The Sc ottish Parliament and Scottis h Parliament Infor mation C entre l ogos .
SPICe Briefing
Closing The Attainment Gap: What
Can Schools Do?
19 August 2016
16/68
Geetha Marcus
This briefing highlights five guiding principles and six key strategies, gathered from evidencebased educational research, that have been proved effective in closing the attainment gap both
nationally and internationally.
The author of this briefing is an education specialist and former head teacher who recently
completed her doctoral studies. This briefing is the result of research carried out as part of the
author’s SGSSS doctoral placement with SPICe.
CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .............................................................................................................................................. 3
INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................................................................... 5
WHAT SIGNIFICANT PRINCIPLES UNDERLIE CLOSING THE ATTAINMENT GAP? ......................................... 8
The Child at the Centre ........................................................................................................................................ 8
Individual Needs ................................................................................................................................................... 9
Building Respect and Trust ................................................................................................................................ 10
Balance between Autonomy and Accountability ................................................................................................ 10
WHAT SIGNIFICANT EDUCATIONAL STRATEGIES CAN SUPPORT CLOSING THE ATTAINMENT GAP? ... 13
High Quality Teachers and Teaching ................................................................................................................. 13
Strong School Leadership .................................................................................................................................. 17
Reflective Practice and Research ...................................................................................................................... 19
Networks of Support and Collaboration ............................................................................................................. 21
Effective Assessment and Evaluation ................................................................................................................ 23
Early Intervention ............................................................................................................................................... 24
ANNEXE A: GLOSSARY OF TERMS .................................................................................................................... 26
ANNEXE B: KEY LEGISLATION IN SCOTTISH SCHOOL EDUCATION ............................................................. 28
Year .................................................................................................................................................................... 28
Title..................................................................................................................................................................... 28
Key Provisions ................................................................................................................................................... 28
ANNEXE C: ATTAINMENT GAP ........................................................................................................................... 29
SOURCES .............................................................................................................................................................. 30
2
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The link between socio-economic disadvantage, academic attainment and job prospects is a
global issue (OECD, 2011, 2014). In Scotland, various measures have been taken over the
years to attempt to break the seemingly inevitable intergenerational cycle of poverty and to
address a lack of ‘positive and sustained destinations’ (Education Scotland, 2008; 2016a,
2016b). There remains a strong correlation between a pupil’s socio-economic status and their
educational attainment. Pupils from disadvantaged backgrounds have a higher chance of not
succeeding in school.
KEY POINTS
This briefing focuses on what schools can do to close the attainment gap. It identifies five
guiding principles:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Putting the child at the centre
Addressing individual needs
Building respect and trust
Balancing autonomy and accountability
Enabling flexibility and creativity
And six key areas/interventions, gathered from evidence-based educational research both
nationally and internationally, that have collectively proved effective in closing the attainment
gap. Providing:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
High quality teachers and teaching
Strong school leadership
Reflective practice and research
A network of support and collaboration
Effective assessment and evaluation
Early intervention
However, a reminder and caution:
1. In addition to having economic aims and advantages, education is a moral activity —
subjective, complex and difficult to measure.
2. ‘The relationship between theory and practice is often both complicated and subtle,
and this is especially the case in an area like education, which necessarily involves
values as well as facts’ (Winch and Gingell, 2008: 212).
3. These differences have a significant impact on classroom practice, educational
debate and research, and public policy.
4. Closing the attainment gap is therefore by implication equally complex. There is not
one ‘gap’, nor one ‘solution’ for how gaps can be closed’ (Florian (2016:3). The
principles and strategies highlighted in this paper collectively provide a ‘best bet’ to
3
help resolve ‘the stubborn issues of deprivation and education’s social gaps’ (OECD,
2015: 14).
This briefing acknowledges that, while schools have an important role in closing the attainment
gap, what they contribute is only one aspect of the multi-dimensional efforts across various
organisations, policies and practices.
4
INTRODUCTION
The link between socio-economic disadvantage, academic attainment1 and job prospects is a
global issue (OECD, 2011, 2014). In Scotland, the concern for widening educational
opportunities and educational success for all, regardless of gender, social and cultural
background is a historical priority that dates back to the humanist movement of the 18th Century.
Various measures have been taken over the years to attempt to break the seemingly inevitable
intergenerational cycle of poverty and lack of ‘positive and sustained destinations’ (Education
Scotland, 2008; 2016a, 2016b).
An OECD (2007: 14) report commissioned by the Scottish Government entitled Quality and
Equity of Schooling in Scotland, indicated that Scotland performs at a ‘consistently very high
standard in the Programme for International Student Assessment’ (PISA) and that Scotland also
has one of the most equitable school systems among OECD countries. In 2015, the OECD’s
report on Improving Schools in Scotland again highlighted many strengths in Scottish education,
and the Scottish Government recognises that ‘Scotland has a good education system’ (Scottish
Government, 2016: 2). However, recent reports also suggest that there are ‘significant
challenges’ (Scottish Government, 2016: 3).
There remains a strong correlation between a pupil’s socio-economic status and their
educational attainment. Pupils from disadvantaged backgrounds have a higher chance of not
succeeding in school.
Socio-economic status exerts a powerful influence on attainment results in schools, but this link
is not just about poverty (i.e. those from low socio-economic backgrounds) (Annexe A and C). In
Scotland, ‘pupils in the 40 per cent least deprived areas2 are not living in poverty, yet they still
do worse on average than those in the 20 per cent least deprived areas, who in turn do worse
than those in the top 10 per cent’ (SPICe Briefing 16/33, 2016: 24). Furthermore, other
disadvantages based on culture, ethnicity, gender, sexuality and disability also intersect to
produce inequalities that can impact on a pupil’s performance in school and potential to reach
positive and sustained destinations (Arshad, 2005; Equality and Human Rights Commission,
2015; 2016a; Davis, 2016).
The PISA3 2009 report (OECD, 2011) identified that, across OECD countries, despite being
from disadvantaged backgrounds, one-third of disadvantaged students identified as ‘resilient’,
and ‘beat the odds stacked against them’. The report found three factors that defined these
‘resilient students’  spending more time in class, confidence in their academic ability,
motivation and an intrinsic personal drive to succeed. The report concluded that schools ‘may
have an important role to play in fostering resilience’ (OECD, 2011: 4) (See Annexe A).
Schools also have a role to play in reducing inequalities. Davis (2016: 2) argues that ‘there is a
need for greater recognition and action on how intersectional discrimination and inequalities
impact on wellbeing and prevent children from participating and learning effectively’. Other
studies confirm this argument (Hick et al., 2011; Konstantoni et al., 2014; OECD, 2014; Hopkins
et al., 2015). The PISA results suggest that whilst increased learning time in class, is not in itself
sufficient, there are a number of policies that can improve performance among disadvantaged
students (OECD, 2011: 4).
In a statement to Parliament, the First Minister declared that the Scottish Government ‘will draw
on successful ideas from around the world’ in order to close the attainment gap in Scotland
1
The term attainment, as opposed to achievement, is used throughout the paper. An explanation of both terms can
be found in the Annexe A.
2
As measured by the Scottish Index of Multiple Deprivation, a composite measure of deprivation in small
geographical areas.
3
PISA is an international sample survey of literacy, mathematics and science ability amongst 15 year olds.
5
(Sturgeon, 2016). She introduced a range of initiatives not only in the education sector, but
across health, childcare, social services, welfare, and employment that would be undertaken.
The Scottish Government recognises that ‘ensuring equality of opportunity for young people
starts well before the school years and extends far beyond the school gates’ (Sturgeon, 2016).
This briefing focuses on what schools can do to close the attainment gap. It highlights six key
areas/interventions, gathered from evidence-based educational research both nationally and
