Tag Archives: reading

The effect of the pandemic on early learning

Posted on by
Reply

The DfE today published the results of the 2022 phonics screening check and key stage 1 attainment statistics. Phonics screening check and key stage 1 assessments: England 2022 – GOV.UK (www.gov.uk)

These are the first phonics screening check and key stage 1 attainment statistics since 2019, after assessments were cancelled in 2020 and 2021 due to the pandemic. Regardless of views on the usefulness of these tests they do provide some comparative data from before and after the pandemic.

These statistics cover the attainment of year 1 and year 2 pupils who took these assessments in summer 2022. As the DfE notes, these pupils experienced disruption to their learning during the pandemic. The headline outcome from the data is that attainment in the phonics screening check has decreased compared to 2019

According to the DfE, 75% of pupils met the expected standard in the phonics screening check in year 1, down from 82% in 2019.

87% of pupils met the expected standard in the phonics screening check by the end of year 2, down from 91% in 2019. Suggesting that schools can have an effect on outcomes.

In addition, according to the DfE, attainment at key stage 1 has decreased in all subjects in 2022 compared to 2019.

67% of pupils met the expected standard in reading, down from 75% in 2019.

68% of pupils met the expected standard in maths, down from 76% in 2019.

58% of pupils met the expected standard in writing, down from 69% in 2019.

77% of pupils met the expected standard in science, down from 82% in 2019.

I suppose these results are not a surprise given the turbulence of the past few years. Also, not much of a surprise is that some groups fared worse than others. Although the headline tables only consider single variables, such as gender, ethnicity, geographical region and SEN support, it is clear that while virtually all groups have seen declines in performance across the board, some have seen more than others.  

One striking change is performance on the phonics check for pupils eligible for Free School Meals. Those not meeting the criteria for Free School Meals as opposed to receiving free infant school meals saw the percentage meeting the expected standard fall between 2019 and 2022 from 84% to 80%, while for those eligible for Free School Meals the decrease was from 71% to 62%; down nine percentage points compared with a drop of just four per cent for those not meeting the criteria for Free School Meals.

In the Key State 1 results for the teacher assessment in mathematics, boys overtook girls, with 60% of boys compared with 67% of girls reaching the expected standard. In 2019, 75% of boys, but 77% of girls reached the expected standard.

Writing continues to lag behind reading and mathematics in the outcomes for the Key Stage 1 teacher assessments, with just 52% of boys reaching the expected standard.

These results show that there is much ground to be recovered following the effects of the covid pandemic, even if schools have an uninterrupted autumn and winter this year. Cutting funding for the education of this group may well be to produce life-long disadvantages for many of this group of children.

Opportunity for All?

Posted on by
Reply

The government published it Education White Paper today. They didn’t make it easy to find the whole document, but it can be accessed at Opportunity for all – Strong schools with great teachers for your child (publishing.service.gov.uk) For younger readers, it is called a White Paper because when such documents first appeared they had white covers. Later when documents with suggestions and not proposals appeared they were called Green Papers as they had a green cover.

Enough of the history, although it is worth looking back to the last education White Paper. It promised to look at returning in-year admissions to local authorities, but nothing happened. This time on page 53 there is a graphic that just says LAs will ‘manage’ in-year admissions. It is not clear where the management role will have sanctions to back it up. I hope so.  If local authorities are provided with ‘backstop’ powers to direct in-year admissions that will be a step forward and should be put into place as soon as possible. The intention is summarised in paragraph 163. As a final safety net to cover rare circumstances where collaborative working breaks down, we will consult on a new backstop power for local authorities to direct trusts to admit children. Trusts would have the right to appeal this to the Schools Adjudicator. Please start the consultation as soon as possible – Time for Jacob’s Law | John Howson (wordpress.com)

The news in the White Paper that local authorities can run academy trusts is to be welcomed as correcting one of the wrongs of Mr Gove’s original 2010 Academies Act. However, in the spirit of strong schools, will schools in existing academy chains be able to make a transfer either to another chain or to a local authority trust, and will local authorities be able to include schools outside their boundaries in a Trust, such as Swindon schools in a Wiltshire trust or Blackpool schools in a Lancashire Trust? Will there need to be Chinese walls between an LA Trust officers and other officers with powers to direct Trust, as over admissions?

The White Paper downgrades Regional School Commissioners to Regional Directors, a less threatening title to local democracy. However, the amount of power local authorities can wield will depend upon funding. At least local trusts should have the same financial powers as the present trusts to manage central costs.

