Leadership

Managed Moves: Effective Use Of Managed Moves By Local Authorities And Schools

This latest report from Estyn looks at how schools can overcome barriers to managing pupil moves. The report examines the use of managed moves by local authorities and schools and their effectiveness in supporting pupils at risk of exclusion or disengagement.

The report includes examples of effective practice for local authorities and schools to consider. These are intended to encourage local authorities and schools to reflect on their current practice in relation to managed moves.

Create an account to read this article

£7.00+ VAT

One-off purchase

Purchase and Download today

Register for free

No Credit Card required

Register for free
Access to 3 free articles
Free TeachingTimes Report every month

array(8) {
  ["distinct_key"]=>
  string(10) "post#41738"
  ["title"]=>
  string(33) "School Exclusion Trial Evaluation"
  ["categories"]=>
  array(1) {
    [0]=>
    string(10) "Leadership"
  }
  ["url"]=>
  string(54) "https://www.teachingtimes.com/school-exclusion_040814/"
  ["post_date_timestamp"]=>
  int(1406823936)
  ["objectID"]=>
  string(12) "post-41738-0"
  ["_snippetResult"]=>
  array(2) {
    ["excerpt"]=>
    array(2) {
      ["value"]=>
      string(359) "... for Educational Research (NFER) looks at the effectiveness of the school exclusion trial at finding alternative provision for excluded pupils and assesses the issues emerging from the trial - in particular the affect it has had on pupils, schools, local authorities and alternative provision providers.
Leadership Briefing Issue 9.01(97)"
      ["matchLevel"]=>
      string(7) "partial"
    }
    ["content"]=>
    array(2) {
      ["value"]=>
      string(373) "... managedmoves, had increased as a result of the trial, processes were more transparent and rigorous, andinformation about pupils and tracking of progress were improved. ■ Schools were making more effective use of data to identify patterns of behaviour in order to put inplace appropriate support for pupils. ■ Learning support ..."
      ["matchLevel"]=>
      string(7) "partial"
    }
  }
  ["_highlightResult"]=>
  array(4) {
    ["title"]=>
    array(3) {
      ["value"]=>
      string(33) "School Exclusion Trial Evaluation"
      ["matchLevel"]=>
      string(4) "none"
      ["matchedWords"]=>
      array(0) {
      }
    }
    ["excerpt"]=>
    array(4) {
      ["value"]=>
      string(431) "This report by the Institute of Education (IoE) and the National Foundation for Educational Research (NFER) looks at the effectiveness of the school exclusion trial at finding alternative provision for excluded pupils and assesses the issues emerging from the trial - in particular the affect it has had on pupils, schools, local authorities and alternative provision providers.
Leadership Briefing Issue 9.01(97)"
      ["matchLevel"]=>
      string(7) "partial"
      ["fullyHighlighted"]=>
      bool(false)
      ["matchedWords"]=>
      array(3) {
        [0]=>
        string(5) "local"
        [1]=>
        string(11) "authorities"
        [2]=>
        string(7) "schools"
      }
    }
    ["content"]=>
    array(4) {
      ["value"]=>
      string(5911) "Leadership BriefingLeadership Briefing – www.teachingtimes.comReports Summaries – a weeklyservice of essential summaries,in-depth reports and criticalanalysis that’s new and relevantto education, linked to originalsource documents.SCHOOL EXCLUSION TRIAL EVALUATIONKeywordsSchoolexclusion,effectiveness,pupils, schools,local authorities,provisionproviders, needs,education,transfer,legislation,responsibility,permanentSummaryThis report by the Institute of Education (IoE) and the National Foundation for EducationalResearch (NFER) looks at the effectiveness of the school exclusion trial at finding alternativeprovision for excluded pupils and assesses the issues emerging from the trial – in particularthe affect it has had on pupils, schools, local authorities and alternative provision providers.The School Exclusion Trial (SET) tested the benefits of schools having greater responsibility formeeting the needs of permanently excluded pupils and those at risk of permanent exclusion. Thisincludes schools having more responsibility for commissioning Alternative Provision (AP), and localauthorities (LAs) passing on funding to schools for this purpose.The evaluation assessed the issues emerging from the implementation of the trial and the impact ithas had on pupils, schools, LAs and AP providers.Taken together these reforms have changed the way that schools approach the education of all pupilsand particularly those at risk of exclusion.Main Findings: ■ LAs took a range of approaches when implementing the trial. In one LA, the legal