Search

Understanding the determinants of teacher mobility is important in order to implement effective policies for the recruitment, retention, and fair allocation of teachers. The teacher transfer policy implemented in Punjab, Pakistan, is intended to address corruption and a fair allocation of teachers in public schools. However, the policy has implications for teacher mobility. This paper presents survey findings on teacher mobility patterns in public schools in Punjab, Pakistan, examining the extent and determinants of mobility in comparison with teachers in private schools. In the survey, 1002 in-service teachers participated, and 46% reported changing school at least once during their teaching career. The findings show that teachers who changed schools in their early career, with an average of two years of teaching experience, gained higher salary benefits by changing schools compared to experienced teachers, with an average of 14 years of teaching experience, who never changed schools. In comparison with early career teachers, experienced teachers who never changed school had lower salaries but higher satisfaction with life in general and with the school as their workplace. The most common reasons for changing school were lack of teaching resources, difficulty in commuting to school, unmanageable student-teacher ratio, and no chance of promotion in their teaching career. Teacher mobility was slightly higher in public schools compared to private schools, despite implementation of a merit-based transfer policy. A binary logistic regression model was constructed with the outcome of teacher mobility (or not), with a base figure of 54%. By adding gender, marital status, school type, length of teaching experience, and teachers' satisfaction, the model increased correct predictions to 62%. Teacher salary and teaching workload did not explain any variation in the model. These findings have implications for teacher transfer policy in public schools and lessons for private schools to retain teachers by offering longer contracts and reliable pension schemes. Policymakers must consider facilitating teachers' satisfaction with their workplace, particularly by making public schools in rural areas attractive places for the retention of teachers in early career phases.

This paper presents an evaluation of "Literacy for Life" (LfL) -- a whole-school literacy programme, implemented in five secondary schools in England. The aims of LfL were to improve literacy attainment and to promote positive attitudes to reading and writing. However, when compared to other schools, there is little or no evidence that being in a LfL school, had any differential benefit for pupils' attainment. In LfL schools, the gap for disadvantaged pupils and those with SEN grew in the early years of the intervention. There is also no evidence from repeated surveys that pupils' attitudes to and enjoyment of reading showed any improvement. As such, LfL did not achieve its intended objectives. This matters because, despite limited evidence in its favour, schools continue to use it and programmes similar to it. We argue that programmes such as LfL, which are implemented on a whole-school level, need to be based upon evidence-informed approaches.

Robust indicators are important for identifying disadvantaged pupils in education, and for ensuring that they are rightly receiving relevant state-funded assistance. This paper compares the quality and completeness of data from England on student eligibility for free school meals (FSM) based on an administrative census, with more all-encompassing household income measures, from a smaller sample of young people. The first measure comes from the National Pupil Database (NPD), and the second from Next Steps (NS). The two datasets are linked at the individual student level. In this restricted group, FSM data is more complete (97%) than household income (47%). The bias created by missing data on income in NS calls into question its more general usefulness for analysts. FSM cannot be read neatly from income, such as referring to an income below a certain level, and vice versa. Many reportedly low-income children are not listed as FSM-eligible. However, the two values are linked, while each also provides unique information. Both measures predict attainment at school, to some extent. The paper concludes that FSM is the more practical measure at present, but also considers how access to limited income data could be made more widespread while maintaining individual data rights.

While education technology has been widely used in classrooms, and considerable investments have been made to support its use in the UK, the evidence base for many such rapidly changing technologies is weak, and their efficacy is unclear. The aim of this paper is to systematically review and synthesise empirical research on the use of technology in formative assessment, to identify approaches that are effective in improving pupils' learning outcomes. The review involved a search of 11 major databases, and included 55 eligible studies. The results suggest promising evidence that digitally delivered formative assessment could facilitate the learning of maths and reading for young children, but there is no good evidence that it is effective for other subjects, or for older children, or that it is any more effective than formative assessment without technology. The review found no good evidence that learner response systems work in enhancing children's academic attainment, and there is no evidence supporting the effectiveness of such technologies that embed gaming features. Much research in this area is of poor quality. More rigorous studies using causal designs are thus urgently needed. Meantime, there should be no rush to use technology on the basis of improving attainment.