Perhaps the biggest change in policy terms in the White Paper is the ending of the freedom of parents to control the education of their children as paragraph 77 make clear, the government will also introduce legislation to establish a register for children not in school, exploring how this data should be used by local authorities and multi-agency teams to undertake their duties and support children’s education. The 1870 Act required parents to educate their children. The 2022 White Paper now also requires them to tell the authorities how they are doing that education. Will the next step be to ensure that all children receive high quality education of id the white Paper’s real time ‘Opportunity for all in state funded schools?

Overall, the White Paper is not as dramatic as it was thought it might be.

Depriving the deprived

Posted on by
Reply

Levelling up is not just an issue for the north of England. Ahead of their Spring Conference, the Liberal Democrats obtained data about reading levels at Key Stage 2 and the percentage of pupils not achieving the expected standard at Key Stage 2 in 2019, the last set of data because of the pandemic. The most revealing data are that for the parliamentary constituencies in England – education is a devolved activity, so the data only covers constituencies in England – of which there are some 533.

My especial interest is, of course Oxford. The west of the city is in the Oxford West and Abingdon constituency that ranks 91st worst in the list at the same place in the table with Henley constituency. However, the Oxford East constituency is ranked 502nd worst out of the 533 constituencies in England. This is a really significant difference between the two parts of Oxford.

One issue that this brings into sharp focus is the problems associated with a national funding formula model for schools; a formula that is based upon the needs of a random collection of local authorities responsible for special education and although budgets go to schools not divorced from the way the overall formula is calculated. If you level up by authority, then you miss pockets of need, such as those parts of Oxford East contributing to the outcome for the Oxford East constituency as a whole.

To be fair to teachers in Oxford, way back in 2011, the City as a whole ranked as the worst local authority for Key Stage 1 outcomes, so this looks like an improvement, albeit on different data.

Nevertheless, children in East Oxford need to be able to access the required degree of resources to allow them to reach parity with their peers across the city and elsewhere in England.

London boroughs are disproportionally represented in the list of constituencies with the lowest percentages of pupils failing to reach the expected standard, whereas both rural and urban areas outside of London are to be found among those constituencies with the worst outcomes.

Oxford as a university city – with two universities – has a proportion of children with English as their second languages, but it is not clear that these pupils are disproportionally located in the east of the city, since university accommodation can be found across the city as a whole.

The Conservatives adapted from Labour ideas by inventing Opportunity Areas to offer extra support to areas needing it, but I have not seen any analysis of the outcomes for such areas. Oxford East seemingly didn’t qualify.

It is worth comparing Oxford with Blackpool for reading outcomes, as both are areas with two different parliamentary constituencies. Blackpool’s constituencies are ranked 73rd and 340th while Oxford’s rank 91st and 502nd. Blackpool is, of course, an Opportunity Area: Oxford isn’t. One might well ask why Oxford is not an opportunity Area on the basis of these figures?

Perhaps it is a matter of perception rather than hard evidence. Blackpool isn’t a wealthy university town and has high levels of unemployment. Oxford is viewed as affluent and successful, and a great place to live. To live, but not, at least as far as the East of the City is concerned, to learn.

Poverty is not destiny – OECD PISA Report

Posted on by
Reply

OECD published the latest of its PISA studies today. This is a long and complex report and I am grateful to those that have already pointed the way to some of the key points. Generally, the data is for the United Kingdom and not just England.

As in previous studies, the urban regions of China entered plus some other Asian economies provide outstanding outcomes among fifteen years olds taking the survey tests, especially in maths and reading. The report can be found at: http://www.oecd.org/pisa/publications/pisa-2018-results.htm

What follows are some of the comments that caught my eye at a first glance. The most significant challenge, especially in the light of the Prime Minister’s comments on parity of esteem is whether selective secondary education is good for the economy? Such schools are certainly good for those that attend them. But, for the nation as a whole?

The OECD believes that “it remains necessary for many countries to promote equity with much greater urgency.” While students from well-off families will often find a path to success in life, those from disadvantaged families have generally only one single chance in life, and that is “a great teacher and a good school. If they miss that boat, subsequent education opportunities will tend to reinforce, rather than mitigate, initial differences in learning outcomes.

One in ten disadvantaged students was able to score in the top quarter of reading performance in their country/economy, indicating that poverty is not destiny. The data also show that the world is no longer divided between rich and well educated nations and poor and badly educated ones. The level of economic development explains just 28% of the variation in learning outcomes across countries if a linear relationship is assumed between the two.

