We recently completed the evaluation of thenational roll out of the Parenting Early InterventionProgramme (PEIP) 2008-11. We previouslyevaluated the Pathfinder in 18 local authorities(2006-08), the results of which were positiveand contributed to the previous government’sdecision to roll the PEIP out across all English LAs.

Local authorities were funded to implementevidence-based parenting programmes designedto improve parenting skills and reduce children’sbehavioural difficulties. Initially, LAs could useone or more of five specified programmes:Incredible Years, Triple P, Strengthening Families,Strengthening Communities, Families andSchools Together (FAST), and the StrengtheningFamilies Programme 10-14. Later, this wasrelaxed and other programmes were added tothe list of permitted interventions.

Our study had two important, complementarycomponents. First, we wanted to see whetherthese programmes would still be effective whenrolled out on this very large scale. Efficacy hadbeen demonstrated by previous studies,especially randomized control trials (RCTs).These are highly controlled, rigorous studies buttypically of relatively small numbers of parents,with parenting groups led by a small number offacilitators compared with over 1000 in ourstudy. We investigated this by using parentcompleted questionnaires as they started andcompleted their programmes, which differed inlength from about 7-18 or more sessions. Wealso carried out a one-year follow up.

Secondly, we examined the way these programmes

were being implemented drawing on the viewsof key participants in this process about theireffectiveness: parents, group facilitators, LAoperational and strategic lead officers, andother LA parenting support professionals. We alsoinvestigated the qualifications and experienceof facilitators to explore whether these were animportant factor in programmes’ success.

Did parents improve?The PEIP results were very positive for the fourprogrammes for which we had sufficient data(unfortunately the FAST sample was too smallto include in our main analyses). Two measuresof inappropriate parenting style, laxness andover-reactivity, reduced substantially and thisimprovement was maintained over the yearfollowing the programme. These changes werestatistically highly significant, which is partly aresult of the large sample, but the effect sizewas also large. Another way of reporting theseresults is that about three quarters of parentsimproved on these two measures. Parentalmental well-being also improved over theprogramme and after one year continued to behighly significantly better than at the start.

Figure 1 shows the improvements (reduction)for the Parenting Scale which combines thelaxness and over-reactivity scores.

Did the children improve?The parents also reported substantialimprovements in the children’s behaviour: theproportion of children with serious problems (in

the top 10% nationally) reduced from 56% to38%, a reduction of about a third. Althoughhighly significant, this improvement was lessthan that shown in the parents’ scores; this isreasonable as the programmes were addressingparent behaviour which would then beexpected to have an effect on their children’sbehaviour as parenting styles improved.

Did programmes differ?The four programmes for which we hadsufficient data were all effective in improvingparent and child outcomes. Parents were alsovery positive about all five. There were somedifferences which we explore in our report but

Newsletter ISSUE 23 SUMMER 2011Centre for Educational Development, Appraisal and Research

CEDARParenting EarlyInterventionProgrammeGeoff LindsayGeoff Lindsay

Mean Score with 95%

confidence interval

48

46

44

42

40

38

36

34

32

30Pre-course Post-course Follow-up

Figure 1

Continued on page 2

CEDAR Newsletter...CEDAR Newsletter...CEDAR Newsletter..

2

these were relatively small compared with theoverall positive effects. It is also important tonote that the aims of the programmes varied.

Were programmes cost-effective?We examined cost-effectiveness in a subsampleof 15 LAs. We found that LAs varied greatly in thecosts of implementing PEIP and consequentlycost-effectiveness also varied greatly. The overallcost of a parenting programme was £1658 foreach parent who completed, averaged acrossall LAs and the four programmes; the lowestcost was £536 per parent in one LA. Thisindicates that implementation of parentingprogrammes can be very cost-effective but inpractice this would depend both on theprogramme (costs varied, especially withnumber of sessions required) and also LAorganisation to ensure optimal use of resources.

What supported effective implementation?Strategic and operational leadership was acrucial factor: when these were not effectivelyin place the PEIP was less efficient and cost-

effective. LAs used different delivery models(core team, multi-agency and commissioned-out, plus a hybrid). No single model emerged as‘best’: rather, it was a case of ‘best fit’ to localcircumstances.