duty to arrangesuitable education for permanently excluded pupils was temporarily transferred to schoolsthrough a Power to Innovate (PTI). The remaining ten LAs implemented their approaches underthe existing legislative framework. ■ Participating schools and LAs had different conceptions of what it meant for schools to takeincreased responsibility for permanently excluded pupils and those at risk of permanentexclusion. ■ Overwhelmingly the evidence suggested that trial schools were taking increased responsibility forpupils at risk of exclusion. Trial LAs reported that school staff were at least partly responsible formaking AP arrangements. This was not the case in comparison LAs. ■ Trial schools were more likely than comparison schools to have funding devolved to them, beinvolved in commissioning AP and monitoring the outcomes of AP. ■ Changes resulting from the trial included the increased use of partnership working and collectiveWeek Commencing 04th August 2014https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/331795/RR364_-_School_Exclusion_Trial_Final_Report.pdfLeadership BriefingLeadership Briefing – www.teachingtimes.comReports Summaries – a weeklyservice of essential summaries,in-depth reports and criticalanalysis that’s new and relevantto education, linked to originalsource documents.decision making through the use of panels, e.g. district panels, fair access panels; enhancedquality assurance (QA), accreditation systems and service level agreements for AP providers;increased collaboration between schools, e.g. pupils transferred to another school for atrial period; an increase in managed moves; revised commissioning procedures; more earlyintervention programmes to prevent exclusion; the use of time-limited AP (to avoid permanentexclusion); and the closure of pupil referral units (PRUs). ■ LA leads and lead teachers agreed that partnership working, particularly as it related to managedmoves, had increased as a result of the trial, processes were more transparent and rigorous, andinformation about pupils and tracking of progress were improved. ■ Schools were making more effective use of data to identify patterns of behaviour in order to put inplace appropriate support for pupils. ■ Learning support units, inclusion coordinators, and revised school timetables were consideredeffective in relation to preventing exclusions, improving attendance, improving attainment andimproving behaviour. ■ There was a change in the pupils designated as at risk during the trial. Schools’ judgements ofpupils at risk of exclusion were reviewed regularly and adjusted and the provision to supportmany of these pupils was effective insofar as they were removed from the at risk list. ■ Teachers reported that fewer children on average had been permanently excluded from trialschools than comparison schools. ■ ■ There was no identified difference in attainment between trial and comparison schools. It may betoo soon for this to have occurred, or it may be a reflection of changes in approach adopted byboth trial and comparison schools in response to wider educational reforms. In many trial schoolsthere had been an increased focus on GCSE attainment, particularly in English and maths, forthose in PRUs and AP.Conclusions ■ At the time of the trial a great many educational reforms relating to behaviour, AP and attainmentwere taking place. These impacted on trial and comparison schools alike. The lack of differencesbetween trial and comparison schools in many of the aspects explored in the research wasalmost certainly as a result of all schools responding to these changes. ■ The findings demonstrated that both trial and comparison schools had been engaged inenhancing their in-school provision for pupils at risk of permanent exclusion. Schools were clearlymaking great efforts to support these at risk pupils and had implemented a wide range of differentinterventions in school. ■ Trial schools were taking increased responsibility for pupils at"
      ["matchLevel"]=>
      string(4) "full"
      ["fullyHighlighted"]=>
      bool(false)
      ["matchedWords"]=>
      array(9) {
        [0]=>
        string(7) "managed"
        [1]=>
        string(5) "moves"
        [2]=>
        string(9) "effective"
        [3]=>
        string(3) "use"
        [4]=>
        string(7) "managed"
        [5]=>
        string(5) "moves"
        [6]=>
        string(5) "local"
        [7]=>
        string(11) "authorities"
        [8]=>
        string(7) "schools"
      }
    }
    ["categories"]=>
    array(1) {
      [0]=>
      array(3) {
        ["value"]=>
        string(10) "Leadership"
        ["matchLevel"]=>
        string(4) "none"
        ["matchedWords"]=>
        array(0) {
        }
      }
    }
  }
}