internationally, that have collectively proved effective in closing the attainment gap, but this is
not exhaustive.
It is also worth pointing out that, while the focus of this paper is on what schools can do, there is
significant variation between and within schools in terms of pupil attainment (Sammons, 1995;
Sammons et al., 1997):
‘Few schools are universally good at teaching across all subject areas. Conversely, few are
universally bad at teaching them all.
Only a very small minority of schools and departments perform consistently over time as
effectiveness fluctuates from one year to the next.
There is some evidence that both schools and departments are differentially effective with
pupils from different social and ethnic backgrounds as well as high and low attainers, for
reasons that are not as yet well understood.’ (Sammons et al., 1997: x)
Therefore, ‘teachers’ collective practices and interactions’ cannot be ignored (Sammons et al.,
1997: x). Structural and specific policy interventions are useful, but the quality of teachers and
teaching quality is vital.
Studies of school effectiveness are not new, having begun nearly four decades ago. In a review
of literature on ‘the key determinants of school effectiveness’, Sammons (1995) gleans the main
characteristics that make a difference in pupil attainment, and these are largely reflected in this
briefing.
6
Figure 1: Key areas/interventions for success in education
The chart above represents the six key areas/ interventions for success in education (outer
circle), with the child at the centre, and the essential principles that permeate the life and work
of the school and its staff. The diagram has been developed to reflect the key themes identified
in this briefing.
This briefing acknowledges that what schools can contribute is one aspect of the multidimensional efforts across various organisations, policies and practices.
Kerr at al. (2010: 39) warn that ‘school effects must not be overstated, as they have sometimes
been by national policy-makers…some researchers have drawn attention to the in-built
limitations of school improvement efforts, arguing that schools inevitably reflect the massive
inequalities that exist within British society’. However, other researchers argue that if the efforts
to improve schools to enable them to close the gap are ‘linked to wider actions to break down
the additional barriers faced by disadvantaged groups’, then such efforts are ‘worthwhile’ (Kerr
et al., 2010: 39).
‘Studies of the complexity of [educational] practice highlight that there is not one ‘gap’, nor one
‘solution’ for how gaps can be closed’ (Florian, 2016: 3). As a note of caution, and as the
situation in London illustrates, it ought to be emphasised that explanations for success in
schools are ‘not simple and do not result from a single policy’, intervention or as a result of one
strategy in a school (Blanden et al., 2015: 36). This briefing does not attempt to recommend or
7
evaluate specific educational interventions or programme. Neither does it attempt to critically
assess the effectiveness of specific government policies.
Rather, as is represented in Figure 1 above, the briefing foregrounds several critical guiding
principles and effective strategies that act as a foundation upon which some schools promote
their pupils’ general wellbeing (see Annexe A) and resilience, enabling pupils to learn and
develop, despite the unfavourable circumstances surrounding their personal lives.
WHAT SIGNIFICANT PRINCIPLES UNDERLIE CLOSING THE ATTAINMENT
GAP?
‘Who you are in Scotland is far more important than what school you attend, so far as
achievement differences on international tests are concerned. Socio-economic status is the
most important difference between individuals. Family cultural capital, life-style, and
aspirations influence student outcomes through the nature of the cognitive and cultural
demands of the curriculum, teacher values, the programme emphasis in schools, and peer
effects.’ (OECD, 2007: 15, my emphasis)
The OECD (2007) believes that variations in school standards in Scotland do not have the same
level of impact on a student’s overall achievement, but socio-economic deprivation in a
student’s family background does (See Annexe A). Yet, it is arguably schools that can make a
positive contribution to a child who is disadvantaged.
The National Foundation of Educational Research (NFER) conducted a study based on
interviews with senior leaders from more and less successful schools in England. The research
concludes that there are seven ‘building blocks for success’ for promoting high attainment,
which are reflected in the condensed version as illustrated in Figure 1 above. However, what is
significant about their findings and indeed in other studies are certain embedded ideas that are
not part of ‘structural interventions’ or ‘micro-managed policies’ imposed from governments and
education departments (Kerr et al., 2010).
There are several significant principles that undergird a successful school’s ability to motivate a
child to learn — to be ‘confident, successful, responsible and effective’ individuals (Curriculum
for Excellence, 2003). These principles can often be part of a ‘hidden curriculum’ — unintended
lessons that are absorbed by pupils through the rules, norms and values conveyed in the
classroom and the general school environment (See Annexe A). At times, these unintended
learning experiences convey negative messages to pupils, but five principles in particular can
have a positive influence on building resilience, particularly in pupils from disadvantaged
backgrounds.
The Child at the Centre
The right of a child to receive an education stems from and is enshrined in the European
Convention on Human Rights (Article 2 of Protocol 1) and the United Nations Convention on the
Rights of the Child (UNCRC, Articles 12 and 28). The child’s right to be educated or be in
education is reflected within education authorities’ attempts to provide formal structures — a
physical space or school building, a curriculum and the professional relationship between a
qualified teacher and pupil. At an academic engagement event held recently at the Scottish
Parliament by the Scottish Parliament Information Centre (SPICe), there was strong
consensus amongst the academics and headteachers who attended that the interests of
the child ought to be at the heart of policy and practice.
8
Schools that succeed in fostering resilience in disadvantaged pupils are not only aware that
children are at the centre of all that they do, but ensure that this is the case in practice (Rutter,
1985, 1987; Cefai, 2008; OECD, 2011; Siraj- Blatchford, 2011; Davis et al., 2014a; Davis,
2016). It should be noted that resilience is a contested concept (Little et al., 2004).
Nevertheless, there is much research that reveals that the concept is useful in explaining how
some children succeed despite the most adverse circumstances. Studies have shown that the
idea also allows practitioners in the field of education, health and social services, to intervene
and support children and families by working with their strengths to prevent the exacerbation of
their vulnerabilities. Successful schools and effective teachers seem to identify and build on
these strengths to promote resilience (Rutter, 1985, 1987; Cefai, 2008; OECD, 2011; SirajBlatchford, 2011). In doing so, they recognise and respect the voices, choices and
contributions of children and young people, and take children’s rights seriously. Students in
these schools realise that they are respected and valued regardless of their background or
abilities.
Individual Needs
Focusing on children as the main purpose and drivers of all that we do in our schools, means
that schools and teachers strive to meet the individual needs of every child, however simple or
complex, whether it requires short-term interventions or more long term, sustained efforts
(Norwich, 2002; Florian, et al., 2007; Wyness, 2011; Burgess, 2014; CfBT, 2014; Greaves et al.,
2014; Blanden et al., 2015; MacLeod et al., 2015; OECD 2015; Florian, 2016). Crucially,
research undertaken by the Department for Education highlights that the most successful
schools, ‘have an ethos of high attainment for all pupils and avoid stereotyping disadvantaged
pupils as all facing similar barriers or having less potential to succeed’ (MacLeod et al., 2015).
Many academic studies have concluded that successful schools have effective teachers who
‘know every child’s challenges and interests, and look closely at ways of supporting them to
achieve their very best’ (Barth, 1999; Florian et al., 2007; Sahlberg, 2009, 2011; Florian and
Linklater, 2010; Siraj-Blatchford, 2011; Florian, 2016). These and others argue that closing the
attainment gap requires that children who are poor or disadvantaged are not discriminated
against; standards and expectations are not lowered for them.
Davis and Smith (2012) argue that ‘the Birth To Three Curriculum, A Curriculum for Excellence
(Additional Support for Learning) (Scotland) Act 2004 and Getting It Right for Every Child, if
implemented collaboratively — not as ‘top down performance requirements but with the active
participation of children and adults in a community — can remove barriers to children’s learning’
(2012, cited in Davis, 2016). They argue that when children and young people are consulted
and encouraged to be active learners and participants in fulfilling their own potential, then there
is a greater chance of motivating them to remain in school. They are allowed the space to have
a vested interest in their futures. Findings by the OECD (2008: 9) confirm the importance of
personalised learning — ‘Learning sciences research suggests that more effective learning will
occur if each learner receives a customized learning experience’.
The Endowment Education Foundation (EEF) (2016) produced a useful teaching and learning
toolkit which not only look at attainment outcomes, but also cost effectiveness and the
robustness of the evidence base. It should be noted that this work is based on meta-analyses
and as such prioritises the findings of only certain types of research, those that enable the
generation of effect sizes. In other words, this research has a certain type of experimental
design, and as such makes generalisations and compares means. Nevertheless, it is useful
research generating best bets for what we should focus on, but it does not reveal the details of
how these measures can be executed.
The EEF (2016) points out that creating an individual learning programme for every pupil can be
onerous for a teacher to manage and their research shows that this strategy is not effective.
9
Individual instruction at class level can be difficult to manage. In other words, addressing
individual needs does not mean individual instruction for every pupil throughout the school day.
