is about 2 years and the highest attaining older pupils are
paired with the highest attaining younger pupils and so on. This allows for teachers
to focus their attention on the lowest attaining pairs. As the costs for peer tutoring
are relatively low and the impact reportedly so high, it does make sense that this is a
strategy worth pursuing. However, the logistical challenges of co-ordinating such a
strategy do appear difficult to me, it is also perhaps the reason that this is one of the
only strategies referred to in the literature that I have had almost no experience with
in my ten year teaching career.
36
SID: 1236168
Collaborative Learning
The Sutton Trust – EEF (2013) state that “collaborative or cooperative learning can
be defined as learning tasks or activities where students work together in a group
small enough for everyone to participate on a collective task that has been clearly
assigned. This can be either a joint task where group members do different aspects
of the task but contribute to a common overall outcome, or a shared task where
group members work together throughout the activity. Some collaborative learning
approaches also get mixed ability teams or groups to work in competition with each
other, in order to drive more effective collaboration”.
The Sutton Trust – EEF (2013) report a moderate impact on pupils’ progress of
about +5 months, based on extensive evidence. The cost of implementing these
teaching structures is relatively low so it is a strategy for schools and their teachers
to consider. The range of collaborative or co-operative learning approaches and
structures are explained clearly in literature such as Kagen’s Co-operative Learning
(2001). However, as a co-operative learning stalwart myself I completely agree with
the advice from The Sutton Trust – EEF (2013) that “managing effective
collaborative group work is challenging so professional development or collaborative
professional enquiry is likely to be helpful to support the effective use of these
approaches”.
Individualised Instruction
Sahlberg (2012, p.27) explains that part of the success of Finland closing the
attainment gap is attributed to the fact that “personalised learning and differentiation
became basic principles in organizing schooling for students across society. The
37
SID: 1236168
assumption that all students can achieve common educational goals if learning is
organized according to each student’s characteristics and needs became another
foundation”. Indeed Ofsted (2013, p.3) concur stating that successful schools
“understood the importance of ensuring that all day-to-day teaching meets the needs
of each learner, rather than relying on interventions to compensate for teaching that
is less than good”.
However, The Sutton Trust – EEF (2013) report that individualised instruction has
low impact and individualising learning for whole classes is not beneficial for pupils’
learning. Their explanation suggests that “the role of the teacher becomes too
managerial in terms of organising and monitoring learning tasks and activities,
without leaving time for interacting with learners or providing formative feedback to
refocus effort”. I suspect the answer lies in the middle of these two arguments and
relies on the teacher knowing her students and carefully planning activities that
encompass a range of learning styles for the class as a whole and ensure an
appropriate level of differentiation that allows all pupils to progress without hindrance
to other essential components of the lesson such as assessment for learning and
providing effective feedback.
Meta-cognition and Self Regulation
According to The Sutton Trust – EEF (2013) “meta-cognitive and self-regulation
strategies (sometimes known as ‘learning to learn’ strategies) are teaching
approaches which make learners think about learning more explicitly. This is usually
by teaching pupils specific strategies to set goals, monitor and evaluate their own
learning. Self-regulation refers to managing one’s own motivation towards learning
38
SID: 1236168
as well as the more cognitive aspects of thinking and reasoning. Overall these
strategies involve being aware of one’s strengths and weaknesses as a learner, such
as by developing self-assessment skills, and being able to set and monitor goals.
They also include having a repertoire of strategies to choose from or switch to during
learning activities.”
According to The Sutton Trust – EEF (2013) “meta-cognitive and self-regulation
approaches are reported to have consistently high levels of impact with meta-
analyses reporting between seven and nine months additional progress on average”.
However, The Sutton Trust – EEF (2013) states that “it is usually more effective in
small groups so learners can support each other and make their thinking explicit
through discussion”.
The Sutton Trust – EEF (2013) provides practical advice for teachers to consider
when implementing learning to learn strategies. Smith, A., Lovatt, M., and Turner J.,
(2009) provide further guidance in their book Learning to Learn in Practice: The L2
Approach.
