School Governance and Educational Improvement

March 16, 2019

The week before last saw the publication of the Education Endowment Foundation’s guidance on evidence-informed guidance. At the time, I was struck by the lack of any research evidence within the report, detailing how school governing bodies/trusts can bring about school improvement. Since then, with the aid of Terry Pearson @TPLTD, I have been able to locate a systematic literature review by Honingh, Ruite and van Thiel (2018) which looks at the relationship between school boards and educational quality.

Honingh et al having originally identified nearly 5000 articles on school boards and governing bodies in the USA, Netherlands, England and the Flemish Community of Belgium, eventually reduced to just 16 empirical articles from which they drew the following conclusions.

There is a lack of solid and robust empirical evidence on the relationship between school boards and governing bodies with educational quality. So it would seem that a theory of change which relates governing body activities with school improvement is not evidence-based. Governing bodies may have expectations placed upon them, which are just not supported by the evidence.
Within the 16 studies – there were differences between in the scope, scale and quality of the research, as well as country and regional differences. Claims and conclusions about the effectiveness of school boards/governing bodies are often based on personal experience, observations and opinions, as such the empirical base is mainly anecdotal
School boards and governing bodies are not homogenous. There are differences in how both a board is constituted – size, representation, role of school leader, primary and secondary – and the context in which the board is operating within, and the level of delegated authority. As such, this has major implications for practitioners when seeking to interpret and apply these findings.
The research on governing bodies has focussed on the outcomes of test results, rather than a broader definition of educational quality. As such, we know very little about the relationship between about the relationship between governing bodies and broader educational aims and objectives.

Some observations and implications

Just because since the 1980s governing bodies have become part and parcel of school life, that does not mean there is any evidence to support claims that they bring about school improvement. Indeed, this could probably be said about many activities within a school, for example, parents evenings (if you are communicating anything of importance at a parents’ evening this reflects a failure of day to day parent school communication)
Thought should be given to the development of a range of robust theories of change which links the work of the governing body with broader educational aims and objectives
Given pressures of senior leader and teacher work-load could a school be run without a governing body, with any functions deemed to be essential being undertaken by other individuals in the school, in a more time efficient and effective manner.
Social media and EduTwitter often gets a ‘bad-rap’. However, Twitter is full of people who are willing to make help, make suggestions and point out interesting research and is not just a playground for the ‘trads and the progs’ in their culture wars.

And finally

In coming weeks, future posts will be looking at how evidence-based practitioners can go about gaining feedback from stakeholders.

Reference

Marlies Honingh, Merel Ruiter & Sandra van Thiel (2018): Are school boards and educational quality related? Results of an international literature review, Educational Review, DOI: 10.1080/00131911.2018.1487387

The EEF and evidence-informed governance - where's the evidence

March 09, 2019

This week saw the publication of the Education Endowment Foundation’s guide to being an evidence-informed governor. However, what I found deeply ironic was the complete absence of any reference to research evidence about the relationship between school governance and school improvement. So to try and address this evidence gap I checked out the Ofsted (2019) overview of the research underpinning the new inspection framework. Unfortunately, a word search in the document – using the terms governor and governance – found not a single reference to either term, which I must admit I found surprising My next port of call was Google and Google Scholar – where I used the search terms ‘school governors and school improvement’ – and low and behold – the first article returned was Ransom et al (2005) paper ‘Does governance matter for school improvement? – which although behind a paywall, could also be found as freely available PDF. Using, Ransom et al as my ‘crib’ the rest of this post will:

· Articulate a theory of change for governance and school improvement

· Report of Ransom et al’s national study on the relationship between governance and school improvement in Wales

· Make some observations about a second major limitation of the EEF’s guidance on being an evidence-informed governor

A theory of change for governance and school improvement

Using Long et al’s (2018) PIT—B model for a theory of change as a prompt, I’ve come up with the following theory of change for governance and school improvement.