Building Respect and Trust
Research suggests that a collaborative approach that includes children and their families in
planning and decisions requires a culture of respect and trust on the part of schools and
teachers. Ciuffetelli Parker (2013: 1), in her study on successful strategies employed by seven
schools in Ontario to address poverty faced by pupils, suggests that building whole-school
culture and ethos that is positive, bias free and respectfully inclusive ‘have garnered excellent
advancements across Ontario’. Successful strategies for addressing poverty range ‘from
enhancing teacher awareness to community partnerships to changes in professional practice’
(Ciuffetelli Parker 2013: 1). The experience of successful schools in Ontario demonstrate that
building trusting and respectful partnerships [to achieve] better understanding of how poverty
affects families, schools and communities has been crucial in helping to close the attainment
gap (Ciuffetelli Parker 2013: 4).
Ciuffetelli Parker’s (2013) research reveals that these successful schools and teachers have a
different mindset concerning poverty and do not assign blame to families when students are not
performing in school, but are aware of and have been trained to understand the different types
of poverty and its effects. Teachers ‘view children and families living in poverty in terms of their
possibility and promise rather than their deficiencies (Ciuffetelli Parker 2013: 2).
Other studies in Ontario (Gorski, 2012; People For Education, 2013) reflect similar principles
that underlie schools that ‘mind the gap’ in order to shape better policies and practice for their
disadvantaged pupils, rather than basing these on stereotyped ideas about what it means to be
poor.
Bryk and Schneider (2003) conducted almost a decade of intensive case study based on
research and longitudinal statistical analyses from more than 400 Chicago elementary schools.
They concluded that ‘human resources — such as openness to improvement, trust and respect,
teachers having knowledge and skills, supportive leadership, and socialization—are more
critical to the development of professional community than structural conditions’ (Bryk and
Schneider, 2003:40). They found that ‘trust in schools is a core resource for school reform’ and
that schools and teachers require respect and trust from government, local authorities, parents
and the community (Bryk and Schneider, 2003). There is greater chance of success when their
professionalism is valued in ‘judging what is best for students and in reporting their learning
progress’ (Sahlberg, 2009: 21). Schools and teachers who receive appropriate resources and
support are better able to support students ‘who at risk to fail or left behind’ (Sahlberg, 2009:
21).
Research also reveals that when struggling schools are evaluated and held to account based
solely on test results, without support, the system can inadvertently affect morale, perpetuating
a culture of schools, teachers and pupils, who feel and are undervalued (Trow, 1996; Bryk and
Schneider, 2003; Kezar, 2004; Sahlberg, 2009: 21). Respect and trust cascade down and
through the education system, which leads to greater freedom and creativity.
Balance between Autonomy and Accountability
Kerr et al. (2010: 41) observe that governments tend to promote and support top-down ‘onesize-fits-all, formulaic approaches’ to school improvements and that school-level development
strategies, are rarely encouraged. Yet much research shows that ‘activities that allow staff to
find the best ways of making an intervention work in their school have been found to be useful’
(Kerr et al., 2010: 41). Studies conducted by the OECD (2008, 2013a, 2013b) have found that it
10
is difficult to achieve high standards for all groups of children when schools have only limited
flexibility in teaching resources and that there is a lack of more freedom.
‘Greater management freedom in these two areas needs to be part of a compact with local
government, which establishes expectations in exchange for autonomy, and encourages and
protects innovation and risk-taking through an authoritative mandate’ (OECD, 2007: 16).
In his work on Finnish Lessons, Sahlberg (2009, 2011) argues that one reason for the success
of schools in Finland is that schools and teachers are encouraged to take risks and be creative
in their approaches to teaching and learning (2009: 21). According to Sahlberg there seems to
be less control and interventions from government in Finland. Sahlberg’s (2009: 21) table below
(Figure 2) seeks to illustrate the distinction between two systems of educational reform since the
1980s.
Figure 2: Global features of education development and alternatives since the early
1980s
Education Policies and Reform Principles
Global Education Reform
Alternative Reform Movement (ARM)
Movement (GERM)
Strict Standards
Loose Standards
Setting clear, high, centrally prescribed
Setting clear but flexible national framework for
performance standards for all schools,
school-based curriculum planning. Encouraging
teachers and students to improve the
local solutions to national goals in order to find
quality and equity of outcomes.
best ways to create optimal learning opportunities
for all.
Focus on Literacy and Numeracy
Focus on Broad and Deep Learning
Basic knowledge and skills in reading,
Teaching and learning focus on deep, broad
writing, mathematics and the natural
learning, giving equal value to all aspects of the
sciences serve as prime targets of
growth of an individual’s personality, moral
education reform.
character, creativity, knowledge and skills.
Teaching for Predetermined Results
Reaching higher standards as criterion
for success and good performance;
minimises educational risk-taking;
narrows teaching to content and use of
methods beneficial to attaining preset
results.
Transferring External Innovations for
Educational Revolutions
Sources of educational change are
external innovations brought to schools
and teachers through legislation or
national programmes. These often
replace existing improvement strategies.
Test-based Accountability
School performance and raising student
achievement are closely tied to
processes of promotion, inspection and
ultimately rewarding schools and
teachers. Winners normally gain fiscal
rewards whereas struggling schools and
individuals are punished.
Encouraging Risk-taking and Creativity
School-based and teacher-owned curricula
facilitate finding novel approaches to teaching and
learning; hence, encourages risk-taking and
uncertainty in leadership, teaching and learning.
Learning from the Past and Respecting
Pedagogical Conservatism
Teaching honours traditional pedagogical values,
such as teacher’s role and relationship with
students. Main sources of school improvement
are proven good practices from the past.
Responsibility and Trust
Gradual building of a culture of responsibility and
trust within the education system that values
teacher and principal professionalism in judging
what is best for students and in reporting their
learning progress. Targeting resources and
support to schools and students who are at risk of
failing or being left behind.
11
Sahlberg believes the ‘global education reform movement’ reflects what many countries are
encouraged to undertake, but the ‘alternative reform movement’ is more in line with the Finnish
experience.
These two seemingly binary and opposing systems would suggest that education systems
create and produce different aims and outcomes, depending on whether they subscribe to
GERM or ARM principles, as Sahlberg’s table indicates. Each system arguably has its strengths
and challenges and reflects the tension between control, autonomy, accountability and desired
results for children and young people, no matter their socio-economic background.
This dichotomy is reflected in other studies. For example, Sparks (2004) argues that
governments and policy makers generally tend to prefer a top-down approach. Opfer and
Pedder (2011), on the other hand, maintain that teachers tend to prefer bottom-up approach.
However, an extensive review by Timperley (2008) suggests that neither approaches
necessarily produces better sustained results for pupils.
What has been shown to work instead is when practitioners take account of student need by
reflecting on what to do in new situations and the ability to behave effectively in managing their
relationships with their students (Argyris and Schön, 1974). Timperley et al. (2009, as cited in
Wall et al., under review: 3) found that when teachers in New Zealand took account of student
need in their own professional learning and development, they produced student gains that
were four times the national expectation. When teachers and students’ learning are linked and
interrelated, both parties are engaged and benefit in the long run.
In a robust review of the field she showed that the association of both a top-down and bottomup approach with improvement is weak and often variable with little impact sustained. However,
‘with bottom up approaches a close association to student need that engages with practitioners’
theories of practice (Argyris and Schön, 1974) increases the likelihood of sustained impact on
student outcomes’ (Wall et al., under review: 3).
A balance between performance-related accountability and autonomy, with greater levels of
flexibility and freedom to be creative in addressing student need, seems an important
principle in successful schools.
12
WHAT SIGNIFICANT EDUCATIONAL STRATEGIES CAN SUPPORT CLOSING
THE ATTAINMENT GAP?
There are a number of strategies identified in research, such as supporting high quality teaching
and ensuring good networks of collaboration, which can support efforts to close the attainment
gap.
High Quality Teachers and Teaching
It is arguably a universally agreed principle that the quality of teachers and teaching is crucial for
effective learning in the classroom and can have a significant, if not transformative, impact on a
disadvantaged pupil’s future prospects (Sammons, 1995; Sammons et al., 1997; Kerr et al.,
2010; Donaldson, 2011; OECD, 2011, 2015; Blanden et al., 2015). And there are a number of
key strategies that have been shown to improve learning and attainment, and especially
amongst pupils who are disadvantaged.
What makes a good teacher?
Research has found that the aspects of teacher quality that contribute to closing the attainment
gap are linked to their high status as well-paid professionals who are academically able, wellrounded and multi-talented individuals (Westbury et al., 2005; Hanushek and Rivkin, 2006;
Sahlberg, 2009, 2011; Donaldson, 2011; OECD, 2015). These recruits into the profession make
a significant difference to a pupil’s ‘resilience’ in school and beyond when they are:

highly trained and deployed effectively (Donaldson, 2011; Sahlberg, 2009,2011;
MacLeod et al., 2015; OECD 2015)

granted greater autonomy to be active and creative drivers of change (Sahlberg, 2009,
2011; Blanden et al., 2015)

‘research literate’ (BERA-RSA, 2014) including pedagogical and subject knowledge
expertise (Coe et al., 2014: 2)

aware of, and have an enhanced understanding of, the different kinds of poverty beyond
the visible signs and conditions (Pirie and Hockings, 2012; Ciuffetelli Parker, 2013; Davis
et al., 2014a, 2016; Ontario Student Achievement Division, 2015)

aware of, and have an enhanced understanding of other inequalities (Arshad, 2005,
2016a; Davis et al., 2012, 2014a, 2016; Florian, 2016).
Coe et al. (2014: 2- 3) found that there is ‘strong evidence’ ‘the most effective teachers have
deep knowledge of the subjects they teach’ and that the ‘quality of instruction’ also has a
significant impact on student outcomes. A report by the Department for Education in London
also highlighted that in more successful schools teaching assistants are also well-trained — in
pedagogy, quality questioning and feedback skills. They are deployed strategically across the
school; even creating subject-specific teaching assistants who have a high level of knowledge in
their specialist area (MacLeod et al., 2015).
However, the EEF (2016) suggest that studies reveal a mixed impact on pupil learning from the
use of teaching assistants. Much depends on the quality of the assistant, the training provided,
and the tasks assigned. It should also be noted that, overall, the level of evidence related to
teaching assistants is limited. A number of systematic reviews of the impact of support staff in
schools have been conducted in the UK and internationally. However, ‘there are no metaanalyses specifically looking at the impact of teaching assistants on learning’ (EEF, 2016).
13
What are effective teaching and learning approaches?
‘We define effective teaching as that which leads to improved student achievement using
outcomes that matter to their future success. Defining effective teaching is not easy. The
research keeps coming back to this critical point: student progress is the yardstick by which
teacher quality should be assessed’ (Coe et al., 2014: 2).
There are several powerful teaching and learning approaches employed by highly trained
practitioners that have been shown to have a positive impact on learning and on closing the
attainment gap, but this is by no means an exhaustive list.
‘There is also strong evidence as to which classroom strategies work well and which do not.
Specifically, the evidence supports the use of whole class interactive teaching, peer tutoring,
and the development of problem solving and thinking skills, and collaborative small group
activities, particularly where experienced teachers use such approaches skillfully. A
consistent whole-school approach to teaching methods and behaviour management has also
been found to be effective, and teachers need to be encouraged to experiment with new
ways of reaching those learners who are not responding to existing teaching strategies’ (Kerr
et al., 2010: 40).
However, the idea of consistent whole school approaches is more nuanced in practice. Some
subjects have specific demands e.g. safety in science and PE, which necessarily involves
different teaching methods and preferences.
Metacognitive training (Moseley et al., 2005; MacLeod et al., 2015; OECD 2015) can be
defined as learning to learn. It is a ‘process of discovery about learning. It involves a set of
principles and skills, which, if understood and used, help learners to learn more effectively and
so become learners for life. Moseley et al. (2005) provide an excellent overview of learning
theory and practice that produces a useful model of learning that has been shown to work very
successfully with students and teachers.
At its heart is the belief that ‘learning is learnable’ (Wall et al., 2010). Pupils learn to learn in
classrooms from their teachers and their peers, and teachers learn to learn how to teach more
productively through their own research and continuing professional development.
There is a significant amount of research that demonstrates it is crucial to educate pupils for the
21st Century and the nature of the higher level thinking and dispositions that are needed for
young people to enter into a job market, as yet undefined. Research by the EEF (2016)
maintains that many studies have found ‘meta-cognition and self-regulation approaches have
consistently high levels of impact, with pupils making an average of eight months’ additional
progress’. The evidence indicates that teaching these strategies can be particularly effective for
low achieving and older pupils.
Their study also found that these strategies are ‘more effective when taught in collaborative
groups so learners can support each other and make their thinking explicit through discussion’
(EEF, 2016). The EEF (2016) states that teaching approaches which encourage learners to
‘plan, monitor and evaluate specific aspects of their own learning have very high potential, but
require careful implementation’ by highly trained teachers. Pupils with metacognitive knowledge
and skills and higher level thinking, are likely to do much better in school, at work and in life.
Collaborative learning (MacLeod et al., 2015; OECD 2015) can be defined as an approach
where learners work on a task together. Each learner contributes to, and benefits from, others’
involvement in the activity. It is distinguished by the fact there is a common task and a single
group result’ (Gillies, 2015). ‘Co-operative learning, on the other hand, can involve separate
14
tasks and individual outcomes although the process may be marked by shared activity and
mutual support’ (Gillies, 2015).
Research by the EEF (2016) found that there is very strong evidence gathered over an
extended period of time that ‘the impact of collaborative approaches on learning is consistently
positive, but it does vary so it is important to get the detail right’. For example, collaborative
learning is not just a matter of placing children in groups, but pupils will need:
‘support and practice to work together as this does not happen automatically. Tasks need to
be designed carefully so that working together is effective and efficient. It is particularly
important to encourage lower achieving pupils to talk and articulate their thinking in
collaborative tasks as they may contribute less […] approaches which promote talk and
interaction between learners tend to result in the best gains’ (EEF, 2016).
Inclusive pedagogies (Florian et al., 2007; Florian and Linklater, 2010; Florian, 2016) the idea
that all learners differ is the starting point of inclusive pedagogy, which values individual
differences and needs of all pupils. It can be defined as ‘an approach to teaching that aims to
raise the achievement of all children, whilst safeguarding the inclusion of those who are
vulnerable to exclusion and other forms of marginalisation’ (Florian, 2016: 2). The teacher uses
appropriate and adaptable strategies to enable every pupil to access a lesson in order to ensure
‘high levels of engagement and motivation’ (Florian, 2016: 3). This approach was highlighted by
the OECD (2011: 4) as being ‘particularly beneficial’ for increasing the resilience of
disadvantaged pupils.
Peer tutoring (Moseley et al., 2005; Lavy et al., 2012; MacLeod et al., 2015; OECD 2015) is an
organized learning experience in which one student serves as the teacher or tutor, and the other
is the learner or tutee. Students act as both learners and teachers. It gives students an
opportunity to use their knowledge in a meaningful, social experience (Conrad, 1974).
The EEF (2016) found, based on extensive studies, that ‘overall, the introduction of peer
tutoring approaches appears to have a positive impact on learning, with an average positive
effect of approximately five additional months’ progress’. Peer tutoring benefits both tutors and
tutees, but crucially the EEF stresses that ‘there is some evidence that children from
disadvantaged backgrounds and low attaining pupils make the biggest gains’ . There are,
however, some detailed examinations that show that teaching children to have the
metacognitive and communication skills to be able to effectively assess their peers, and to be
peer assessed, is an essential baseline for such an intervention (Wall et al., 2009).
Peer mentoring is a system that trains and enables pupils ‘to support each other, the school
community and staff by either supporting play, study skills or resolving conflict’ (Restorative
Justice Council, 2016). Peer assessment is ‘evaluation carried out by one or more learners on
the work or performance of another learner or group of learners’ (Gillies, 2015).
Research shows that, when used together, tutoring, mentoring and assessment are powerful
tools that involve learners in their own and each other’s learning, and social and emotional
development (Goodlad and Hirst, 1989; Greenwood et al., 1989; Lavy et al., 2012; MacLeod et
al., 2015; OECD 2015). These strategies do not operate outwith teacher input, but complement
teaching, feedback and assessment provided by teachers. The EEF (2016) recommends that
‘training for staff and tutors are essential ingredients for success’.
Literacy (Machin and McNally, 2008; Sosu and Ellis, 2014) The teaching of literacy has been
shown to work to support pupils from disadvantaged backgrounds. The implementation of the
Literacy Hour, for example, has proved effective in some areas, like London, as have other
subject specific initiatives focussing on basic knowledge and skills like numeracy and the
15
sciences. The literacy hour was a fundamental part of the National Literacy Strategy
implemented by New Labour in 1997. The impact of this was debatable and varied according to
individual teacher’s ability and skill. As a result, it was phased out by the coalition government.
PISA surveys demonstrate that strengthening reading ability and enjoyment can ‘mitigate 30%
of the attainment gap’ and have a positive effect on other subject areas (Sosu and Ellis, 2014).
(Ciuffetelli Parker (2013: 4) argues that another benefit of the use of literature is its capacity to
enhance understanding, as it can be a vehicle for promoting social awareness.
However, Sahlberg (2009: 22) makes a useful point about the need for a well-rounded,
balanced curriculum that focuses on ‘deep, broad learning, giving equal value to all aspects of
growth’, not just the basics. The emphasis is on a holistic education  a wider understanding
and interpretation of the curriculum, rather than a narrow one based on just the basics. Based
on their findings, the OECD (2015: 117) argues that ‘the intensive focus on literacy and
numeracy has tended to side-line other important areas of learning such as science, history and
geography, physical and health education, the arts, citizenship, and a wide range of what are
now termed 21st Century skills’.
Sahlberg also argues that it is important that teachers are well rounded accomplished
individuals in their own right, in order to deliver such a curriculum (Sahlberg, 2009: 25). Wall et
al. (2010) also stress the importance of keeping the understanding of attainment as wide as
possible. They argue that ‘in England this has become very narrow to just English and
Mathematics, and while important are only a small element of what we would see as the
outcomes of a good education system. In the Campaign for Learning project the teachers
involved demonstrated that they wanted to engage with learning as lifelong and life-wide’.
Sahlberg (2009: 14) maintains that highly trained and effective teachers are willing and able to
observe and assess pupils’ different strengths and needs, in order to recognise and prevent
problems early, whilst motivating them to persevere in school. For example, he highlights
innovative vocational training programmes as an example of addressing the specific needs of
pupils ‘whose learning styles prefer a more practically oriented curriculum’ in order to keep them
in education (Sahlberg 2009: 14). However, one consequence of highlighting vocational routes
is that, in the past, pupils were selected into such routes and those from disadvantaged
backgrounds tend to be disproportionately represented. Raffe et al. (2004; 2007) debate the
need for ‘vertical and horizontal ladders’ to link vocational routes to provide progression rather
than dead ends. The need for high quality vocational pathways alongside general education is a
continuing debate.
Other approaches that have proved successful in addressing the attainment gap include:





expecting all children to succeed
the use of higher-order questioning and graphic organizers (EEF, 2016)
fostering humanitarianism and positive attitudes and emotions as foundations for both
academic and emotional success
use of classroom community-building strategies that foster a positive and inclusive
environment and respect for diversity (Ciuffetelli Parker, 2013: 3-4).
flexible teaching strategies to suit individual needs (OECD, 2008: 9)
To summarise, the OECD (2007: 16) states clearly that students need to be motivated and
strong incentives to learn and succeed need to be built into study programmes:
‘Intrinsic incentives relate to quality of teaching, enjoyment of learning, robust instructional
design, formative assessment, continuous feedback, individual attention, and sensitivity to
student learning style. Extrinsic incentives relate to the economic benefits of school. They
16
include skills, generic and specific competencies, practical experience, access to accredited
vocational training, and good pathways to further education, training, and employment.’
These incentives are especially important for pupils from disadvantaged backgrounds as ‘they
are the students who are least likely to receive this support elsewhere’ (OECD, 2011: 4).
Ultimately, however, many studies have revealed that improving the quality of teaching has
been shown to make a difference and teacher agency is crucial (Donaldson, 2011; Sahlberg,
2009, 2011; Burgess, 2014; CfBT, 2014; Greaves et al., 2014; Timperley, 2008; Blanden et al.,
2015; OECD, 2011, 2014, 2015; Priestley et al., 2015).
Strong School Leadership
Just as high quality teachers and teaching are necessary for building resilience and capturing
the missing talent of pupils from disadvantaged backgrounds, it is arguably a universally agreed
principle that the quality of school leadership is equally vital and can have a significant, if not
transformative, impact on a pupil’s future prospects (Fullan, 2003; Day et al., 2009; OECD,
2011, 2015; Donaldson, 2011; Kerr et al., 2010; Sosu and Ellis, 2014; Blanden et al., 2015).
However, Bell et al. (2003: 21) in a ‘systematic review of the impact of school headteachers on
student outcomes’ found that the connection is more nuanced.
Some research, particularly large scale quantitative studies, argue that school leadership has a
small and indirect effect on student outcomes; whilst other studies, qualitative case studies in
particular, reveal a stronger relationship (Robinson, 2007). It is arguably immaterial whether the
impact is direct or indirect (Robinson, 2007).
As Bell et al. (2003) and other studies attest (Harris and Chapman, 2002; Leithwood and Riehl,
2003; Marzano et al., 2005; Leithwood, 2008; Timperley et al., 2009) it is the nature and quality
of leadership that matters (Robinson, 2007). The impact on student performance and
satisfaction may not always be direct, and it does mostly occur through the performance of
teachers.
SCHOOL
LEADERSHIP
TEACHER
PERFORMANCE
STUDENT
PERFORMANCE
Participative and/or transformational leadership ‘has strong direct effects on school conditions,
which in turn have strong direct effects on classroom conditions (Leithwood and Jantzi, 1999;
Wiley, 2001). Headteachers have a direct effect on organisational characteristics and teacher
performance, and it is teacher performance that directly affects student performance (Cheng,
2002). The OECD (2007: 14) believes that, in Scotland, ‘headteachers are amongst the most
positive of school principals in the OECD in judging the adequacy of staffing and teaching
resources’, and there are certain characteristics that mark their success as school leaders.
What do effective school leaders do?
Research shows that successful headteachers manage in particular ways. Education and
educational activity may be understood in economic terms, but it is essentially a moral
undertaking based on culture and values (Pring, 2004: 12). Fullan (2003) describes effective
school leaders as having a ‘strong moral imperative’, and this of course cannot be easily
quantified, or accounted for through policy and legislation.
Echoing this moral responsibility, effective school leaders tend to create a whole school ethos
that incorporates the core principles mentioned earlier (Leithwood and Jantzi, 1999; Wiley,
2001; Cheng, 2002; Sosu and Ellis, 2014; MacLeod et al., 2015).
17

The child is at the centre.

The child’s individual needs are paramount.

Respect and trust permeate the school, including teachers, parents and pupils.

Teachers, and by default pupils, are given greater autonomy, freedom and the space to
be creative thinkers.
It is challenging for structural intervention programmes from governments and local authorities
to instil these core principles in schools; they exist because of the values, ethics and character
of the school leader.
Between 2014 and 2015, the NFER analysed data collected from a survey of 1,329 schools and
49 school leaders, on the role of school strategies, approaches and characteristics in raising
disadvantaged pupils’ attainment (Macleod et al., 2015). The study discovered that effective
headteachers provide ‘clear, responsive leadership’ in several ways. They:




promote whole school ethos of attainment for all pupils and disadvantaged pupils are not
stereotyped
create various positive strategies, working with families to promote good behaviour,
attendance and enjoyment of school
set high expectations, monitor performance and share best practice
use research-based data-driven evidence (within and outwith the classroom) to provide
feedback and inform decisions (Macleod et al., 2015: 10).
The EEF (2016) argue that there is strong evidence that ‘suggests that behaviour interventions
can produce large improvements in academic performance along with a decrease in
problematic behaviours’. Targeted interventions matched to specific needs of individual pupils
work even better than universal interventions or whole school strategies (EEF, 2016). School
leaders who necessarily prioritise behaviour interventions are more likely to support pupils who
might otherwise be left behind.
In addition, headteachers in schools with pupils who are socio-economically disadvantaged:




prioritise ‘mitigating the effects of poverty on attainment’ in development plans
increase knowledge of how the attainment gap can be addressed
train staff to be aware of the signs and effects of poverty
monitor the impact of ‘new initiatives’ on addressing the gap (Ciuffetelli Parker, 2013;
Sosu and Ellis, 2014).
They also learn from and work with neighbouring schools and national networks to raise
standards (MacLeod et al., 2015: 11).
To summarise, effective leaders are those that ‘make creative and evidenced based decisions’,
have detailed understanding of pupil and staff needs, invest in their staff and, most importantly,
lead by example. (MacLeod et al., 2015: 14). However, there remain significant challenges to
establishing strong school leadership, and these obstacles — financial, top-down control from
governments and local authority education departments, highly prescriptive one size fits all
interventions and performance-related accountability — can be challenging to overcome (Fullan,
2003; Marzano, 2005; Day, 2009; Sahlberg, 2007, 2011; Sosu and Ellis, 2014; OECD, 2013b;
MacLeod et al., 2015 ).
18
Reflective Practice and Research
Within the field of education the term research can be defined as ‘the systematic study and
investigation undertaken to extend knowledge. Applied research involves using the results of
research to inform practice’ (Gillies, 2015). McLaughlin et al. (2004) state that there are three
overlapping purposes evident in the teacher research tradition:
1. research and enquiry undertaken for primarily personal purposes
2. research and enquiry undertaken for primarily political purposes
3. research and enquiry undertaken for primarily school improvement purposes.
The model of teacher as reflective practitioner is not a new one (Stenhouse, 1975), and there
are many studies that demonstrate that teacher engagement in research, as part of evidencebased education (Davies, 1999), can improve classroom practice and their own professional
development (Donaldson, 2011).
Timperley (2008: 28) recognises that ‘teaching is a complex activity’ in which teachers’ beliefs
and theories shape what it means to be effective. Her study reveals that the research evidence
indicates that:

involving external expertise can be crucial for promoting this kind of teacher inquiry and
knowledge building

professional development opportunities that are carefully designed and have a strong
focus on pupil outcomes have a significant impact on student achievement

teaching approaches that have been subject to research and wide debate are most likely
to have positive impacts on student outcomes

it is important to integrate theory and practice as they relate to curriculum, teaching
practice, and assessment knowledge in the areas that are the focus for professional
learning

