A spell for reading progress
Published Friday, new research from the Education Endowment Foundation (EEF) shows that a small-scale reading intervention based on ABRACADABRA (a Canadian, open-access, web-based interactive software package) can support year 1 children to make an additional two months’ progress. The latest education programme to successfully transition through the EEF’s project pipeline was trialled with just over 4,000 year 1 pupils in 157 schools across the West Midlands, East Midlands, Newcastle, Teesside and Manchester.
Two versions of the ABRACADABRA-based reading and understanding in key stage 1 (RUKS) programme were rolled out. Both versions saw teachers and teaching assistants delivering four, 15-minute, reading-based sessions per week to small groups of four to five pupils for 20 weeks, and both were found to be successful. However, the paper version was more successful than its ICT counterpart in speeding up children’s reading skills.
Selective evidence
Last week, the EEF’s chief executive, Becky Francis made headlines when she led the evidence-based response to news that the government is set to lift the ban on new grammar schools. Others even suggested the government would lose all its evidence-based credentials as a consequence of the move. But does educational evidence itself have a more fundamental problem when it comes to social justice?
This paper from the department of special education at the University of Illinois at Chicago suggests that research has the potential to transform the experiences of students with disabilities. However, marketisation and parent choice have created a system in which “the most sweeping and consequential policy decisions […] have heavily, if not solely, relied on quantifiable indicators and reports”.
The authors are keen to avoid setting quantitative and qualitative research methods against each other, but note that even “randomised control trials, considered the ‘golden standard’, have significant limitations when explaining policy process or the effectiveness of a policy or practice across social contexts.” They call on decision makers to make better use of all the evidence, and suggest all researchers have a responsibility to amplify the voices of traditionally marginalised students in their projects to “increase the likelihood of more just and inclusive policies”.
Flipping PE
We think of PE more as learning to flip than flipping learning. Indeed, narratives about technology tend to contrast bad ‘screen time’ with good, wholesome exercise. However, a new paper from the department of teacher education of the Norwegian University of Science and Technology suggests that edtech could offer positive benefits for teaching and learning in physical education.
The scoping review found that a majority of previous studies into the flipped learning approach (in which students access knowledge online and apply it in the classroom) demonstrated a positive impact on motivation and on practical as well as academic learning in PE.
However, the study also notes two major challenges to wider deployment of the flipped learning approach: a lack of supporting materials to help PE teachers design and implement the approach, and the fact that PE is traditionally a subject low on homework. Throw into the mix a persistent digital divide, and it’s no flipping surprise teachers aren’t buying the narrative.
Trans-forming schools
Published in the British Journal of Educational Psychology, this new study takes a qualitative approach to understanding the experiences of young transgender people in UK schools. Based on interviews with 30 parents of children who had socially transitioned before the age of 11 (and ten of those children themselves), the study highlights a generalised struggle against cis-normative attitudes and systems.
The author, Carl Horton from the department of education at the University of Goldsmiths notes international evidence that “the cumulative stresses of navigating unsafe and trans-hostile environments is a significant risk to trans pupils’ mental health and educational attainment”.
Horton reports that the families all experienced three common obstacles: institutional cisnormativity, a failure to protect trans children, and educational injustice.
The study suggests that “institutional cisnormativity leaves trans pupils in unsafe educational environments, contributing to school drop-out and trauma”. LGBT inclusion has made major progress in recent year, but the T matters, and some children are clearly not yet feeling the benefits.
The paper is short on actions for school leaders, but the testimonies make eye-opening reading. Meanwhile the research supports calls for policy makers to provide schools with specific guidance and legal clarity – calls which won’t be new to our readers.
Your thoughts