The facilitators were a diverse group. The successfactors included having sufficient capacity todeliver and having the qualities, skills, knowledgeand experience to enhance parents’ experience.Having a diverse pool of facilitators supportedrecruitment, engagement and retention ofparents which were enhanced when a priorrelationship existed between the parent and aprofessional.

Are the programmes sustainable?The PEIP was initially funded by a ring-fencedDfE grant but this was relaxed so that virementcould occur. There was high commitment tothe parenting programmes locally and to theircontinuation. The cutbacks by the coalitiongovernment have seriously challenged this andsustainability has varied, a result of overall LAdecisions on budgets rather than a judgementof the programmes’ usefulness.

Final commentThis was an excellent opportunity for CEDAR tocarry out a combined methods study deliveredby a multi-professional team. The studyrequired support from LAs to implement andwas complex so we are very grateful to all LAsthat contributed, especially the LAs in our mainsample. We presented our findings at a CEDARconference in May where representatives fromeach of the five programmes also presented,along with a DfE representative who indicatedcurrent and future policy. We are continuing tocollect 1-year follow up data and are providinga service to LAs to continue local evaluation.

The government selected parentingprogrammes to support on the basis of areview of research literature; we then evaluatedthe 18 LA Pathfinders; as a result, a national rollout was funded for all 150 LAs and this toowas evaluated. This was an excellent exampleof evidence-based policy and practice.

May 2011 saw the publication of CEDAR’s FinalReport on the evaluation of investment by theDepartment for Education (DfE) in a number ofinitiatives designed to improve teacher workforceskills in relation to SEN and disabilities (SEND).The initiatives included: the Training andDevelopment Agency (TDA) Training Toolkit andSEND extended placements in specialist settingsfor ITT providers and students; support for ITTprovider regional cluster groups; the InclusionDevelopment Programme (IDP) for the teachingworkforce; IDP Regional Hubs for LAs; theStammering Information Programme (SIP)developed at the Michael Palin Centre; andspecialist training for teachers of pupils withsensory impairment. The initiatives weredesigned to increase teaching workforce skills,with a focus on pupils with SEND.

CEDAR’s evaluation started in December 2008and continued until March 2011. The evaluationwas constructed around qualitative, interview-based work with LA IDP leads, ITT staff, schoolstaff, and parents of children with SEND, andsurveys. Primary and secondary ITT providers(both undergraduate ITT, and PGCE provision)were interviewed at three stages in the

evaluation. Data were also gathered concerningchanging awareness, skills and knowledge withrespect to SEND among teacher trainees, and inthe provision of teacher education, in the contextof competing demands within ITT. In addition,e-surveys of teacher trainees at ITT institutionstaking part in the evaluation generated datarelated to trainees’ perceptions of SEND educationat their institutions, and the impact of the TDAtoolkit and the extended specialist placements.A range of school staff was interviewed at threestages of the evaluation. Finally, parents ofchildren with SEND were interviewed to build apicture of best-practice for pupils, and provide aparent voice in relation to SEND.

CEDAR’s evaluation key findings were:

� The initiatives, taken together, represent a

DfE investment in teacherworkforce skills in relation to SpecialEducational Needs and Disabilities(SEND) evaluation Stephen Cullen

possibly unique comprehensive approach toimproving the knowledge, attitudes, skills,behaviour, and confidence of the teacherworkforce in relation to SEND.

� The materials to support trainee teachers andthose in practice have been welcomed andfound to be effective.

� The dissemination methods were effective,and produced a substantial platform forfurther dissemination.

� Taken as a whole, the evidence providedsupport for the proposed initiatives todevelop teacher training and continuingprofessional development set out in therecent Green Paper, Support and Aspiration:A new approach to special educational needsand disability (DfE, 2011).

Links below access our Final Report, the associated Research Brief, and the InterimReport, and its associated Research Brief:

https://www.education.gov.uk/publications/RSG/publicationDetail/Page1/DFE-RR115https://www.education.gov.uk/publications/RSG/publicationDetail/Page1/DFE-RB115https://www.education.gov.uk/publications/RSG/publicationDetail/Page1/DFE-RR058https://www.education.gov.uk/publications/RSG/publicationDetail/Page1/DFE-RB058

Links:

Stephen Cullen

The final report can be found at:https://www.education.gov.uk/publications/eOrderingDownload/DFE-RR121A.pdf

In 2008, Birmingham Royal Ballet began aproject with partners Birmingham Youth Services(BYS) and Birmingham Association of Youth Clubs(bayc) to give young people in the city the chanceto take part in the arts. Dr Sheila Galloway andProfessor Jonothan Neelands evaluated theproject, which culminated in a performance ofa young people’s version of ‘Cinderella’ at TheHippodrome in December 2010.