All schools need to be constantly seeking to improve. Our theory is that if governors reinforce the importance of instructional leadership, provide strategy, scrutinise practice, offer support and ensure accountability this will improve the effectiveness of leadership and management of the school. Increased effectiveness of school leadership will lead to an improvement in the environment of learning and teaching, which we believe will lead to increased standards of educational attainment and generate better results for pupils.

Researching school governance in Wales

Ransom et al undertook a research project into the governing bodies of 72 schools – both secondary and primary – during the period 1998-2002. Preliminary interviews were held with the headteacher and chair of governors, with questionnaire being administered to each member of the governing body. Thirty schools were chosen for more focused case-study research as they illustrated elements of good governance. Field work as undertaken with members of the school’s senior leadership team, along with observation of governing body and subcommittee meetings. School performance data appeared not to be made available by LEAs, although GCSE and Key Stage test scores were provided by the Wales Assembly Government. Of the 72 schools – 44 showed changes in performance over time – either improving, declining or being ‘stuck’ at a particular level of attainment.

Ransom et al analysed types of governance – deliberative forum, consultative sounding board, executive board and governing body (see end of post) – and found that there appeared to be a link between school performances and good governance. Practices which seems to be associated with the improvement of primary schools included in the study.

1. Governance and governors are valued: because they provide a different voice and perspective, because they bind the school to the wider community, strengthen the corporate nature of the school and the public, collective stature of its decisions.

2. Governance that represents the diversity of its parent communities: Including the participation and voice of different parents helps the school to understand the variety of learning needs as well as securing their commitment to supporting learning in the home.

3. Partnership between head and governors are of mutual support: The head values and supports the governing body in their roles, just as the governors seek to support the head and staff in the school. Heads do not seek to superintend, to take over the role of governance.

4. Clarity of roles: Heads are chief executives providing professional leadership and day-to-day management, while the governing body has oversight of the school: it is the publicly accountable body.

5. Organised as an executive board or governing body: exercising functions of scrutiny, strategy and accountability.

6. Scrutiny as the strategic function of the best primary school governing bodies, assuring the quality and standards of education in the school. This is achieved by:

· bringing high expectations to school;

· ensuring full deliberation and questioning of the policies, budgets, and practices of the school;

· putting in place systems for monitoring and reviewing the standards of achievement, financial plans and policy developments of the school.

1. Embodying the values and ethos of the school: The governors express the public values and purpose of justice and fairness as well as any particular denominational or language ethos.

2. Close attachment of governors to the life of the school through a system of links to curriculum areas and classroom visits in order to develop knowledge and understanding of the key practices of learning in the school.

3. Close ties with the community: Involving parents and the community is key to the success of the school and the governors have a key role in securing that partnership. P13-14)

Ransom et al go onto note that what is particularly distinctive about this set characteristics is the focus on ‘practices of scrutiny’ which are believed by headteachers and governors as being important in bringing about school improvement. As such, governing bodies as there appears to be a relationship between governance and school improvement.

How useful is the research for English schools in 2019?

First, it needs to be remembered that the research took place nearly 20 years ago in a different educational system. So it’s necessary to be careful in attempting to make any kind of read across from ‘there and then’ to ‘here and now’. Second, as Ransom et al acknowledge there are issues around the causal relationship between governance and school improvement. Does governance lead to improvements or does improvement generate better governance. That said, the research does provide some backing for a claim that school improvement could come about if governors challenge school leaders around practices identified in the EEF’s guidance: how well are your pupils doing; how effectively is the school spending its money; and, how does the school support effective teaching and learning.

An additional observation

Governing bodies differ from school to school. In some schools, school governors who wish to become more evidence-informed or want more evidence-informed decisions, may well be pushing against an ‘open-door’ and where there is a whole-school culture of evidence-use – (Coldwell et at 2017). On the other hand, the school may have a very weak evidence culture, with little or no use of research evidence by senior leaders. Indeed, there is some research by the Sutton Trust that suggests only 68% of headteachers and 45% of teachers in England cite using research evidence to inform decision-making, Governors who are governors in schools with little or no use of research evidence may find themselves quite isolated and subject to challenge, This may well be the case if the ‘evidence’ leads to the challenge of existing and long established practices. Unfotunately, the EEF guidance provides no assistance in how to address this issue.