Feedback
According to Wiggins (2012) “Feedback is information about how we are doing in our
efforts to reach a goal… Helpful feedback is goal-referenced; tangible and
transparent; actionable; user-friendly (specific and personalized); timely; ongoing;
and consistent.” Essentially, feedback whether it written or verbal, aims to bridge the
gap between prior or current achievement and the success criteria. Following
analysis of more than 900 educational meta-analyses, researcher John Hattie (2012)
found that effective feedback is among the most powerful influences on how people
39
SID: 1236168
learn. The Sutton Trust –EEF also reported very high effects of feedback on
learning. They indicate that progress could have an impact of half a GCSE grade
per student per subject. However, Clifton and Cook (2012, p.7) explains that “ideas
in the toolkit, such as providing feedback to pupils, will be important for improving
overall classroom practice but will not be sufficient to narrow the achievement gap.”
This point is contradicted by Ofsted (2013, p.3) who reported that schools that
“systematically focused on giving pupils clear, useful feedback about their work, and
ways that they could improve it” were more successful in closing the attainment gap.
Either way, as the impact of feedback is high and at low cost, providing staff training
to ensure feedback to students is effective would indeed be prudent.
Mastery Learning
According to The Sutton Trust – EEF (2013) mastery learning is “a learning strategy
offering high potential, which appears to be particularly effective for low attaining
students” and as such could be an effective strategy to close the attainment gap.
Much of the mastery learning strategies in use by schools today have been
developed from work done by Benjamin Bloom in 1960s. “Bloom believed that all
students could be helped to reach a high criterion of learning if both the instructional
methods and time were varied to better match students' individual learning needs. In
other words, to reduce variation in the achievement of diverse groups of students
and have all students learn well, Bloom argued that educators and teachers must
increase variation in instructional approaches and learning time. Bloom labelled the
strategy to accomplish this instructional variation and differentiation mastery
learning” (as cited in Guskey, T.R., 2007).
40
SID: 1236168
The Sutton Trust – EEF (2013) further explains that in contrast to other approaches
in which pupils move through the curriculum at a pre-determined pace, “mastery
learning breaks subject matter and learning content into units with clearly specified
objectives which are pursued until they are achieved. Learners work through each
block of content in a series of sequential steps”.
However, The Sutton Trust – EEF (2013) highlights the fact that implementing
mastery learning effectively is not straightforward. They suggest combining mastery
learning with other strategies for example “providing structured support for pupils
who fall behind with a range of interventions, such as peer support and intensive
tuition, to help maintain more even progress within classes and incorporating group
and team approaches where pupils take responsibility for helping each other”.
Homework
There is fierce debate on the merits of homework. The Sutton Report – EEF (2013)
state that “it is certainly the case that schools whose pupils do homework tend to be
successful schools. However it is less clear that the homework is the reason why
they are successful.” An article written by Irene Barker (2013) in the TES magazine
sums up the issues of homework well; "to some, it is an essential part of school life
that ensures exam success and the country’s economic standing in the world. To
others, it is a burden that affects the health of children, damages family life and
results in pupils from poor backgrounds falling behind".
Indeed internationally countries have taken very different approaches. According to
Barker (2013) President Francois Hollande declared an end to homework in primary
41
SID: 1236168
schools in France stating that independent learning should take place at the end of
the school day on school premises. Such a move, he said, would “even out social
inequalities”. Barker (2013) explains that Denmark has also piloted ‘homework-free’
schools, resulting in a reported fall in dropout rates and rise in overall grades. "At
the other end of the spectrum, South Korean schoolchildren do hours of extra study
at home and in private crammers, and achieve some of the highest maths, science
and reading scores in the developed world. The country also has the highest youth
suicide rate, although it is unclear if the two factors are related" (Barker 2013).
The research suggests "a positive but low correlation" between doing homework and
improved attainment (Hallam cited in Barker 2013) but she also reported that "the
relationship between the amount of homework done and attainment is not linear".