This project operated through five youthcentres in areas of the city with little access tocultural events. Youth workers supported itstrongly, alongside professional dancers andother staff from Birmingham Royal Ballet (BRB).Very few participants had classical balletexperience, but they performed a remarkable‘Cinderella’ on the Hippodrome stage,scheduled alongside the premiere of DavidBintley’s new production of ‘Cinderella’ by

Birmingham Royal Ballet. In all, 141 youngpeople participated and the adults involvedincluded 33 youth workers, 103 members ofBRB staff and 25 freelance artists.

Funding came from the Big Lottery Fund,Dancing for the Games, Birmingham CityCouncil, Creative Futures, and Inspire. Withkind support (from Birmingham Royal Ballet,Birmingham City Council and BirminghamAssociation of Youth Clubs) overall project costswere about £760,000.

The vision for BB&Me originated at a timewhen there was a national commitment todisadvantaged communities and to what wastermed ‘complex cultural activity’. However itoperated with increasing economic uncertaintyfor partner organisations, and impending jobcuts in the Youth Service.

Evaluation of Ballet Birmingham and Me Sheila Galloway

. CEDAR Newsletter...CEDAR Newsletter...CEDAR Newsletter...C

Sheila Galloway

The aim for young people to play a major role inthe project’s management and delivery happenedformally through the Youth Artistic Board. Aftera tentative start, this group gradually developeda strong and mature voice, becoming a channelbetween the youth centres and the adultsultimately responsible for project outcomes.Other young people showed their commitmentover more than eighteen months, attendingsessions sometimes twice weekly and at weekendsin youth centres and at BRB’s city centre studios.

40 young people gained Arts AwardAccreditation at Bronze level and one at Silverlevel. 30 gained an ASDAN award at Bronzelevel. It proved difficult to ensure workexperience while energy focused on theDecember production, but this is still open toyoung people as part of BB&Me’s legacy. Workcontinues on healthy lifestyles and in furtherreachout activity, a long-standing feature ofBRB’s Learning Department.

Participants had three opportunities to performpublicly. They did technical work in balletclasses, drama workshops, sessions withpractising artists generating ideas, intensivetraining events and a demanding regime ofrehearsals in autumn 2010. The youth servicearranged events including a team building dayand a young people’s evaluation session.

The project met six defined aims:

�Young people had opportunities to take partin the arts, develop skills and learn about thecreative industries.

� Learning outcomes were formally accredited.

�There were varied professional developmentopportunities for BRB staff and youth workers.

�The aim of achieving excellence wasachieved, combining BRB’s highperformance standards with its commitmentto inclusion, inherent to the original vision.

�BB&Me broached barriers to attendance,promoting ballet for all, encouraging youngpeople with no ballet background to sustaintheir commitment.

�The reputation of all partners was increasedthrough local and regional media attention,personal and community contacts, a post-production ‘Celebration’ event and a DVD.

Overall, the style, quality and rigour of

3

Performance photo: Roy Smiljanic. Rehearsal photo: Tim Cross; BRB Learning

CEDAR Newsletter...CEDAR Newsletter...CEDAR Newsletter...

The Better CommunicationResearch Programme: Trackingchildren with speech, languageand communication needs Jessie Ricketts

The Better Communication ResearchProgramme is part of the government’sresponse to the Bercow Review of provision forchildren and young people with speech,language and communication needs, publishedin July 2008. Professor Geoff Lindsay and DrJessie Ricketts from CEDAR are working withProfessor Julie Dockrell, Professor TonyCharman and Dr Olympia Palikara at theInstitute of Education, University of London(ULIE) on one aspect of the programme, theprospective longitudinal study. This aspect ofthe programme is tracking the needs ofchildren and young people with primarylanguage difficulties or autism spectrumdisorders. We are working with approximately170 children and young people in over 85schools in London and the South East ofEngland. So far, we have conducted a numberof individual sessions with each pupil, observedthem in the classroom context, interviewedtheir parents and asked both parents andteachers to complete questionnaires. Here aresome of our preliminary findings:

Working individually with pupils: Language, literacy and socio-emotional well-being� As expected, pupils with identified language

difficulties perform poorly on a large rangeof tasks tapping language andcommunication. Many pupils with autismspectrum disorders also find language andcommunication difficult.