And finally

It’s important for governors to remember that the Department for Education’s Competency Framework for Governance makes explicit reference to governors making decisions based on the best available evidence. In other words, making the best use of research evidence is not an option, instead it is necessary for competent governance – so even if the EEF’s guidance is not perfect, it is essential reading.

Update

Since this post was published, Terry Pearson @TPLTD, very kindly identified additional research on school governance, which is worthy of consideration.

Baxter, J. (2017). School governor regulation in England’s changing education landscape. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 45(1), 20–39. https://doi.org/10.1177/1741143215587306

James, C., Brammer, S., Connolly, M., Fertig, M., James, J., & Jones, J. (2011). School Governing Bodies in England Under Pressure: The Effects of Socio-economic Context and School Performance. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 39(4), 414–433. https://doi.org/10.1177/1741143211404258

References

Coldwell, M., Greany, T., Higgins, S., Brown, C., Maxwell, B., B, S., Stoll, L., Willis, B. & Burns, H. 2017. Evidence-informed teaching: an evaluation of progress in England Research report. London: Department for Education.

DfE. (2017). A Competency Framework for Governance the Knowledge, Skills and Behaviours Needed for Effective Governance in Maintained Schools, Academies and Multi-Academy Trusts : January 2017. London. Department for Education

EEF (2019) The EEF guide to becoming an evidence-informed school governor and trustee, London Education Endowment Foundation,

Long M, Macdonald A and Duncan T. (2018) Practical Tips for Developing and Using Theories of Change and Logic Models. 2018 Virginia AmeriCorps Annual Program Directors and Staff Meeting, Richmond, VA: ICF

Ofsted (2019) Education inspection framework: Overview of research, London, OFSTED.

Ranson, S., Farrell, C., Peim, N., & Smith, P. (2005). Does governance matter for school improvement?. School effectiveness and school improvement, 16(3), 305-325.

Note on different types of governance

Ransom et al identify four distinct types of governing body

Governance as a deliberative forum. Here governance constitutes largely a gathering of members, often parents, at which discussions of the school are determined and led by the headteacher as professional leader. Parents will not feel they can question the authority of the head though they may inquire about aspects of the school’s progress.

Governance as a consultative sounding board. Here governors define their role as providing a sounding board for the strategies and policies provided by the headteacher as principal professional.

Governance as an executive board. In these schools a partnership has developed between the governors and the school and, in particular, between the head and the chair with the former leading ‘‘primus inter pares’’. There may be a division of labour between them. The board assuming overall responsibility for the business aspects of the school: the budget, staffing, and the infrastructure of building. Their concern is with their legal responsibility and accountability for the school. The head assumes overall responsibility for curricular and pedagogic aspects of the school.

Governance as a governing body. In these schools, the governing body takes overarching responsibility for the conduct and direction of the school. The head will be a strong professional leader, but a member rather than leader of the governing body that acts as a corporate entity. The agenda and the meeting will be led by the chair. (p12 and 13)

The School Research Lead - and a PIT-B theory of change

February 24, 2019

Recently I’ve been giving a lot of thought to the related ideas of theories of change, theories of action and logic models. Fortunately, there are lots of really useful resources available online which provide practical advice on how to make these ideas ‘work’. In this post I am going to look at the work of (Long et al., 2018) and their PIT-B model for developing a theory of change (TOC). Full details of which can be found using the following link.

Let’s start by stating what is meant by the term ‘theory of change’. Put simply a theory of change explains ‘how and why’ a particular intervention will in a specific context bring about the desired or hoped for change.

Long et al recommend that when developing a theory of change, you begin with the objective or problem you are trying to solve or address. Second, you explain what aspect of the intervention/innovation you are proposing that allows it to solve the problem or achieve the objective. Next, describe how the intervention facilitates and carries out this causal mechanism. Finally, complete your causal chain by returning to the problem or objective you started with.

Long et al suggest that this can be done by using the PIT-B model

We can now use this model to help illustrate theories of change which could be developed for use in your work as a school research lead.