Simply put, there is a point where no further gains are made despite the extra hours
studying.
According to The Sutton Report – EEF (2013) “there is some evidence that when
homework is used as a short and focused intervention it can be effective in
improving students’ attainment (with some studies showing up to eight months
positive impact on attainment). Overall the general benefits are likely to be modest if
homework is more routinely set...The research strongly suggests that it is more
valuable at secondary school level and much less effective for children of primary
school age”.
Despite the fact that well designed homework together with effective feedback can
allow students to make further progress, one of the main concerns - as highlighted
42
SID: 1236168
by Hollande (as cited in Barker 2013) - is that homework ingrains social inequalities
between pupils: "clever, motivated children in higher sets or at better schools tend to
be given more homework, while less able, less motivated pupils are given less. The
result is a further widening of the attainment gap. More advantaged children are also
more likely to have a quiet place to study at home, with access to the internet, again
giving them the chance to pull ahead". The key is how to address this issue in order
to best use homework to close the attainment gap.
To me, the obvious but clearly not the simplest solution to put into practice, is to
provide an extended school day to provide adequate study facilities for students to
complete their homework and own independent study. According to The Sutton
Report – EEF (2013) “increasing the length of the school day or the school year add
on average two months additional progress to pupils’ attainment over the course of a
year. Additionally, research based on international comparisons, looking at average
times for schooling in different countries is consistent with this conclusion. However,
it should also be noted that pupils from disadvantaged backgrounds benefit by, on
average, an additional half a month’s progress relative to their peers suggesting that
extending school time can be an effective means to improve learning for pupils who
are most at risk of failure”.
Most practicing teachers will have much to say on the subject of homework and it is
a matter that will no doubt be open to debate for many years to come. What strikes
me in particular is that the evidence according to The Sutton Report – EEF (2013)
suggests that routine homework has less impact than short focussed intervention
strategies. This is in direct contrast to many secondary schools’ homework policies
43
SID: 1236168
that typically encourage the routine weekly setting of homework tasks. Despite this
issue teachers can still strive to set meaningful and engaging homework tasks that
can encourage independent learning skills, and can provide appropriate feedback on
these tasks to allow students to make progress beyond the classroom.
44
SID: 1236168
Conclusions
Whilst results from PISA 2012 indicate that countries such as Finland have reduced
the impact of socio-economic status on the attainment of students, it is also apparent
that there is not an easy fix. “The fact that students in some countries consistently
believe that achievement is mainly a product of hard work, rather that inherited
intelligence, suggests that education and its social context can make a difference in
instilling the values that foster success in education” (PISA 2012, p.21). Whilst
moulding the attitude of a nation is not a simple task, schools, and its teachers can
still strive to close the attainment gap in their own context.
Clifton (2013, p.21) concludes that “tackling ‘within school variation’ will require
improving classroom teaching, developing pedagogies that raise low achievement,
training teachers to be effective in mixed ability classes, making good use of data to
track pupils and ensuring that school leaders implement interventions targeted to
those pupils who are falling behind”. Clifton (2013, p.21) further explains that the
most effective strategies appear to be “things such as small group tuition (where a
specialist teacher works intensively with a couple of pupils) or peer tutoring
programmes (where older pupils are paired with pupils falling behind in lower
years)”. These strategies are also reasonably expensive, which is why the
government has pledged to continue to increase pupil premium funding, to ensure
that schools can afford the most effective interventions.
Ofsted (2013, p.3) reported that schools that were more successful in closing the
attainment gap between disadvantaged pupils and their more affluent peers “drew on
research evidence (such as the Sutton Trust Toolkit) and evidence from their own
45
SID: 1236168
and others’ experience to allocate the funding to the activities that were most likely to
have an impact on improving achievement”. Common sense dictates that the same
principles apply at a classroom level. So, although teachers have little say in the
allocation of funding, I have attempted to provide a response to the initial question I
posed: According to the literature, what can a teacher do to maximise the progress
of all pupils and close the attainment gap?