� Literacy difficulties can be observed in bothgroups but are more common in pupils with

language difficulties than those with autismspectrum disorders.

� Our initial findings on socio-emotional well-being are mostly positive and pupils withlanguage difficulties and autism spectrumdisorders did not seem to differ from pupilswithout special educational needs in termsof their well-being, including their physicalhealth, friendships and attitudes to schooland learning.

Information from parentsThrough telephone interviews, parents haveexpressed a range of views, including thefollowing:

� Parents identified a range of strengths intheir children. The most frequently reportedstrengths were athletic ability, computerknowledge and use, artistic ability andsensitivity to others’ feelings.

� When they were asked about their children’sacademic progress in school over the lastyear, most parents reported that progresswas good or quite good.

� Some parents indicated that they would liketo play a larger role in making decisionsabout the support that their children receivein school.

Information from teachersWe asked teachers to tell us about the supportpupils have been receiving in the classroom andthe strategies that are being used to facilitatetheir learning:

� The majority of pupils are supported byteaching assistants or learning supportassistants in the classroom or in small groupsor individually outside of the classroom. Afew pupils also have additional support fromteachers and the school SENCO.

� The curriculum is being differentiated formost of the children and the mostcommonly employed strategies are the useof extended examples and limiting thenumber of concepts presented at any onetime. Use of technology (such as a computeror tape recorder) and special programmeswere the least reported strategies.

We now have a large data set, which we will beanalysing more fully over the coming months.For the remainder of the project we willcontinue to work with pupils, schools andfamilies and we will continue to raise awarenessof language and communication needs bypresenting our research to policy makers and arange of professionals who work with pupilsincluding teachers, educational psychologistsand speech and language therapists. We arealso presenting our findings at national andinternational conferences and this will allow usto describe our findings to practitioners and thewider academic community. Our research isfunded by the Department for Education andthe results will be used by the government toguide provision for children with language andcommunication needs. We will be submitting areport to the Department for Education nextyear and the next Newsletter will providefurther details of this report.

4

For the full report contact Dr Sheila Galloway, CEDAR 024 76522196 Sheila.Galloway@warwick.ac.ukPearl Chesterman, Director for Learning,Birmingham, Royal Ballet, 0121 245 3556PearlChesterman@brb.org.uk

The full text of the evaluation will beaccessible on CEDAR’s web site and theillustrated report will be available fromBirmingham Royal Ballet in August 2011.

workshops and support for the young peoplewas impressive, with no compromises made foran easy life. Meanwhile, young people had rolemodels in professional artists who work atinternational level and others who are expertarts practitioners. The evaluation noted thestrong impact on the young people involved.BB&Me was especially effective in creating aclimate where professional artists, youthworkers and participants helped young peoplewith special educational needs to play a fullpart in rehearsals and the Hippodromeperformance.

We looked particularly at how the partnershipoperated with very different working practicesand organisational cultures being negotiated, andat professional development, considered acrossorganisations, for dancers/choreographers, andfor other BRB staff. BB&Me, a complex project,was outstanding in this respect and the reportcomments on the different pedagogic styles.Tracking the project’s management over twoyears helped identify which features workedwell within this model. These areas are coveredfully in our final report, published byBirmingham Royal Ballet in July 2011.

CEDAR Newsletter...CEDAR Newsletter...CEDAR Newsletter..

Activating Senior Potential in Ageing Europe(ASPA) has been a three-year collaboration forCEDAR in a project funded by the EuropeanCommission’s 7th Framework programme underthe Socio-economic Sciences and HumanitiesTheme. It has been led in the UK by Warwick’sInstitute for Employment Research (IER), andinvolved partner research organisations from theNetherlands, Denmark, France, Poland, Swedenand Italy. CEDAR’s role has been in two areas:the participation of older people in work andtheir participation in civil society throughvolunteering. In both cases, however, the focushas been on the behaviour of the organisation -the employer or voluntary body - rather thanthe individual.