Example 1

Teachers in school do not see the practical relevance of educational research, when planning lessons and schemes of work, so it is not unexpected that teachers do not make use of educational research. Our theory is that if teachers have more opportunities to read and discuss research, they will begin to make greater use of educational research in their teaching. The school’s Journal Club promotes the use of educational research by providing setting for research literate colleagues to support colleagues think about how research could be applied in classroom setting. We believe that this encourage an increase in educational research, and increase its use in lesson plans and schemes of work.

Example 2

Teachers in school are often demotivated by existing schemes of performance management and objective setting for accountability purposes. Out theory is that teachers have opportunities to focus on ‘development’ objectives rather than ‘accountability’ objectives this will increase teacher motivation and engagement in performance management process. The school’s programme of ‘disciplined inquiry’ encourages teachers to think about how they can bring about improvements both teaching and pupil outcomes. We believe that this will increase the motivation of teachers, and eliminate the demotivating impact of accountability based performance management

However, it is important to realise that coming with a theory of change is the ‘easy-bit’ . In order to create a ‘good’ theory of change, Long et al recommend that the underpinning assumptions and hypotheses are stated. Second, the appropriate resources are available. Third, the language used is clear and unambiguous. Fourth, there should be agreement from all the relevant stakeholders. Last but not least, the focus should be on one particular intervention.

And finally

Developing a robust theory of change will not guarantee that you whatever intervention you are introducing will be a success. However, it will increase you chance of success as you will be able to articulate - the how and the why of what you are trying to achieve - this allows you to then focus on what you are going to do to make it happen - and this is another story.

Reference

Want to know more

If you are interested in finding out more about theories of change, theories of action and logic models, have a look at the following

https://www.betterevaluation.org/en/rainbow_framework/define/develop_programme_theory

The school research lead and making the most of supporting evidence-based practice in schools

February 15, 2019

School research leads across country are trying to encourage the use of evidence-based practice. No doubts lots of different interventions, be it lesson study, joint-practice development, journal clubs, conferences, seminars and disciplined inquiry - have been introduced. Alternatively the school may be involved in research studies looking at ways of developing evidence use, Hammersley-Fletcher, Lewin, et al. (2015), Griggs, Speight, et al. (2016), Speight, Callanan, et al. (2016) and Brown (2017). So to make the most of all this activity, and to ensure that colleagues learn from both the success and failure of others, it is sensible to use a basic common structure to report on educational interventions designed to support evidence-informed/based practice within schools.

The GREET check-list

The GREET check-list - Phillips, Lewis, McEvoy, Galipeau, Glasziou, Moher, et al. (2016) was developed to provide guidance n the reporting of educational interventions for evidence-based practice within medicine. The check-list was the product of a systematic review, Delphi survey and three consensus discussions, with the result being a 17 item check-list . Guidance on how to complete the GREET checklist has been provided by Phillips, Lewis, McEvoy, Galipeau, Glasziou, Hammick, et al. (2016) and this guidance has been used to develop an exemplar report of an evidence-based educational intervention – journal clubs.

Journal Clubs

1. INTERVENTION: Provide a brief description of the educational intervention for all groups involved [e.g. control and comparator(s)].

The introduction of a journal club – facilitated by the school research lead - for teaching and other staff who wished to attend the sessions.

2. THEORY: Describe the educational theory(ies), concept or approach used in the intervention.

If teachers are ‘exposed’ to research this will ultimately bring about changes in teaching practice, resulting in improved learning outcomes for pupils

3. LEARNING OBJECTIVES: Describe the learning objectives for all groups involved in the educational intervention.

To develop the reading habits of the participants
To improve participants knowledge of relevant educational research
To help develop participants skills in critically appraising research and applying it to teaching

4. EBP CONTENT: List the foundation steps of EBP (ask, acquire, appraise, apply, assess) included in the educational intervention.

The core content focused on appraising educational research

5. MATERIALS: Describe the specific educational materials used in the educational intervention. Include materials provided to the learners and those used in the training of educational intervention providers.