Class teachers should:
Know which pupils are eligible for Pupil Premium funding so that they can
take responsibility for accelerating their progress.
Ensure that families and students eligible for Pupil Premium funding know the
resources that are available to them to progress their own learning and
achievement. E.g. stationary, revision guides, transport, school uniform,
educational visits, external tuition e.g. music, dance or drama lessons and for
ICT hardware.
Closely monitor attendance and punctuality and together with the school
provide well-targeted support to improve attendance, behaviour or links with
families where these are barriers to pupil’s learning.
Be aware that students eligible for Pupil Premium are more likely to lack
motivation and be at risk of poor engagement and so understanding and
incorporating strategies to prevent and monitor this situation in classroom
planning is essential.
Ensure that all day-to-day teaching meets the needs of each learner.
Regularly assess students’ progress and intervene where necessary.
46
SID: 1236168
Small-group and one-one tuition can be beneficial when targeted students
need to catch up with their peers. This should be sold as a benefit and not be
seen as a punishment.
Adopt peer-tutoring strategies to enable weaker students to catch up with their
peers.
Metacognition / ‘Learning to Learn’ - Carefully plan, implement and evaluate
teaching approaches which encourage learners to plan, monitor and evaluate
their own learning independently and/or in small groups.
Incorporate co-operative learning structures into lessons to encourage
effective group work and ensure all students participate in lessons.
Provide effective feedback to allow all pupils to make progress towards their
goals.
Rather than setting regular daily homework, provide students with short
focused tasks or activities which relate directly to what is being taught, and
which are built upon in school. Ensure that the purpose of homework is made
clear to the students and suitable feedback is given. Where possible provide
students with the time and facilities to complete homework and independent
study in school.
Make effective use of teaching assistants and ensure they are highly trained.
Allocate time to regularly discuss pupil progress and specific ways for them to
assist learning in the classroom and help pupils to achieve.
Embrace new initiatives, participate in high quality CPD and INSET and where
appropriate apply these strategies to their own practice.
47
SID: 1236168
(Clifton 2012, p.35) sums up perfectly that “over the last few decades, education has
become increasingly important for finding a decent job and leading a good life.
Achieving high grades at school can open the doors to further education and a
professional career, while those with low grades find it increasingly hard to get on in
life. In this context, it is important that every child has an equal opportunity to
succeed at school, regardless of their family background”. It is important to
remember that we as teachers have the ability to change peoples’ lives. Every child
matters.
WORD COUNT Total: 9638 Excluding quotations: 5022
48
SID: 1236168
References
Barker, I., 2013, Is it time to scrap homework? TES Magazine 15th February, 2013
Bradshaw, J., 2012, Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA)
Results from PISA 2012, United Kingdom Key Findings OECD
http://www.oecd.org/pisa/keyfindings/PISA-2012-results-UK.pdf [date accessed
6/2/14]
Clifton, J., 2013, Maximising the pupil premium, Governing Matters January /
February 2013 www.nga.org.uk
Clifton, J. and Cook, W., 2012, Closing the attainment gap in England’s secondary
schools – A long division, IPPR 2012
PISA 2012 Results in Focus: What 15-year-olds know and what they can do with
what they know OECD
http://www.oecd.org/pisa/keyfindings/pisa-2012-results-overview.pdf [date accessed
6/2/14]
Department for Education, 2013, Pupil Premium – Frequently asked questions [date
accessed 5/10/13]