Leadership

School Exclusion Trial Evaluation

31 Jul 2014

array(8) {
  ["distinct_key"]=>
  string(10) "post#36751"
  ["title"]=>
  string(60) "Day Six Of Exclusion: The Extent And Quality Of Provision Fo"
  ["categories"]=>
  array(1) {
    [0]=>
    string(10) "Leadership"
  }
  ["url"]=>
  string(51) "https://www.teachingtimes.com/day-six-of-exclusion/"
  ["post_date_timestamp"]=>
  int(1243260335)
  ["objectID"]=>
  string(12) "post-36751-0"
  ["_snippetResult"]=>
  array(2) {
    ["excerpt"]=>
    array(2) {
      ["value"]=>
      string(370) "Schools and local authorities are required to provide full-time and suitable education for pupils from day six of fixed-period and permanent exclusions. This survey evaluates the extent to which a sample of schools and local authorities were meeting these requirements. The survey also reports on how practice is ..."
      ["matchLevel"]=>
      string(7) "partial"
    }
    ["content"]=>
    array(2) {
      ["value"]=>
      string(354) "... effectiveness of day six provision, despite its being in place for over a full academic year.· Effective guidance was provided by 12 of the 18 local authorities, in addition to guidance published by the Department for Children, Schools and Families (DCSF). As a result, their schools were able to set ..."
      ["matchLevel"]=>
      string(7) "partial"
    }
  }
  ["_highlightResult"]=>
  array(4) {
    ["title"]=>
    array(3) {
      ["value"]=>
      string(60) "Day Six Of Exclusion: The Extent And Quality Of Provision Fo"
      ["matchLevel"]=>
      string(4) "none"
      ["matchedWords"]=>
      array(0) {
      }
    }
    ["excerpt"]=>
    array(4) {
      ["value"]=>
      string(500) "Schools and local authorities are required to provide full-time and suitable education for pupils from day six of fixed-period and permanent exclusions. This survey evaluates the extent to which a sample of schools and local authorities were meeting these requirements. The survey also reports on how practice is changing as a result of the statutory requirements that have been in place since September 2007.
Leadership Briefings Issue 4.02 (38)"
      ["matchLevel"]=>
      string(7) "partial"
      ["fullyHighlighted"]=>
      bool(false)
      ["matchedWords"]=>
      array(3) {
        [0]=>
        string(5) "local"
        [1]=>
        string(11) "authorities"
        [2]=>
        string(7) "schools"
      }
    }
    ["content"]=>
    array(4) {
      ["value"]=>
      string(6038) "ResourceDAY SIX OF EXCLUSION: THE EXTENT AND QUALITY OF PROVISION FOR PUPILSOriginal DocumentDay Six Of Exclusion: The Extent And Quality Of Provision For Pupils. Schools and local authorities are required to provide full-time and suitable education for pupils from day six of fixed-period and permanent exclusions. This survey evaluates the extent to which a sample of schools and local authorities were meeting these requirements. The survey also reports on how practice is changing as a result of the statutory requirements that have been in place since September 2007.KeywordsExclusion, day six, practice, statutory requirementsSummaryThe Education and Inspections Act 2006 required schools to provide, by September 2007, full-time and suitable education from day six of a pupil’s fixed-period exclusion. The provision could be located off site or in provision shared with other schools. Local authorities were required to make suitable arrangements for permanently excluded pupils from day six of the exclusion, replacing the expectation that they make provision from day 16.The survey indicates the extent to which the schools and local authorities visited met the requirements and describes what was done to meet the needs of excluded pupils from day six.Key Findings:· Eight of the 28 secondary schools and two of the three special schools surveyed did not comply with the requirements to provide suitable and full-time education from day six for pupils on fixed-period exclusions. One special and five secondary schools provided education on their own site but, contrary to the requirements in the regulations, failed to share the arrangements with partnership schools. They felt more able to ensure continuity for pupils’ learning if they provided exclusively for their pupils on their own site.