effective assessment of pupil learning and needs, and a teacher’s own performance, is a
necessary part of the cycle of research inquiry
Timperley also advises that ‘teachers are supported [by school leadership] to identify their
professional learning needs through an analysis of their students’ learning needs, to build their
pedagogical content knowledge in sufficient depth to address their students’ learning needs and
then to check both formally and informally whether their changed teaching practices are having
the desired impact’ (Timperley, 2009: 227). It is important that teachers, school leaders and
researchers in academic institutions form networks of support and collaboration to facilitate this
process (Davies, 1999; Arshad, 2016b; Chapman, 2016, Wall and Hall, in press).
‘Much debate surrounds the nature and value of educational research as the nature of
education is not readily amenable to the quantitative techniques of empirical science, whereas
qualitative research is sometimes viewed as limited, in terms of its generalisability’ (Gillies,
2015).
According to the BERA-RSA study (2014) entitled Research and the Teaching Profession
research can take a variety of forms — enquiry-based, action research, randomised control
trials, surveys, analysis of published data and so on. The study also highlights what it means to
be ‘research literate’, ‘research engaged’ and ‘research-rich’ (see Annexe A). The main aim of
19
research in education is to help ‘develop a research-rich self-improving educational system’
(BERA-RSA, 2014:7). This is important because it has the potential to:






enrich and inform learners’ experiences
enrich teachers’ professional identity and development
promote collaboration between teachers, those from other schools and researchers in
university
inform and drive development programmes
hold schools and colleges to account
produce new research knowledge
Teachers who are research literate, research engaged and who work in research rich
environments are more likely to be effective in responding to the individual needs of their pupils
and motivate them to learn with joy (Sahlberg, 2009; 2011). They are more likely, as the
evidence in Finnish schools suggest, to take risks, create programmes of work and take
ownership of the curricula to find novel ways to teach and learn, not just for their pupils but for
themselves (Sahlberg, 2009).
Other studies also highlight the importance of research in educational practice and in closing the
attainment gap (MacLeod et al., 2015; OECD; 2015; Royal Society of Edinburgh, 2016). They
also stress that along with external research, school-level data also helps to formulate policies
and practices.
Wall and Hall (in press) in their paper on negotiating partnership working with teacherresearchers provide a useful summary of underlying principles for conducting research that
promotes success:
1. The Principle of Autonomy: the teacher knows which question to ask
a. Novice researchers may need assistance with methods but they still get to choose
how to ask their enquiry question
b. Teachers know what impact is and they get to say when/if the question is
answered satisfactorily
c. Only the enquirer can answer the question ‘why did I want to know that?’
2. The Principle of Dialogue: ethical and robust research is communicated
a. Especially when it hasn’t worked as planned
b. Particularly when all participants have a say
c. Counter intuitively, communication is even better across contexts
3. The Principle of Disturbance: good questions cause extra thinking
a. Cycles of enquiry are set off by success and failure in research
b. The complexity and connections in classrooms start to become more obvious
c. All learners (students, teachers, managers and community) tend to become more
metacognitive
This final point about disturbance is crucial for development. Cochran-Smith (2009) argues that
constructive disruption is a necessary and vital part of being an active, engaged teacher, who
not only expects pupils to ask questions, be critical and criticise, but models that mode of
inquiry. When the system gives space for teachers to take risks and think creatively, to disrupt
taken for granted, established practices, then there is a greater likelihood that learning
experiences for all pupils, and especially those who are disenfranchised, will be richer and more
meaningful.
20
Being comfortable with inquiry and research starts at initial teacher education in university
(Sahlberg, 2009, 2011; Donaldson, 2011; Arshad, 2016b; Chapman, 2016). ‘Schools of
education can play a central role in delivering improvements Scotland wants for its education
system by providing … the quality and rigour of their teacher education programme’ (Arshad,
2016b: 2). Peer reviewed research, assured by international standards, can identify successful
improvement practices and inform system evaluations at school, authority and national level
(Arshad, 2016b: 2)
The RSE (2016: 1) recommends that an ‘overarching single educational research strategy’
ought to be created in the first instance. Funding needs to be in place and as Wall and Hall
(2016; in press) recognise, there needs to be direct dialogue between teachers and
researchers. The report stresses the need for the research effort to be given the space to be
creative and as Wall and Hall (2016; in press) and Cochran-Smith (2009) contends — the space
to disturb or disrupt current modes of thinking and practices. This requires autonomy, trust and
respect.
Networks of Support and Collaboration
As stated earlier, this briefing acknowledges that what schools can contribute is one aspect of
the multi-dimensional efforts across various organisations, policies and practices. Choosing to
focus on school initiatives in this instance does not in any way discount or diminish the value of
multi-agency collaboration.
Sosu and Ellis (2014) argue that networks of support and collaboration are vital in reducing
poverty and closing the attainment gap. The OECD (2015: 17) ‘call for a strengthened “middle”
operating through networks and collaboratives among schools, and in and across local
authorities and see leadership best operating not only in the middle but from the middle and,
indeed, see an extended middle as essential to allow CfE to reach its full potential’. The Scottish
Government, Education Scotland, local authorities, education officers, school management and
teachers, researchers in universities and colleges, have a part to play as organisations in
themselves, but also in working together to create a shared strategic plan for academic, social
and emotional learning. Collaboration with other agencies and charities in the community is also
vital.
21
Figure 3: Collaboration Within, Between and Beyond Schools
Source: Chapman (2016) Closing The Gap: Realising the Power of Partnership and
Collaboration
Sosu and Ellis (2014: 8) also highlight the importance of engaging families and communities
and parental involvement programmes. Several strategies have been shown to work well in
supporting parents and their children:






before and after-school support and activities
high quality full day pre-school education
helping parents support their children’s learning at home
funding or sending transport to reduce absence
designated staff to offer pastoral support
staff working with some families in the home (Sosu and Ellis, 2014; Macleod et al., 2015;
OECD, 2015).
Citing the success of the Extra Mile Programme in England, Chapman (2016) states that the
programme worked because there was a framework for collaboration that did not ‘impose
prescription’ and that it supported local voices, values, activities. There was high quality support
and ‘critical friendship’. Collaboration was encouraged, but not imposed. Again, the running
themes of autonomy, respect, trust and focusing on the child at the centre, seemed to underlie
the success of this sharing and collaboration. Davis et al. (2014a, 2014b) argue that ‘childhood
solutions require a multi-layered approach’.
22
Effective Assessment and Evaluation
Various education systems around the world have different understandings of, attitudes to and
arrangements for assessment and evaluation. Some systems are highly test based and studies
have shown that one consequence is that this narrows teaching to content and the use of
methods beneficial to attaining predetermined goals and results (Dochy and McDowell, 1997;
Shepard et al., 2000; Firestone et al., 2004; Volante, 2004; Lazear, 2006; Sahlberg, 2009,
2011). Other systems have no testing, especially in the primary and early secondary years.
There are two kinds of assessment. Formative assessment is ‘used to support learning as
opposed to simply measuring and recording. In this way the process and the outcomes of the
evaluation are used to aid future improvement’ (Gillies, 2015). Formative assessments tend to
be assessments for learning.
The Assessment is for Learning Programme (AiFL) in Scotland is an example of formative
assessment that incorporates teacher observation, oral and written feedback, and pupil selfevaluation and peer feedback. Research by the OECD (2008: 9) suggests that ‘formative
assessment can be seen as an essential element of those personalised learning approaches,
as it is characterized by the continual identification of and responses to students’ needs’. The
Education Endowment Fund (2016) found that ‘Feedback studies tend to show very high effects
on learning…but it is important to understand the potential benefits and the possible limitations
of the approach. Feedback has effects on all types of learning across all age groups’. Providing
feedback is challenging and the EEF (2016) recommends that ‘it should be specific, accurate
and clear’.
Summative assessment is ‘usually conducted at the end of a unit or course of study which
evaluates what has been achieved, often represented in a mark or grade’ (Gillies, 2015). It
occurs in various forms. It can be formal or informal; it can be class based and devised by the
teacher or it can be standardised assessments created by specialists (SAT, Pearson,
TerraNova and California Achievement Tests). Summative tests or exams can also be
centralised, created and set by national governments. Summative assessments tend to be
assessments of learning.
The use of assessment is controversial and is often stated as a major cause of increasing
teacher workload. Over assessment and inefficient assessment are indeed problematic, but as
EEF (2016) studies reveal, well designed assessments used purposefully and sparingly do
promote pupil learning and confidence. Assessments ought not to be focused solely on testing a
student’s abilities but to help them assess their own learning progress.
When used together, formative and summative assessments both play a part in not only
measuring progress, but are tools for providing meaningful feedback and diagnosis of individual
strengths and needs. When performance information is used carefully it can inform pupil and
school progress. However, the use of performance information for the construction of league
tables has long been controversial and its effects demoralising for schools (Wilms and Echols,
1992; Croxford, 1999; Troman et al., 2007; Croxford et al., 2009; OECD, 2013a, 2015: 100).
Donaldson (2009) recommends ‘putting in place arrangements to support teachers in their
assessment of learning, so that they and society can have confidence in their judgements and
that assessment plays a central role in tracking and facilitating progress in learning.’ This view
was echoed by the EEF (2016) – ‘professional development requirements are likely to be
necessary for success’.
The OECD (2013a: 2-3), in an extensive international study on evaluation and assessment also
makes the following recommendations:
23

Take a comprehensive approach: All the components of assessment and evaluation –
student assessment, teacher appraisal, school evaluation, school leader appraisal and
education system evaluation - should form a coherent whole. This will generate
synergies, avoid duplication and prevent inconsistency of objectives.