Sheila Galloway has worked with IER colleagues(Robert Lindley and Beate Baldauf) to carry outthis research. In addition, the project hasincluded a survey of employers and a broadanalysis of public policy developments indifferent countries.

The project aimed to identify key policies andpractices which encourage the development anddeployment of the skills, knowledge and expertiseof older workers (people aged 50 or more) to thebenefit of the individual and the organisation.Case studies have focused on dimensions ofpractice in areas such as recruitment, awareness

training and diversity, lifelong learning andknowledge transfer, career development andjob mobility, bonus and salary systems, flexibleworking practices and working timearrangements over a life span. Otherdimensions included health and well-beingpromotion, workplace design, redeployment,and transition to retirement. Previous research inCEDAR on professional development in varioussectors links directly to several of these‘dimensions’.

One aspect of the research explores the notionof ‘family friendly’ policies in an ageing society,conventionally focused on flexible workingpatterns for people with children. They do notnecessarily recognise that older employees mayhave caring responsibilities for spouses, partnersor very elderly and frail relatives. Much previousinternational comparative research has soughtto identify good practice ‘destinations’ iecurrent good practice. An innovation in theASPA project, led by Warwick, has been tointroduce the idea of exploring ‘pathways ofpractice’ because a strategy introduced under aspecific management style, a particulareconomic climate, or a local demographicsituation can stall or may have to be adjusted oreven cut to meet changing priorities orpressures.

Activating Senior Potential in Ageing Europe (ASPA)Sheila Galloway

Since the start of this project, significantchanges to the state pension system in the UKhave given more prominence to this area. Theresearch on volunteering has also movedcentre-stage, given expectations associatedwith the idea of the ‘Big Society’. Some casestudies involve charities and organisationswhich have relied on volunteer activity for somedecades and have increasingly professionalisedtheir management of unpaid (older) people’stime, skills and experience. The cross-nationalreport explores the needs of and opportunitiesoffered by voluntary organisations as well asthe motivation of volunteers and rewardsgained by them.

The UK research has already been presented topolicy-makers and academics at a presentationin London to TAEN – The Age and EmploymentNetwork (October 2010) and a seminar for HRprofessionals convened by Wright Hassall in theMidlands (April 2011). European researchfindings on ‘Activating Senior Potential inOrganisations – A Case Study Approach’ weregiven at the VII International Association ofGerontology and Geriatrics European Congresson ‘Healthy and Active Ageing for AllEuropeans’ in Bologna (April 2011). Apresentation on ‘Learning from EuropeanExperience: Pathways of Age ManagementPractice’ was made to a Seminar on the themeof ‘From Early Retirement to Active Ageing:Are European Labour Markets ready?’organised by the Directorate General Researchand Innovation of the European Commission.This took place in Brussels in June 2011.

In September 2011 the project outcomes andreports will be available on the ASPA web site:www.aspa-eu.com.

5

Banging your head on the ceiling:Social and economic factors and their relationship to the differentialattainment of Southwark schoolchildren Steve Strand

The research undertook a detailed analysis ofthe 2008 Key Stage 2 (KS2) test results of all2,875 eleven-year old pupils attending Southwarkprimary schools. In particular it focused onequity gaps including the impact of ethnicity,gender and socio-economic status (SES), alongwith other factors, on attainment andeducational progress at school. In addition tothe national test data, the report drew on pupillevel data from the School Census, newattendance monitoring data and the SouthwarkPupil Voice survey to create measures whichmight help explain equity gaps in educationalattainment and progress. The overall aim was

to identify which groups of pupils (definedparticularly by different combinations ofethnicity and socio-economic disadvantage) hadlow attainment or made poor progress atprimary school in Southwark.

The main results of the analysis were as follows:

� Low attainment at the end of primary schoolis a key risk factor for subsequent lowattainment at school leaving age, for leavingeducation at age 16, and for long termemployment and occupational outcomes. Interms of equity gaps, SES had the biggestassociation with attainment. Pupils from low

SES backgrounds, whatever their ethnicgroup, had the poorest outcomes at age 11.