Attendees were directed towards Chartered College of Teaching resources designed to give brief summaries of different types of research reports, including how to go about reading research.

6. EDUCATIONAL STRATEGIES: Describe the teaching / learning strategies (e.g. tutorials, lectures, online modules) used in the educational intervention.

Seminars led by the school research lead

7. INCENTIVES: Describe any incentives or reimbursements provided to the learners.

A group of ten staff – out of a possible 100 eligible staff –decided to attend the journal club.

Attendees to the sessions were provided with light refreshments – tea, coffee and biscuits

8. INSTRUCTORS: For each instructor(s) involved in the educational intervention describe their professional discipline, teaching experience / expertise. Include any specific training related to the educational intervention provided for the instructor(s).

The sessions were facilitated by the school research lead who had recently completed a MA in Education.

9. DELIVERY: Describe the modes of delivery (e.g. face-to-face, internet or independent study package) of the educational intervention. Include whether the intervention was provided individually or in a group and the ratio of learners to instructors.

In October 2018 school research lead conducted an introductory session on how to appraise educational research. In subsequent sessions the school research lead facilitated a structured discussion on the reading scheduled for that session.

10. ENVIRONMENT: Describe the relevant physical learning spaces (e.g. conference, university lecture theatre, hospital ward, community) where the teaching / learning occurred.

The sessions were held in the seminar room – located within the school library.

11. SCHEDULE: Describe the scheduling of the educational intervention including the number of sessions, their frequency, timing and duration.

A total of six sessions were held, with a session being held every half-term. Each session took place on a Wednesday and 4.00 pm and lasted approximately 45 minutes. The intervention was implemented over the course of 2018-19 academic year.

12. Describe the amount of time learners spent in face to face contact with instructors and any designated time spent in self-directed learning activities.

Participants spent approximately 4 ½ hours in the sessions, with another 4 ½ hours spent reading materials prior to the sessions.

13. Did the educational intervention require specific adaptation for the learners? If yes, please describe the adaptations made for the learner(s) or group(s).

Some participants had little or no knowledge of educational research and they were paired with other participants who had recently participated in post-graduate study.

14. Was the educational intervention modified during the course of the study? If yes, describe the changes (what, why, when, and how).

It had been intended to look at a key text, for example, during each session. It soon became apparent that participants were able to do the required reading. Texts subsequently used were primarily used were articles from the Chartered College of Teaching journal Impact.

15. ATTENDANCE: Describe the learner attendance, including how this was assessed and by whom. Describe any strategies that were used to facilitate attendance.

On average only six out of ten staff attended the sessions. Two participants attended all six sessions – with two participants only attending two sessions. Records of attendances were kept by the school research lead.

16. Describe any processes used to determine whether the materials and the educational strategies used in the educational intervention were delivered as originally planned.

The school research lead undertook research into how journal clubs had been successfully run in both medicine and schools based and devised the session based on this reading

17. Describe the extent to which the number of sessions, their frequency, timing and duration for the educational intervention was delivered as scheduled

All the sessions were delivered as scheduled

Limitations

Whilst in medicine there is some consensus on the competences associated with evidence-based practice - Dawes, Summerskill, et al. (2005) – this does not appear to be the case in education. As such the check-list may or may not be relevant to education. And of course, it provides only the sketchiest of outlines of how the implementation was Implemented and no data of the impact of the intervention on pupils outcomes. Nevertheless, the check-list does provide a time efficient way of capturing the essence of what was done, and we should never the perfect be the enemy of the good.

And finally

If you are interested on the use of check-lists may I suggest you have look at the work of both Atul Gawande and Harry Fletcher-Wood. (see http://evidencebasededucationalleadership.blogspot.com/2015/10/the-school-research-lead-can-research.html for references)

References

Brown, C. (2017). Research Learning Communities: How the Rlc Approach Enables Teachers to Use Research to Improve Their Practice and the Benefits for Students That Occur as a Result. Research for All. 1. 2. 387-405.

Dawes, M., Summerskill, W., Glasziou, P., Cartabellotta, A., Martin, J., Hopayian, K., Porzsolt, F., Burls, A. and Osborne, J. (2005). Sicily Statement on Evidence-Based Practice. BMC medical education. 5. 1. 1.