Align evaluation and assessment with educational goals: Evaluation and
assessment should align with the principles embedded in educational goals.

Focus on improving classroom practices: To optimise the potential of evaluation and
assessment to improve what is at the heart of education – student learning – policy
makers should promote the regular use of evaluation and assessment results for
improvements in the classroom.

Carefully conceive the high-stakes uses of evaluation and assessment results. The
use of evaluation and assessment results should avoid distortions in the education
process such as teaching-to-the-test and narrowing of the curriculum.

Build consensus: Ensure that all the stakeholders are involved early and understand
the benefits.

Place students at the centre: Students should be fully engaged with their learning and
empowered to assess their own progress. The development of critical thinking and social
competencies should also be monitored.
According to their findings, the OECD (2013b: 1) contend that schools, school leaders and
teachers ought to be granted ‘greater autonomy’ and ‘more responsibility for managing their
affairs’. High systems of accountability and scrutiny may improve the performance of weaker or
less able teachers but it can stifle the autonomy and creativity and that drives talented
educators (Dochy and McDowell, 1997; Shepard et al., 2000; Firestone et al., 2004; Volante,
2004; Lazear, 2006; Sahlberg, 2009, 2011). Schools in Ontario and Finland, for example, give
teachers the professional autonomy to decide when written tests and marking are appropriate
and when it would be better to use oral or peer-to-peer feedback, and report higher attainment
for all pupils (Sahlberg, 2009, 2011; People for Education, 2013). As many studies argue,
having no assessment or too much assessment, can have a negative impact on learning,
particularly for those pupils who are in danger of being left behind. A balance of formative and
summative assessments used appropriately as and when required to inform, and at times
measure, seems to be the way forward.
Early Intervention
This term refers to ‘a process of assessment and support afforded to (disadvantaged) young
children to aid cognitive, social, and emotional development so that their progression is more in
line with their peers’ (Gillies, 2015).
There are many studies and reports that confirm that a crucial part of meeting the individual
needs of a pupil is in detecting not only strengths, but also potential problems that a pupil faces,
as early as possible (Barth, 1999; Kerr et al., 2010; Sahlberg, 2009; 2011; Siraj-Blatchford 2011;
Blanden et al., 2015; MacLeod et al., 2015; OECD, 2015; Lepkowska, 2016). ‘There is a much
greater impact of intervening before problems become more difficult to reverse’ (The Early
Intervention Foundation, 2014). In their research on ‘what promotes better achievement for
bright, but disadvantaged students’, Sammons et al. (2015: 3 ) found that ‘early years and
primary school experiences, along with better home learning environments in the early years
and up to the age of 7, provide a significant boost in attainment for children at the age of 11 and
help to counteract disadvantage.’
24
The Endowment Education Foundation (EEF) (20016) produced a useful teaching and learning
toolkit which not only looks at attainment outcomes, but also cost effectiveness and the
robustness of the evidence base. Their research suggests that, overall, ‘early years and preschool intervention is beneficial. On average, early years interventions have an impact of five
additional months' progress, and appear to be particularly beneficial for children from low
income families’ (EEF, 2016). The EEF (2016) also recommends that, in order for early
intervention to work, several points ought to be considered:
1. High quality provision is essential with well-qualified and well-trained staff.
2. High quality provision is likely to be characterised by the development of positive
relationships between staff and children and by engagement of the children in activities
which support pre-reading, the development of early number concepts and non-verbal
reasoning.
3. Extended attendance (1 year +) and starting early (i.e. at 3 years old) is more likely to
have an impact than shorter sessions starting later, which on average produce much
lower gains.
4. Disadvantaged children benefit from good-quality programmes, especially where these
include a mixture of children from different social backgrounds, and a strong educational
component.
When the concept of intervening in the early years is then carried forward in schools, especially
in the first few years, the chances of success in capturing the missing talent of pupils who are
disadvantaged are greater. Through continuing observation and formative assessment,
teachers diagnose a child’s strengths and needs early and intervene with strategies that support
and guide, in order to manage, minimize or eliminate the specific need/s. If left undetected and
unsupported, problems can lead to a pupil’s demotivation, disaffection from school and
eventually dropping out of the system early or with little achievement. Early years initiatives can
work effectively to build resilience and support pupils who are at risk of failing or being left
behind. ‘Shifting investment to effective early intervention supports children and their families,
but also creates a positive impact on wider society’ (Early Intervention Foundation, 2014).
25
ANNEXE A: GLOSSARY OF TERMS
Achievement
‘Success, particularly where it represents a great personal accomplishment. Often wrongly
conflated with attainment, which refers to level of achievement and often also unhelpfully
narrowed to success in terms of academic assessment. Currently, many educational systems
are trying to broaden out the sense of achievement to take account of other areas of success in
learners’ lives’ (Gillies, 2015).
Attainment and Attainment Gap
"Attainment is the measurable progress which children and young people make as they
advance through and beyond school, and the development of the range of skills, knowledge and
attributes needed to succeed in learning, life and work. Many children and young people living in
our most deprived communities do significantly worse at all levels of the education system than
those from our least deprived communities. This is often referred to as the 'attainment gap'."
(Education Scotland, 2016c)
Child-centred
‘In education, giving priority to the interests and needs of children, so distinguished from
content-led or teacher-centred approaches’ (Gillies, 2015).
Deprivation
‘The damaging lack of material benefits, typically characterised by poverty, poor housing, bad
health, and low wages or unemployment. The term is also used more broadly for any lack, such
as emotional deprivation (see disadvantage; socioeconomic)’ (Gillies, 2015).
Disadvantage
‘In educational terms this normally means an unfavourable circumstance that limits educational
opportunities or reduces the chances of progress’ (Gillies, 2015).
Hidden curriculum
‘the by-products or unintended outcomes of schooling; the learning experienced by learners
which is beyond the formal or planned curriculum perhaps through assimilating the values [and
norms] explicitly and implicitly evident in a school and its processes and practices’ (Gillies,
2015).
Research
Research literacy – understanding research
Teachers being research literate refers to the extent to which teachers and school and
college leaders are familiar with a range of research methods, with the latest research
findings and with the implications of this research for their day-to-day practice, and for
education policy and practice more broadly. To be research literate is to ‘get’ research – to
understand why it is important and what might be learnt from it, and to maintain a sense of
critical appreciation and healthy scepticism throughout (BERA-RSA, 2014: 40)
26
Research engaged – doing research
The term refers to ‘the involvement of teachers and school and college leaders in the doing of
research. Such engagement may take many forms, from the in-depth analysis of comparative
school performance data to the carrying out of Randomized Control Trials in partnership with, and
probably under the supervision of, professional researchers in a university department of education’
(BERA-RSA, 2014: 40)
Research-rich – drivers of change
The term refers to ‘environments, usually schools and colleges, in which research thrives.
Research-rich schools and colleges encourage innovation, creativity and enquiry-based practice,
enabling teachers and leaders to drive change, rather than have it ‘done’ to them’ (BERA-RSA,
2014: 40).
Resilience
Resilience is defined as the ‘ability to recover readily from, or adjust easily to, adversity,
misfortune, or setbacks of any kind; buoyancy. It is viewed as being a key factor in success in
education, particularly for children living in poverty. The importance given to it has been
criticised, however, on the grounds that it seems to place the onus on the individual to adapt or
cope, rather than focusing on action to address the underlying disadvantage’ (Gillies, 2015).
Socio-economic status
The term can be defined as the ‘position of an individual or group in terms of their social and
economic standing. It is a key factor in educational outcomes: the higher the status the better
chance of good outcomes; the lower the status the greater chance of poorer outcomes’ (Gillies,
2015).
Wellbeing
The term refers to ‘the state of being happy, healthy, and contented. It has recently become a
key student outcome in many education systems and can be linked loosely to Aristotle's