�White British low SES pupils were the lowestattaining group and their low attainment isas much of a concern as other ethnic groups.However among pupils from middle SES andhigh SES backgrounds Black pupils hadsubstantially lower attainment than theirsimilarly advantaged White British peers.Control for contextual factors (age, gender,SEN, attendance, pupil mobility, EAL andschool composition) attenuated but did not

Steve Strand

Continued on back page

..CEDAR Newsletter...CEDAR Newsletter...CEDAR Newsletter...

Director:Geoff LINDSAYSpecial needs and inclusive education, languageand communication difficulties, parenting andparent support, ethical dilemmas of professionals.

Professor of Education:Steve STRAND Equity issues in educational attainment andprogress (particularly ethnicity, social class andgender) and the interface with schooleffectiveness and improvement.

Principal Research Fellow:Sheila GALLOWAYResearch on arts education, the cultural sectorand the creative industries, continuingprofessional development, work-based learning,supply teaching. Qualitative research methods.

Senior Research Fellows:Ioanna BAKOPOULOULanguage and communication difficulties.

Mairi Ann CULLENSpecial educational needs, gifted and talentedyoung people, alternative education fordisengaged young people, alternatives toexclusion from school, values education, adulteducation, evaluation. Qualitative andquantitative methods.

Stephen CULLENSecondary school education, adult education,gifted and talented education.

Jessie RICKETTSLiteracy, language and communicationdifficulties, autistic spectrum difficulties.

Honorary Professor:Seamus HEGARTYSpecial educational needs, educational evaluation.

Ann LEWISSpecial educational needs and disability,children’s voice.

Andy MILLEREducational psychology services, studentbehaviour in schools.

Associate Fellows:Martin DESFORGESSpecial educational needs, inclusion, the needsof minority ethnic groups.

Raymond EVANSThe needs of and provision for, looked afterchildren and disaffected young people.

Chrystalla KALOYIROUBullying at school.

Mel LLOYD-SMITHSpecial educational needs. The visual arts and education.

Niki PHILLIPSGifted and talented education.

Anne SHEPPARDDyslexia.

Margaret THREADGOLDSecondary education.

Gail TREMLSpecial educational needs.

CEDAR Staff: Research interests are as follows

Published by: CEDAR, University of Warwick,Coventry, CV4 7AL

Edited by: Diana Smith

©Centre for Educational Development,Appraisal and Research 2007

ISSN 0959-6763

CEDARTel No: 02476 523638

Fax No: 02476 524472

E-mail: J.P.McElroy@warwick.ac.uk

Website: www.warwick.ac.uk/fac/soc/CEDAR

substantially change the above outcomes.

� In terms of progress between age 7-11 it wasnotable that pupils from low SESbackgrounds, whatever their ethnic group,fell further behind their more advantagedpeers during the course of primary school,and that Black pupils from middle and highSES backgrounds were particularly at-risk,making far less progress that medium andhigh SES White British pupils.

� The Pupil Voice survey was used to generatea substantial number of measures of pupil,home and teacher factors, and to establishwhether there were associations betweenthese factors and pupils’ attainment andprogress. However only parental support forthe pupil, frequency of engaging in culturalleisure activities (attending local library, artgalleries, theatre or museums) and frequencyof reading for fun outside of school added

further to the explanation of attainment andprogress. The pattern of significant SESeffects, and significant underachievement byBlack Caribbean pupils from medium andhigh SES backgrounds, was not affectedsubstantially by including these variables.

Around half the variation between schools interms of ‘raw’ KS2 results can be statisticallyexplained by variation in the prior attainmentand demographic characteristics of their pupilintakes. However very substantial school effectsremain. The school level accounts for around25% of the measured variance in pupil progresswhich is high compared to previous studies.Unmeasured factors such as leadership andmanagement, school ethos, or the quality ofteaching may account for these substantialschool-related differences in outcomes.

Like much data, this analysis does not provideclear cut answers to the cause of gaps in

educational attainment or direct remediationstrategies in relation to such gaps. However ithas articulated more clearly where such gapslie. The value of this report is in identifying thenuances in the data and in raising questions formore focussed further research.

The final report can be found on the CEDARwebsite (see below).

Strand, S. (2010). Banging your head on theceiling: Socio-economic factors and theirrelationship to differential attainment inSouthwark primary schools. London:Southwark Childrens Services.

The final report can be found on theCEDAR websitehttp://www2.warwick.ac.uk/fac/soc/cedar/staff/stevestrand/strand_2010_southwark-final-report.pdf