Pupil Premium funding has been provided to schools in England since 2011, to reduce socio-economic segregation, and the attainment gap between disadvantaged pupils and their peers. There is little evidence it works. Some stakeholders are now considering whether funding should cease, or have a new objective. Evaluating the impact of such a funding policy is not easy because the relevant outcomes are sensitive to demographic, economic and other concurrent policy changes. These issues are addressed using the National Pupil Database, comparing the poverty gap in primary schools from 2006 to 2019, focusing on pupils who would have attracted Pupil Premium funding, if it existed, in any year and under any economic conditions. After 2010, the segregation of long-term disadvantaged pupils and their peers reduced in Years 1 and 6, and their attainment improved relative to their peers at ages 7 and 11. However, assessments changed after 2014 and this complicates the pattern. A regression model suggests that relative attainment for poor pupils improved markedly in the Pupil Premium era, even in regions like the North of England which have faced criticism for apparently "failing" their poor pupils. We argue for retaining the Pupil Premium policy.

This paper describes an independently evaluated randomised controlled trial of a self-affirmation intervention, replicating earlier studies, mostly conducted in the US with ethnic minority students. Self-affirmation theory suggests that some stigmatised groups, such as those from ethnic minority or poor families, face stereotype threats which undermine their academic performance. Engaging in value affirmation writing activities when such threats are most salient can give individuals a positive sense of value, negating harmful feelings, and fostering academic learning. The present study, involving 10,807 pupils aged 14 to 16 in England showed that the intervention can be successfully replicated with children from low socioeconomic backgrounds in England. The analysis showed positive effects for the intervention group. Pupils who completed more exercises also performed better. The findings are worth consideration given that it costs virtually nothing and does no harm.

This paper evaluates a range of measures commonly used to target and measure the success of efforts to widen access to higher education. We demonstrate empirically that the area-level widening access metrics advocated by England's Office for Students, POLAR and TUNDRA, are unfit for purpose because they yield unacceptably high rates of false positives (individuals identified as socioeconomically disadvantaged when they are not). We argue that these and other demonstrably flawed area-level and school-level metrics should be replaced by officially verified individual-level indicators of socioeconomic disadvantage which yield few false positives, most notably receipt of free school meals. Unless and until this change is made, widen access efforts will be inefficient at best and counterproductive at worst, and associated statistics will give a misleading picture of how much progress is being made on widening access.

This paper looks at the National Pupil Database for England in terms of variables that could be used by universities to help them assess undergraduate applications. Where a young person is obviously disadvantaged, this can be taken into account in contextualised admissions. Of the indicators available, which give the most accurate assessment of that context--singly or in combination? This paper looks at missing data, and what is known about students for whom data is missing. It looks at changes in indicators of potential disadvantage over time. And it looks at the relationship between all indicators and student attainment and progress at school. The safest and clearest indicators are the sex (male) and age in year (summer born) of a student but neither of these is currently considered in widening participation. Otherwise, the best general indicator is eligibility for free school meals (poverty), and this is best computed as the number of years a student has been known to be eligible. Having a special educational need is also a promising indicator, but doubts are raised about its validity and it anyway covers a wide range of factors, some of which are already dealt with by the education system. Very few students registered as living in care continue in education post-16, and this indicator could be used safely and to advantage. The rest, including area measures, school type, performance relative to school, ethnicity and first language are generally not safe to use.