In over half of the PISA participating countries and economies, principals of disadvantaged schools were significantly more likely than those of advantaged schools to report that their school’s capacity to provide instruction is hindered by either a lack of or inadequacy of educational material; and in 31 countries and economies, principals of disadvantaged schools were more likely than those of advantaged ones to report that a lack of teaching staff hinders instruction. In these systems, students face a double disadvantage: one that comes from their home background and another that is created by the school system. The report concludes: “There can be numerous reasons why some students perform better than others, but those performance differences should never be related to the social background of students and schools.”

Many students, especially disadvantaged students, hold lower ambitions than would be expected given their academic achievement. In the United Kingdom, about one in three high-achieving disadvantaged students – but fewer than one in ten high-achieving advantaged students – do not expect to complete tertiary education.

Some 81% of students in the United Kingdom (OECD average: 74%) agreed or strongly agreed that their teacher shows enjoyment in teaching. In most countries and economies, including in the United Kingdom, students scored higher in reading when they perceived their teacher as more enthusiastic, especially when students said their teachers are interested in the subject.

The OECD findings also reveal how the foundations for education success are laid early. Students who had attended pre-primary education for longer scored better in PISA than students who had not attended pre-primary education. Between 2015 and 2018, the share of 15-year-old students who had attended pre-primary school for three years increased in 28 countries. Despite this advantage, in 68 out of 78 education systems with comparable data, students who had not attended pre-primary education were much more likely to be socio-economically disadvantaged and enrolled in more disadvantaged schools at the age of 15. This highlights how access to pre-primary education often reinforces educational disparities

Mixed views on Phonics Screening Check

Posted on by
Reply

The evaluation report issued today by the DfE on the Phonics Screening Check https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/198994/DFE-RR286A.pdf seems to offer some interesting messages.

The research report conducted by NfER concluded that;

One of the key messages to emerge from the evaluation so far is that many schools appear to believe that a phonics approach to teaching reading should be used alongside other methods. Evidence from the case-studies and surveys suggests that most teachers are overwhelmingly positive about phonics teaching and its contribution to reading development. However, it is less certain that this is an endorsement of the recommended approach of systematic synthetic phonics taught first and fast. Whilst nine out of ten literacy coordinators agree, at least to some extent, that the teaching of systematic synthetic phonics has value in the primary classroom, a similar proportion, somewhat contradictorily, feel that a variety of different methods should be used to teach children to decode words, suggesting there is widespread misunderstanding of the term ‘systematic synthetic phonics’. Thus, it appears more likely that the reported level of agreement with the value of systematic synthetic phonics actually represents support of the more general use of phonics within the primary classroom, and that teachers in general have not yet fully adopted the practices recommended in the Department for Education’s policy and evidence paper, The Importance of Phonics: Securing Confident Reading.

Within this broad acceptance of phonics teaching as part of a mixed approach there was less certainty reported about the Phonics Screening Check. The researchers created a typology of four different types of approach:

Supporters of synthetic phonics and the check – 28% of literacy coordinators

Supporters of synthetic phonics but not of the check – 39% of literacy coordinators

Supporters of integrated literacy teaching – 5% of literacy coordinators

Supporters of mixed methods – 28% of literacy coordinators

So, this first evaluation of the check suggests that phonics has found a place in teaching reading, and indeed probably always did have such a place in primary schools, but around a third of literacy coordinators, and presumably their schools, use phonics as a part of mixed methods or an integrated approach. A further 39% don’t see the value of the check, although they support synthetic phonics. Just over a quarter of literacy coordinators both support synthetic phonics and the check.

The next question must be around what is the evidence about outcomes in relation to the typology? Do schools teaching synthetic phonics and using the check do better than similar schools that use missed methods and ignore the check or is the check just a waste of money that forces teachers down an inappropriate route when teaching their pupils to develop the skill of reading?

Personally, I want well trained teachers working with young children, and indeed learners of any age, that can produce results using appropriate methods. I am not an expert about teaching reading, so I don’t know what the sensible approach is, and whether different children respond to different methods.

It would certainly be disappointing if using the check provided better information to parents, but that outcome resulted in more cramming, as if learning to read was some sort of examination rather than a skill that children need to develop. From the point of view of the teacher, experience in the classroom may mean a screening check can seem too simplistic and not necessary, but equally the challenge must be to find a method to help every child read that can do so, and create as much understanding from those with special educational needs. If teachers can do that then I don’t mind what method they use; if they cannot do so without structured help, such as the phonics screening check, then so be it.