Griggs, J., Speight, S. and Farias, J. C. (2016). Ashford Teaching Alliance Research Champion: Evaluation Report and Executive Summary. Education Endowment Foundation.

Hammersley-Fletcher, L., Lewin, C., Davies, C., Duggan, J., Rowley, H. and Spink, E. (2015). Evidence-Based Teaching: Advancing Capability and Capacity for Enquiry in Schools: Interim Report. London. National College for Teaching and Leadership.

Phillips, A., Lewis, L., McEvoy, M., Galipeau, J., Glasziou, P., Hammick, M., Moher, D., Tilson, J. and Williams, M. (2016). Explanation and Elaboration Paper (E&E) for the Guideline for Reporting Evidence-Based Practice Educational Interventions and Teaching (Greet).. University of South Australia

Phillips, A. C., Lewis, L. K., McEvoy, M. P., Galipeau, J., Glasziou, P., Moher, D., Tilson, J. K. and Williams, M. T. (2016). Development and Validation of the Guideline for Reporting Evidence-Based Practice Educational Interventions and Teaching (Greet). BMC medical education. 16. 1. 237.

Speight, S., Callanan, M., Griggs, J., Farias, J. C. and Fry, A. (2016). Rochdale Research into Practice: Evaluation Report and Executive Summary. Education Endowment Foundation.

The school research lead and being a bit TIDiER - making school inquiries more rigorous and useful

February 07, 2019

Over the last seven days several research related articles in the TES have caught my eye. First, there was Joe Nutt saying - 'Good research is good - but experience is better' with research often so indigestible as to be of little use to teachers. Then, there was an article by Martin George asking whether ‘edtech’ is immune from rigorous research, given that pace of technological change makes the usual evidence-gathering on effectiveness redundant. Finally, we have Professor Barbara Oakley saying that too many education researchers ‘do not do research that is founded on the scientific method,’ resulting in a crisis of replicability. In other words, when teachers and school leaders are wishing to use to research evidence, the evidence doesn’t exist, or if it does, it’s neither comprehensible or replicable

Now it’s fair to say that there are no simple or easy answers to the questions these articles raise. However, at the level of the school when teachers report on a disciplined inquiry or some form of collaborative practitioner inquiry, there is something which can do i.e. use a reporting checklist - to improve the quality of reporting and in doing so make the research more accessible and useful to both themselves and colleagues.

One such checklist is the TIDieR (Template for Intervention Description and Replication) Checklist - Hoffmann, Glasziou, et al. (2014) – I’ve adapted to report on an school-based intervention which provides one-to one support for pupils studying GCSE English.

TIDiER Checklist – One to one support for pupils studying GCSE English

1. NAME – Provide the name or the phrase which describes the intervention.

Additional one-to-one support for pupils studying GCSE English.

2. WHY – Describe any rationale, theory or goals of the essential elements of the interventions

The provision of additional support may lead to an improvement in individuals performance in GCSE English examinations, with more pupils gaining grade 4 or better.

3. WHO – Describe the participants and how they were selected for the intervention

The participants were Y11 pupils in a mixed sex comprehensive school, where examination results are consistent with national averages. and will below average numbers of pupils receiving the pupil premium.
Twenty pupils - out of a total of 150 pupils studying GCSE English - were identified by English teachers as being on grade 5/4 borderline for GCSE English were asked to attend the activities associated with the intervention. The twenty pupil included 12 boys and 8 girls.

4. WHAT - Materials: Describe any physical or informational materials used in the intervention, including those provided to participants or used in intervention delivery or in training of intervention providers. Provide information on where the materials can be accessed (e.g. online appendix, URL).

Existing teaching resources were used – with teachers pooling resources . Additional resources were also created to respond to specific teaching problems as they emerged. These were also shared.

5. WHAT : Procedures: Describe each of the procedures or activities, and are processes used in the interventions including any enabling or support activities.

The night before their scheduled session all pupils involved in the intervention received a text message reminding them of the time and place of their support session.