· Seven of the 26 schools that complied with the requirements used PRUs to support pupils; 13 educated them on site or within the partnership. Only a handful of schools used alternative providers and two used local authority provision, such as the youth service.· All but two of the 18 local authorities identified their own PRU for day six provision for permanently excluded pupils, but eight of them did not provide full-time and suitable provision for all permanently excluded pupils from day six. A lack of capacity in PRUs was the main reason for non-compliance.· In 18 of the 28 secondary schools, the number of fixed-period exclusions fell between 2006/07 and 2007/08. Notably, exclusions of six days or more fell in 23 of the secondary schools and markedly so in 19 schools. Schools had responded to the day six requirements by deciding not to exclude as many pupils for longer periods. They put greater emphasis on prevention. Managed moves in seven of the schools enabled young people to have a fresh start, reducing the need for formal exclusion.· Difficulties in contacting parents and the reluctance of some parents to accept responsibility for securing their child’s attendance at the PRU or other provision often resulted in a breakdown in arrangements, and non-attendance. Transport difficulties also contributed to non-attendance.· Of the 26 schools that made provision from day six, 21 monitored pupils’ responses to fixed-period exclusion, although only one evaluated the overall effectiveness of day six provision, despite its being in place for over a full academic year.· Effective guidance was provided by 12 of the 18 local authorities, in addition to guidance published by the Department for Children, Schools and Families (DCSF). As a result, their schools were able to set up day six provision that supported pupils well. Weak guidance and support were reflected in weak provision and, in one case, a failure to comply with the legal requirements. Two of the authorities were unable to report what their schools were doing for fixed-period excluded pupils from day six.· Eleven of the local authorities monitored the outcomes for permanently excluded day six pupils effectively and 10 had evaluated, or were in the process of evaluating, the overall effectiveness of such provision.· In four of the secondary schools and two of the special schools, pupils with statements of special educational needs were excluded for more than five days in 2007/08. Two schools used fixed-period exclusion inappropriately to try to trigger a re-assessment of the pupils’ needs and so bypass the statutory review system.  ActionRecommendations:Schools should:· Ensure that they meet the current requirements fully by providing full-time education for each excluded pupil from day six.· Monitor and evaluate the effectiveness of day six provision and its impact on those who use it.· Ensure the receiving placement is given a full picture, including their academic profile of the permanently excluded pupil. This should also include detailed information about the support and development needs of the young person.· Follow statutory processes for a review of special educational needs and not use exclusion as a means of triggering reviews.The DCSF should:· Support schools by gathering and disseminating examples of good practice in meeting the day six regulations to suit a range of situations.Local authorities should:· Take steps to ensure that full-time and suitable provision for all permanently excluded pupils is in place from day six.· Monitor and evaluate the outcomes for permanently excluded pupils who have used the provision from day six.· Use the information to evaluate the overall effectiveness of their day six provision.· Give guidance"
      ["matchLevel"]=>
      string(4) "full"
      ["fullyHighlighted"]=>
      bool(false)
      ["matchedWords"]=>
      array(9) {
        [0]=>
        string(7) "managed"
        [1]=>
        string(5) "moves"
        [2]=>
        string(9) "effective"
        [3]=>
        string(3) "use"
        [4]=>
        string(7) "managed"
        [5]=>
        string(5) "moves"
        [6]=>
        string(5) "local"
        [7]=>
        string(11) "authorities"
        [8]=>
        string(7) "schools"
      }
    }
    ["categories"]=>
    array(1) {
      [0]=>
      array(3) {
        ["value"]=>
        string(10) "Leadership"
        ["matchLevel"]=>
        string(4) "none"
        ["matchedWords"]=>
        array(0) {
        }
      }
    }
  }
}