Pupil Premium funding has been provided to schools in England since 2011, to help overcome socio-economic segregation between schools, and reduce the poverty attainment gap. Yet there is little evidence such an approach is effective. Some important stakeholders are considering whether Pupil Premium should stop or be re-routed. It is therefore essential to know whether the policy has helped in the eight years since its inception. Evaluating the impact of such a funding policy is fraught with difficulties because of changes over time in the economy, legal definitions, prevalence of disadvantage, and metrics used. Previous research has generally ignored these, and the role of length and depth of disadvantage. Hence, previous estimates of the attainment gap are insecure. This paper introduces a new analysis, based on the National Pupil Database that considers changes in the prevalence of FSM-eligibility, private school attendance, GDP and the duration of individual poverty. Net of such factors, the results show that segregation has declined unexpectedly since 2011, suggesting that the Pupil Premium may be working. The policy should continue, while research looks at the long-term impact on the poverty gap. Meanwhile, the funding could be re-calibrated to be fairer to areas with longer-term disadvantage.

This paper reports on the findings of an ESRC funded project that contributes to the evidence base underpinning contextualised approaches to undergraduate admissions in England. We show that the bolder use of reduced entry requirements for disadvantaged learners is necessary if ambitious new widening access targets set by the Office for Students (OfS) are to be achieved. We demonstrate empirically that academic entry requirements for disadvantaged learners can be reduced substantially without setting these students up to fail at university. We also show that the use of area level measures to identify contextually disadvantaged learners -- including the OfS's preferred measure, POLAR -- runs a high risk of failure to reach the intended beneficiaries of contextualised admissions policies. We argue strongly in favour of the use of administratively verified individual level metrics to identify contextually disadvantaged learners, most notably receipt of free school meals and low household income.

It is estimated that only approximately 20 percent of adult European Roma have attained higher than primary education. Scholars have identified different potential causes of the unfavourable school outcomes achieved by Roma students. Cultural differences between the (traditional) way of life in Roma families and the values professed by the mainstream society are often blamed for high dropout rates and the low educational attainment of Roma. Yet there is also a group of researchers who disagree with this, and suggest that it is more to do with economic and other differences. Our empirical study is based on a large representative sample of UNDP/WB/EC Regional Roma Survey conducted in twelve European countries. We show that, on average, Roma respondents (in comparison to non-Roma) express remarkably lower levels of educational aspirations for children. However, these differences diminish considerably when controlling for common individual and household characteristics, and again when including culture proxies. Consequently, our study contributes to questioning one of the negative stereotypes about the distinctiveness of Roma and their culture in relation to education.

Teacher workload is an important policy concern in many education systems around the world, often considered a contributory factor in teacher attrition. One aspect of workload that could be addressed is reducing the amount of written marking and feedback that teachers do. This article reports on the results of an evaluation of FLASH Marking, an intervention aimed at reducing teachers' marking workload. FLASH Marking is a code-based feedback approach involving peer- and self-assessment, reducing the need to use alphanumeric grading while promoting the use of students' metacognitive skills. The study involved a single cohort of 18,500 Key Stage 4 pupils (aged 14/15 at the start of the trial) and their English teachers (n = 990) in 103 secondary schools in England. The impact of the intervention was estimated as the difference in before and after measures of teacher workload, comparing teachers in 52 intervention schools and those in 51 control schools. The results suggest that the intervention had the effect of lessening teachers' workload by reducing their working hours (effect size 0.16), including hours spent on marking and feedback (0.17). The intervention was largely implemented as designed and teachers were generally positive about the potential impact of FLASH on pupils' learning outcomes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Extensive literature has compared the effect of selective schools with that of non-selective schools on pupil outcomes in England. However, evaluation of selective systems has been sparse and contradictory. From the perspective of educational equity, this study assesses the potential impact of academically selective school systems on pupils' overall academic outcomes. To do this, we compare pupils' academic performance in a selective system with that in a non-selective system using large-scale national data from England. The results show no evidence of a superior academic effect of selective systems on pupils' academic outcomes. While the general results for the effects of the two systems reveal neither system to be superior, an internal pattern implies negative results from the selective system, from which high performers suffer. The findings collectively imply that maintaining selective systems for compulsory education is unlikely to generate any substantial academic gain. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In the UK, as elsewhere, the use of "contextual" data has been strongly advocated in order to inform undergraduate admissions decision-making. More than a third of UK universities currently take the socioeconomic or other background context of undergraduate applicants' attainment into account when deciding whom to shortlist, interview, make standard or reduced offers to, or accept at confirmation or clearing. Even more universities plan to do so in the future. Contextualised admissions policies are considered by many commentators to be intrinsically fairer, and to represent a potentially powerful means of addressing the persistent under-representation of HE students from less advantaged backgrounds, but their impact has not yet been rigorously evaluated. In order to be effective, the indicators must be accurate, appropriate, and complete, and policies for their use must demonstrably widen participation, presumably without compromising student achievement. This paper reviews the indicators available for judging context, and the existing evidence base on how contextually-identified students perform in higher education. It illustrates the considerable difficulties of using any available indicators, alone or in combination, in terms of trustworthiness. And it explains how their use could introduce new injustices while tackling merely the symptoms of stratified participation in HE. This is far from a counsel of despair. We need to widen participation and the use of context stills shows considerable promise. The paper therefore presents the case for a new study by the authors, looking at which of the available contextual indicators are best in practice, and what difference their use would really make to widening participation at HE.