6. WHO PROVIDED: For each category of intervention provider – teachers, pastoral support, teaching assistant etc describe their expertise, backgrounds and any specific training given.

All teachers (five) within the English Department were used to providing the one-to-one support to pupils. No additional raining was provided.

7. HOW: Describe the mode of delivery of the intervention – large group teaching, small group teaching, one to one, online etc.

Additional support was provided on an one to one to basis to individual pupils

8. WHERE: Describe the location where it occurred, any necessary infrastructure or other features

The sessions were provided each day (Monday – Thursday) after school between 4.00 pm and 4.45 pm and held individual teacher’s base rooms.

9. WHEN and HOW MUCH – Describe the number of times the intervention was delivered and over what period of time including the number of sessions, their schedule, and their duration

Each pupil was scheduled to receive 10 sessions – spread over 12 weeks, commencing in February and ending the middle of May. Each session was expected to last 45 minutes.

10. TAILORING Was the intervention planned to personalised or adapted for the needs of a particular group – if so, then describe what, why, when and how.

Those pupils allocated to the programme were provided with a personalised programme of work – which was devised after discussion between the pupil, the class teacher and the teacher providing additional support.

11. MODIFICATIONS If the intervention was modified during the course of the study, describe the changes – what, why, how and when.

Due to staff absence – 1 member of staff was absent for the period of the intervention – those sessions were delivered by a teaching assistant

12. HOW WELL : Planned : If intervention adherence or fidelity was assessed , describe how and how and were any strategies used to maintain/develop fidelity.

It was hoped that pupils would attend on average 8 sessions. Where sessions were missed, emails were sent to the both the GCSE English teacher and group tutor to ask them to remind pupils to attend future sessions. Where teachers were not available to take the planned sessions, support was provided by a teaching assistant

13. HOW WELL : Actual : If intervention adherence or fidelity was assessed , describe the extent to which the intervention was delivered as planned

The mean number of sessions attended was 7. Seven pupils (35%) attended ten sessions, six pupils attended nine sessions (30%) with three pupils attending one or less sessions. The remaining four pupils attended between six and eight sessions.

14. OUTCOMES : Actual : What outcomes were obtained

19 out of 20 pupils gained at least a grade 4 in GCSE English

15. DISCUSSION : What has been learnt and is relevant internally and externally

The provision appeared to have made an impact – as in the previous academic year only 50% of a similar group pupils gained at least a grade 4
Each member of staff involved had to commit around 30 hours of additional time to support the innovation and was only possible due to their commitment
Other activities – which could have taken place in after school meetings had to be delayed till later in the year.
All the staff involved were experienced and effective practitioners – the model may need to be adjusted for a different profile of staff
Consideration needs to be given whether small group support should be provided for pupils

Limitations

Of course, when you use a checklist there are drawbacks. Although the check-list might will help you to report on the intervention, it still might not capture all the complexity of what has happened. By adopting a check-list may lead a reduction in creativity in the ways in which teachers report on interventions. Adopting a check-list may also be perceived as increasing the workload of teachers

And finally

There are no easy answers when it comes to addressing some of the problems with using research evidence. That said, regardless of whether you are someone who is producing research evidence or using it to help bring out about improvements for pupils, if you are conscientious, judicious and explicit in your use of evidence, you will not go far wrong.

References

Hoffmann, T. C., Glasziou, P. P., Boutron, I., Milne, R., Perera, R., Moher, D., Altman, D. G., Barbour, V., Macdonald, H., Johnston, M., Lamb, S. E., Dixon-Woods, M., McCulloch, P., Wyatt, J. C., Chan, A.-W. and Michie, S. (2014). Better Reporting of Interventions: Template for Intervention Description and Replication (Tidier) Checklist and Guide. BMJ : British Medical Journal. 348.

Humphrey, N., Lendrum, A., Ashworth, E., Frearson, K., Buck, R. and Kerr, K. (2016). Implementation and Process Evaluation (Ipe) for Interventions in Education Settings: A Synthesis of the Literature. Education Endowment Foundation, London.