Leadership

Day Six Of Exclusion: The Extent And Quality Of Provision Fo

25 May 2009

array(8) {
  ["distinct_key"]=>
  string(10) "post#42274"
  ["title"]=>
  string(48) "Not the end? A new approach to school exclusions"
  ["categories"]=>
  array(1) {
    [0]=>
    string(13) "Special Needs"
  }
  ["url"]=>
  string(66) "https://www.teachingtimes.com/a_new_approach_to_school_exclusions/"
  ["post_date_timestamp"]=>
  int(1427389144)
  ["objectID"]=>
  string(12) "post-42274-1"
  ["_snippetResult"]=>
  array(2) {
    ["excerpt"]=>
    array(2) {
      ["value"]=>
      string(345) "Currently, local authorities source alternative provision for expelled pupils, but a recent DfE-backed trial gave schools the power (and the funding) to ensure the pupils they exclude continue to receive a decent education. Here the trial’s lead investigators, Susan Hallam and Dr Lynne Rogers, share their findings."
      ["matchLevel"]=>
      string(7) "partial"
    }
    ["content"]=>
    array(2) {
      ["value"]=>
      string(413) "... attainment.The number of pupils subject to managed moves was small, but trial schools accepteda statistically significantly higher proportion of pupils as the result of managed movesand had statistically significantly fewer pupils under consideration for moving out, thancomparison schools.Case study: Combining on-site support with external provisionIn one LA ..."
      ["matchLevel"]=>
      string(7) "partial"
    }
  }
  ["_highlightResult"]=>
  array(4) {
    ["title"]=>
    array(3) {
      ["value"]=>
      string(48) "Not the end? A new approach to school exclusions"
      ["matchLevel"]=>
      string(4) "none"
      ["matchedWords"]=>
      array(0) {
      }
    }
    ["excerpt"]=>
    array(4) {
      ["value"]=>
      string(345) "Currently, local authorities source alternative provision for expelled pupils, but a recent DfE-backed trial gave schools the power (and the funding) to ensure the pupils they exclude continue to receive a decent education. Here the trial’s lead investigators, Susan Hallam and Dr Lynne Rogers, share their findings."
      ["matchLevel"]=>
      string(7) "partial"
      ["fullyHighlighted"]=>
      bool(false)
      ["matchedWords"]=>
      array(3) {
        [0]=>
        string(5) "local"
        [1]=>
        string(11) "authorities"
        [2]=>
        string(7) "schools"
      }
    }
    ["content"]=>
    array(4) {
      ["value"]=>
      string(5880) "provision for pupils deemed at risk of permanentexclusion was frequently effective, to the extent that they could be removed from the atrisk category. Overwhelmingly, trial schools were taking an increased moral and practicalresponsibility for pupils at risk of exclusion, which in turn meant that they were working toplace young people in the most appropriate provision.Supporting pupils with in-school interventionsSchools were doing a great deal to identify and support pupils at risk of exclusion. Onaverage, schools had 15 in-school interventions in place. The use of inclusion/learningsupport units increased in all schools during the trial, while the use of ‘time out’ provisiondecreased. In trial schools, at-risk pupils were likely to be in receipt of school-home liaison,behaviour management, behaviour support and a revised timetable. Support via a learningsupport unit (LSU) was adopted less in comparison schools than in trial schools.LSUs, inclusion coordinators, and revised school timetables were considered effectivein relation to preventing exclusions, improving attendance, improving attainment andimproving behaviour across all participating schools. Across trial and comparison schools,the interventions which were in place were not always those which were evaluated morepositively by schools.What AP did schools make use of?The percentage of trial schools sending pupils to spend time in another school wasstatistically significantly higher than that of comparison schools, as was the percentageof trial schools using additional services provided by the LA, such as a traveller educationsupport service or a looked-after children team. Specialist support, for instance, Child andAdolescent Mental Health Services (CAMHS) and PRUs, remained the most common typeof AP in place in both groups of schools.Training providers, private sector organisations and work placements were all