For decades there have been calls by concerned stakeholders to improve the quality of education research, and some progress has been made towards creating a more secure evidence base in some areas. More programmes and approaches that have a reasonable evidence base are now also being used in schools (but not in policy, and not necessarily because they have a reasonable evidence base). However, there has been no equivalent improvement in secure knowledge about how best to get that evidence into use, or even what difference it makes when such evidence is used. This paper looks at what little is already known about the different ways to get research evidence into use in education by summarising the results of a large-scale review of the literature. A total of 323 of the most relevant studies were looked at across all areas of public policy, and judged for quality and contribution. Very few (33) were of the appropriate design and quality needed to make robust causal claims about evidence-into-use, and even fewer of these concerned education. This means that despite over 20 years of modest improvement in research on what works in education policy and practice, the evidence on how best to deploy these findings is still very weak. We consider studies in terms of several issues, including whether they look at changes in user knowledge and behaviour, or student outcomes, and how evidence is best modified before use. Providing access to raw research evidence or even slightly simplified evidence is not generally an effective way of getting it used, even if that evidence is presented to users by knowledge-brokers, in short courses or similar. What is more likely to work for both policy and practice is the engineering of high quality evidence into a more usable format and presenting it actively or iteratively via a respected and trusted conduit, or through population measures such as legislation. Having the users actually do the research is another promising approach. Expecting each individual study they fund to have an impact is not the way forward, as this may encourage widespread use of ineffective or even harmful interventions. Publicly-funded users, including policy-makers, should be required to use evidence-led programmes from those libraries providing them and which are appropriate and relevant to their aims. Research funders should support these approaches, and help to build up libraries of successfully tested programmes. Researchers need to be scrupulous, looking at their new evidence in the context of what is already known and not looking to obtain 'impact' from single studies. More and better research is needed on the best routes for evidence-into-use. However, the improvements required of all parties are as much ethical in nature as they are technical or scientific.

There is considerable evidence that the level of parental involvement is closely associated with children's school outcomes. Schools are increasingly using digital technology to engage parents, but the impact of such technology on students' learning behaviour is still unclear. This paper reviews and synthesises international evidence from 29 studies to establish whether technology-mediated parental engagement can improve student outcomes. While the review suggests promising evidence in school-parent communication via phone, texts, or emails on children's attainment, attendance, and homework completion, such communications have to be two-way, personalised, and positive. The evidence for home computers and other portable devices is inconclusive. There is no evidence so far that online technological devices and digital media are effective for improving school outcomes. Current research on the use of such technology is weak. Research in this field needs to consider a more careful and scientific approach to improve the evidence base.