Department for Education, 2014, Pupil premium: information for schools: funding for
2014 to 2015 (Updated:22 January 2014)
http://www.education.gov.uk/schools/pupilsupport/premium/b00231348/pupil-
premium-information-for-schools-and-ap-settings/funding-for-2014-to-2015 [date
accessed 5/2/14])
49
SID: 1236168
Department for Education, 2014, Pupil premium: information for schools: Allocations
(Updated:22 January 2014)
http://www.education.gov.uk/schools/pupilsupport/premium/b00231348/pupil-
premium-information-for-schools-and-ap-settings/allocations [date accessed 5/2/14]
Department for Education, 2014, Pupil premium: information for schools: Pupil
Premium Reviews (Updated:22 January 2014)
https://www.education.gov.uk/schools/pupilsupport/premium/b00231348/pupil-
premium-information-for-schools-and-ap-settings/pupil-premium-reviews [date
accessed 5/2/14]
Department for Education, 2014, Raising the achievement of disadvantaged
children. (Updated 27 January 2014)
https://www.gov.uk/government/policies/raising-the-achievement-of-disadvantaged-
children/supporting-pages/pupil-premium [date accessed 5/2/14]
Department for Education, 2012; Pupil Premium 2011–12 school tables,
http://www.education.gov.uk/schools/adminandfinance/financialmanagement/
schoolsrevenuefunding/settlement2012pupilpremium/a0075963/pupil-premium-
2011-12 [date accessed 5/2/14]
Guskey, T. R., 2007, Closing Achievement Gaps: Revisiting Benjamin S. Bloom's
"Learning for Mastery" Journal of Advanced Academics, v19 n1 pp8-31
http://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ786608 [date accessed 14/3/14]
Hattie, J., and Timperley, H. (2007) The Power of feedback. Review of Educational
Research, Volume 77, No. 1 pp.81-112.
50
SID: 1236168
Higgins, S., Katsipataki, M., Kokotsaki, D., Coleman, R., Major, L.E., & Coe, R.
(2013). The Sutton Trust-Education Endowment Foundation Teaching and
LearningToolkit. London: Education Endowment Foundation.
Ireson, J., Hallam, S., Mortimore, P., Hack, S., Clark H., and Plewis I., (1999) Ability
grouping in the secondary school: the effects on academic achievement and pupils’
self-esteem, Institute of Education, University of London, Paper presented at the
British Educational Research Association Annual Conference, University of Sussex
at Brighton, September 2-5 1999
http://www.leeds.ac.uk/educol/documents/00001359.htm [date accessed 28/2/14]
Kagen, S., and Kagen, M., 2001, Kagen Cooperative Learning, Kagan Publishing
Ofsted, September 2012, The Pupil Premium: How schools are using the Pupil
Premium funding to raise achievement for disadvantaged pupil. Reference no:
120197
http://www.ofsted.gov.uk/resources/pupil-premium [date accessed 5/2/14]
Ofsted, 2013, The pupil Premium: How schools are spending the funding to
successfully maximise achievement. Reference no. 130016
http://www.ofsted.gov.uk/resources/pupil-premium-how-schools-are-spending-
funding-successfully-maximise-achievement [date accessed 5/2/14]
Paton, G., 2008, Ofsted: Schools ‘teaching to the test’, 21st July 2008
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/2440091/Ofsted-Schools-teaching-to-the-
test.html [date accessed 23/4/14]
51
SID: 1236168
Sahlberg, P., 2012, A Model Lesson, Finland Shows Us What Equal Opportunity
Looks Like, American Educator, Spring 2012
Smith, A., Lovatt, M., and Turner J., 2009, Learning to Learn in Practice: The L2
Approach, Crown Publishing
Teachnology: Does Grouping Students By Ability Work?
http://www.teach-nology.com/currenttrends/equity_excellence/tracking/ [date
accessed 28/2/14]
Wiggins, G. (2012) Seven Keys to Effective Feedback Volume 70, Number 1
Feedback for Learning pp.10-16
http://www.ascd.org/publications/educational-leadership/sept12/vol70/num01/Seven-
Keys-to-Effective-Feedback.aspx [Date accessed 16/08/2013]
Wilshaw M (2012) ‘I’ll ensure our schools have no excuses for failure’, Guardian, 2
February 2012.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/feb/02/schoolmust-improve-my-
mission[date accessed 13/3/12]
52
top related