seenas effective in preventing exclusions and improving attendance. In addition, PRUs wereconsidered effective in improving behaviour and attainment, while time spent in a furthereducation (FE) college was also seen as improving attainment.The number of pupils subject to managed moves was small, but trial schools accepteda statistically significantly higher proportion of pupils as the result of managed movesand had statistically significantly fewer pupils under consideration for moving out, thancomparison schools.Case study: Combining on-site support with external provisionIn one LA, one school worked with Year 7 pupils as part of early intervention. The approach was tailored to the needsof the young people rather than based on a ‘one size fits all’ conception of providing support. Effective data gatheringand monitoring, including initial home visits by staff, ensured that the needs of the pupil were understood from theoutset. Central to the provision was a dedicated centre for pupil support which provided bespoke packages of provision,intervention, alternative curriculum and pathways, generally delivered on site. The centre had access to a range ofexternal agencies including social services, CAMHS, Youth Offending Teams and domestic abuse-related provision tosupport the entire family in engaging with education.Vol 5.1 n www.teachingtimes.comEducationEvery Child Journal32Working together to manage and monitorA range of people were involved in making the arrangements for pupils deemed at risk.Partnership working increased and processes had been made more rigorous – there wasgreater information about pupils and there were better tracking processes in place.The strengths of AP arrangements depended on collaboration (good relationshipswith the LA, other schools and providers) and the process (its efficiency and rigour, qualityassurance, and involvement of pupils and parents/carers). Perceived weaknesses relatingto AP included processes (time, logistics, timetabling, costs), the provision (quality control,monitoring), and a lack of pupil or parent/carer engagement.LAs used site visits and written and verbal communication to monitor AP. Trial LAswere more likely to use feedback from parents, carers and pupils, and monitor availableLA or school databases. LAs perceived that the strengths of monitoring included process(effective data sharing and tracking), collaboration (good communication with providers),and positive impact (helping to identify pupils’ problems early and helping withreintegration). The most common issues mentioned by LAs were that monitoring was notsufficiently consistent and robust and that schools should be more involved and engaged.What was the impact on pupils?There was a reduction in the pupils designated as at risk during the trial. Only 309 pupilsof the original 985 (across both trial and comparison schools) were listed as at risk on bothdata collection occasions. This suggests that the interventions had been successful inimproving pupils’ behaviour in terms of their designation as being at risk.At-risk pupils were more likely to be boys, were unlikely to have achieved NationalCurriculum level 4 at the end of primary school, and had a relatively high likelihood ofbeing eligible for free school meals (FSM). A high proportion had an identified specialeducational need (SEN) usually met through School Action or School Action Plus; only asmall proportion had statements.The reasons given for pupils being designated as at risk related to factors within (poorbehaviour) and outside school. Trial schools were significantly more likely to identify thehome situation as a reason for concern than comparison"
      ["matchLevel"]=>
      string(7) "partial"
      ["fullyHighlighted"]=>
      bool(false)
      ["matchedWords"]=>
      array(7) {
        [0]=>
        string(7) "managed"
        [1]=>
        string(5) "moves"
        [2]=>
        string(9) "effective"
        [3]=>
        string(3) "use"
        [4]=>
        string(7) "managed"
        [5]=>
        string(5) "moves"
        [6]=>
        string(7) "schools"
      }
    }
    ["categories"]=>
    array(1) {
      [0]=>
      array(3) {
        ["value"]=>
        string(13) "Special Needs"
        ["matchLevel"]=>
        string(4) "none"
        ["matchedWords"]=>
        array(0) {
        }
      }
    }
  }
}

Special Needs

Not the end? A new approach to school exclusions

26 Mar 2015

array(8) {
  ["distinct_key"]=>
  string(10) "post#38478"
  ["title"]=>
  string(40) "Nursery Education Research Review Report"
  ["categories"]=>
  array(1) {
    [0]=>
    string(10) "Leadership"
  }
  ["url"]=>
  string(62) "https://www.teachingtimes.com/nursery-education-review_170111/"
  ["post_date_timestamp"]=>
  int(1294676154)
  ["objectID"]=>
  string(12) "post-38478-0"
  ["_snippetResult"]=>
  array(2) {
    ["excerpt"]=>
    array(2) {
      ["value"]=>
      string(361) "High quality nursery education is essential for the early educational development of young children, according to the findings of this new research report commissioned by the Educational Institute of Scotland (EIS). The report also highlights the vital importance of proper teacher involvement in the nursery setting, particularly as Scotland moves ..."
      ["matchLevel"]=>
      string(7) "partial"
    }
    ["content"]=>
    array(2) {
      ["value"]=>
      string(311) "... education across the country and calls for children aged three to five to have access to a teacher for at least five hours a week. Authorities which fail to meet this requirement should be ‘named and shamed’.‘Unless there is real commitment on the part of every local council and ..."
      ["matchLevel"]=>
      string(7) "partial"
    }
  }
  ["_highlightResult"]=>
  array(4) {
    ["title"]=>
    array(3) {
      ["value"]=>
      string(40) "Nursery Education Research Review Report"
      ["matchLevel"]=>
      string(4) "none"
      ["matchedWords"]=>
      array(0) {
      }
    }
    ["excerpt"]=>
    array(4) {
      ["value"]=>
      string(452) "High quality nursery education is essential for the early educational development of young children, according to the findings of this new research report commissioned by the Educational Institute of Scotland (EIS). The report also highlights the vital importance of proper teacher involvement in the nursery setting, particularly as Scotland moves to a new seamless 3-18 model under the Curriculum for Excellence.
Leadership Briefing 5.08(56)"
      ["matchLevel"]=>
      string(7) "partial"
      ["fullyHighlighted"]=>
      bool(false)
      ["matchedWords"]=>
      array(2) {
        [0]=>
        string(5) "moves"
        [1]=>
        string(5) "moves"
      }
    }
    ["content"]=>
    array(4) {
      ["value"]=>
      string(5680) "ResourceNURSERY EDUCATION RESEARCH REVIEW REPORT 2010Original DocumentNursery Education Research Review Report 2010. High quality nursery education is essential for the early educational development of young children, according to the findings of this new research report commissioned by the Educational Institute of Scotland (EIS). The report also highlights the vital importance of proper teacher involvement in the nursery setting, particularly as Scotland moves to a new seamless 3-18 model under the Curriculum for Excellence.KeywordsQuality nursery education, teacher involvement, nursery setting, pedagogue model, qualified teachersSummaryHigh quality nursery education is essential for the early educational development of young children, according to the findings of this new research report commissioned by the Educational Institute of Scotland (EIS). The report also highlights the vital importance of proper teacher involvement in the nursery setting, particularly as Scotland moves to a new seamless 3-18 model under the Curriculum for Excellence.The report highlights the vital importance of proper teacher involvement in the nursery setting, particularly as Scotland moves to a new seamless 3-18 model under the Curriculum for Excellence. The report makes recommendations on future best practice for pre-5 education across the country and calls for children aged three to five to have access to a teacher for at least five hours a week. Authorities which fail to meet this requirement should be ‘named and shamed’.‘Unless there is real commitment on the part of every local council and proper funding support from Government the EIS believes that there are real dangers ahead,’ says the report.The EIS is concerned that, increasingly, pre-five establishments will be managed by staff other than qualified teachers and that some councils may develop forms of provision that are cheaper than nursery schools or classes and without quality education input.Amongst the findings outlined in the new Report are that there must be recognition that high-quality universal pre-five education has strong benefits for both children and wider society. The Report calls for the rights of the child to be placed at the centre of future debate on the provision of pre-5 education, and for the current low levels of investment in pre-5 education to be increased.The report also raises serious questions about the pedagogue model, and states that many of the arguments which support this model are based on ill-informed stereotypes and generalisations on the role of teachers and other staff in nursery education.Main Points:· The model underpinning pre-school provision in the UK, including Scotland, is one based on a historical dichotomy between education and care.· This pattern is now unusual in Europe where integrated services are common.· Nursery education provided by a teacher has been highly valued in Scotland.· Nursery education provided by a teacher has been threatened by policy developments in Scotland, including, cost-saving, neo-liberal dogma and the use of early years provision as a means of encouraging parents into employment.· This model has been elaborated to include neo-liberal approaches to developing a market in early years provision which results in a dichotomy between public and private provision.· This model was originally based on theories of early childhood development which did not recognise that young children’s learning depends on interaction with others.· These theories have been replaced in by theories in which learning is a social activity.· Concepts of the early childhood worker as a technician are inconsistent with our understanding of young children’s learning.· The concept of the insufficient child puts at risk the concept of a universal service based on this model of effective learning.· This understanding of the child as an active learner is reflected in curricula in many countries, including Curriculum for Excellence.· There are clearly established markers of good policy and practice in the provision of early years services.· Workforce organisation in Scotland reflects out-dated historical views of early years provision.· Funding of pre-school services in the UK, including Scotland, is lower than that in many other countries.· Policy debate and formation has failed to consider alternative models and levels of funding.· Much provision is dependent on payment by parents, supported to some extent by tax credits.· The funding model is likely to drive down levels of funding available to pre-school services.· It is important to avoid any risk that this funding model results in provision which is likely to reduce social cohesion. (6) · Policy debate and formation in Scotland has been marked by an uncritical acceptance of models of practice.· A number of education policies in Scotland recognise the common features of an inclusive high quality education from the early years through primary and into secondary education.· Curriculum for Excellence is based on an understanding of children’s development and learning which is common to all learners from 3-18.· Curriculum for Excellence is based on broad and inclusive definitions of the curriculum and of learning and achievement.· Curriculum for Excellence makes clear the importance of coherence among curriculum, pedagogy and assessment. · Curriculum for Excellence recognises the importance of teaching.· There is extensive robust evidence of the importance and value of the teacher in pre-school education to ensuring successful learning"
      ["matchLevel"]=>
      string(4) "full"
      ["fullyHighlighted"]=>
      bool(false)
      ["matchedWords"]=>
      array(9) {
        [0]=>
        string(7) "managed"
        [1]=>
        string(5) "moves"
        [2]=>
        string(9) "effective"
        [3]=>
        string(3) "use"
        [4]=>
        string(7) "managed"
        [5]=>
        string(5) "moves"
        [6]=>
        string(5) "local"
        [7]=>
        string(11) "authorities"
        [8]=>
        string(7) "schools"
      }
    }
    ["categories"]=>
    array(1) {
      [0]=>
      array(3) {
        ["value"]=>
        string(10) "Leadership"
        ["matchLevel"]=>
        string(4) "none"
        ["matchedWords"]=>
        array(0) {
        }
      }
    }
  }
}

Leadership

Nursery Education Research Review Report

10 Jan 2011