concept of eudaimonia. Some critics have questioned if it is used with sufficient regard to social,
cultural, or ethnic diversity. It certainly seems unlikely that one definition can be found to cover
the range of possible human values it might represent’ (Gillies, 2015).
Whole Child
‘A term used for the educational concern with the personal, emotional and social wellbeing of
children and young people as opposed to merely academic concerns’ (Gillies, 2015).
27
ANNEXE B: KEY LEGISLATION IN SCOTTISH SCHOOL EDUCATION
Year
1980
2000
Title
Education (Scotland) Act 1980
Key Provisions
Remains the main legislation for school
education, establishing, among other
things, the local authority duty to provide
adequate and efficient education and
parents’ rights and duties in relation to
school education of their children. Many
provisions of the following Acts are made
as amendments to this Act.
Provisions include: presumption that
children would be educated in
Standards in Scotland’s Schools etc. Act mainstream schools, various planning
2000
and reporting requirements, provision of
pre-school education and statutory
recognition of a child’s right to education.
Education (Additional Support for
Learning) (Scotland) Act 2004 (as
amended 2009)
This is the key legislation on provision for
pupils with additional support needs.
2006
Scottish Schools (Parental Involvement)
Scotland Act 2006
Replaced school boards with parent
council and parent forums.
2014
Children and Young People (Scotland)
Act 2014
A wide ranging Act that includes reporting
on children’s rights, a Named Person
service, a statutory definition of child wellbeing, extended early learning and
childcare, reforms requirements to plan
children’s services and introduces a new
process for school closures.
2016
asp 8
Education (Scotland) Act 2016
A wide ranging Act that, among other
things, introduces duties in relation to the
attainment gap, places the National
Performance Framework on a statutory
footing, reforms reporting requirements,
creates a new process for requesting
Gaelic medium education, enables the
introduction of the requirement for head
teachers to meet the Standard for
Headship and enables Ministers to set
the number of learning hours in schools.
2004
28
ANNEXE C: ATTAINMENT GAP
Figure 4: Link between lower exam attainment and SIMD
This chart illustrates the strength of the link between lower exam attainment and SIMD and how
this changed between 2009/10 and 2014/15. It shows the proportion of school leavers attaining
at least one qualification at SCQF Level 6 (i.e. Highers), by SIMD in 2009/10 and in 2014/15. It
also shows that attainment increases steadily as deprivation decreases. Therefore, the
‘attainment gap’ is not just that the least well off 20% do badly and everyone else attains at
similar levels. Rather, the ‘gap’ with the most well-off pupils exists for all other pupils too.
On this particular measure the ‘gap’ has reduced slightly over time  the improvement for the
least deprived ‘leavers’ is less than the improvement for the most deprived. This trend looks
slightly positive. However, there are different measures and each can convey different results.
For example, the SSLN trend shows an increasing gap on some measures over time. Even
though it only covers a few years; it might be fair to say that the trend does not move in the
same direction across different measures.
90.0
% of leavers
80.3
80.0
70.0
69.2
50.6
50.0
40.0
30.0
61.5
60.3
60.0
41.2
72.8
50.7
2009/10
40.4
2014/15
27.2
20.0
10.0
0.0
0-20%
20-40%
40-60%
60-80%
SIMD
2009/10
0-20%
27.2
20-40%
40.4
40-60%
50.7
60-80%
61.5
80-100%
72.8
Source: Scottish Government 2015
80-100%
SIMD
2014/15
41.2
50.6
60.3
69.2
80.3
29
SOURCES
Argyris, C. and Schön, D. (1974) Theory in practice: increasing professional effectiveness. San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Arshad, R. et al. (2005) Minority ethnic pupils’ experiences of school in Scotland (MEPESS)
http://www.gov.scot/Publications/2005/03/Insight16/1 [Accessed 8th June 2016].
Arshad, R. (2016a) Experiences of minority ethnic young people in Scotland. Moray House
School of Education Election Briefings: Education from early years to 18, Research and Practice
Contributing to Policy. 29th March 2016. Edinburgh: University of Edinburgh.
Arshad, R. (2016b) The role of schools of education in system improvement. Moray House
School of Education Election Briefings: Education from early years to 18, Research and Practice
Contributing to Policy. 29th March 2016. Edinburgh: University of Edinburgh.
Barth, P. et al. (1999) Dispelling the myth: high poverty schools exceeding expectations.
Washington D.C.: Education Trust.
Bell, L. et al. (2003) A systematic review of the impact of school headteachers and principals on
student outcomes. EPPI-Centre: Social Science Research Institute. London: University of
London.
British Educational Research Association - Royal Society of Arts (2014) Research and the
teaching profession: building the capacity for a self-improving education system. London: British
Educational Research Association.
Blanden, J. et al. (2015) Understanding the improved performance of disadvantaged pupils in
London. Social Policy in a Cold Climate, Working paper 21, p.2-47.
Bryk, A.S. and Schneider, B. (2003) Trust in schools: a core resource for school reform.
Educational leadership, Vol. 60, No.6, p.40-45.
Burgess, S. (2014) Understanding the success of London’s schools. CMPO Working Paper
No.14/333. Bristol.
Cefai, C. (2008) Promoting resilience in the classroom: a guide to developing pupils' emotional
and cognitive skills. London: Jessica Kingsley Publishers.
Centre for British Teachers (2014) Lessons from London Schools: investigating the Success.
Reading: CfBT. Available at:
https://www.educationdevelopmenttrust.com/~/media/EDT/Reports/Research/2014/r-londonschools-2014.pdf [Accessed 14th June 2016].
Chapman, C. (2016) Closing the gap: realising the power of partnership and collaboration.
Paper presented at Schools Programme Launch, Education Scotland, Dunfermline, 1st October
2015.
Cheng Y.C. (2002) The changing context of school leadership: implications for paradigm shift.
In: Leithwood K, Hallinger P eds. Second International Handbook of Educational Leadership
and Administration. Norwell, Massachusetts: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
30
Ciuffetelli Parker, D. (2013). Narrative understandings of poverty and schooling: reveal,
revelation, reformation of mindsets. International Journal for Cross-Disciplinary Subjects in
Education, Vol. 4, Issue 1, p.1117–1123.
Cochran-Smith, M. and Lytle, S.L. (2009) Inquiry as stance: practitioner research for the next
generation. New York: Teachers College Press.
Coe, R. et al. (2014) What makes great teaching? Review of the underpinning research.
Available at: http://www.suttontrust.com/researcharchive/great-teaching/ [Accessed 27th July
2016].
Conrad, E. (1974) Peer Tutoring: a cooperative learning experience. Arizona Centre for
Educational Research and Development. Tucson: Arizona University.
Croxford, L. (1999) League tables: who needs them? Centre for Educational Sociology.
Edinburgh: University of Edinburgh.
Croxford, L. et al. (2009) Teacher attitudes to Quality Assurance and Evaluation (QAE) in
Scotland and England. Centre for Educational Sociology. Edinburgh: University of Edinburgh.
Davies, P. (1999) What is evidence-based education? British Journal of Educational Studies,
Vol. 47, No. 2, June 1999, p.108-121.
Davis J. and Smith M., (2012) Working in multi-professional contexts: a practical guide for
professionals in children's services. Sage: London.
Davis, J. et al. (2014a) Social justice, the common weal and children and young people in
Scotland. Glasgow: The Jimmy Reid Foundation. Available at: http://reidfoundation.org/wpcontent/uploads/2014/03/Childhood1.pdf. [Accessed 10th June 2016].
Davis, J., Ravenscroft, J. & Bizas, N. (2014b). Transition, inclusion and partnership: childparent- and professional-led approaches in a European research project. Child Care in Practice,
Vol. 21, Issue 1, p.3-49.
Davis, J. (2016) Children’s rights, wellbeing and social justice. Moray House School of
Education Election Briefings: Education from early years to 18, Research and Practice
Contributing to Policy. 14th April 2016. Edinburgh: University of Edinburgh.
Day, C. et al. (2009) The impact of school leadership on pupil outcomes. Final report. Research
Report No. DSCF- RR108.Nottingham: University of Nottingham.
Dochy, F.J. and McDowell, L. (1997) Assessment as a tool for learning. Studies in Educational
Evaluation, Vol. 23, No. 4, p.279-298.
Donaldson, G. (2011) Teaching Scotland's future: report of a review of teacher education in
Scotland. Scottish Government (Scotland).
Early Intervention Foundation (2014) Our mission. Available at: http://www.eif.org.uk/about-us/
[Accessed 27th July, 2016].
Education Endowment Foundation (2016) Teaching and Learning Toolkit. Available at:
https://educationendowmentfoundation.org.uk/evidence/teaching-learning-toolkit/ [Accessed 26th
July 2016].
31
Education Scotland (2008) Building the curriculum 3: a framework for learning and teaching
Available at:
http://www.educationscotland.gov.uk/learningandteaching/thecurriculum/buildingyourcurriculum/
curriculumplanning/whatisbuildingyourcurriculum/btc/btc3.asp [Accessed 30th May 2016].
Education Scotland (2016a) Positive and sustained destinations. Available at:
http://www.educationscotland.gov.uk/learningandteaching/thecurriculum/whatcanlearnersexpect
/positiveandsustaineddestinations.asp [Accessed 30th May 2016].
Education Scotland (2016b) Scottish Attainment Challenge. Available at:
http://www.educationscotland.gov.uk/inclusionandequalities/sac/index.asp [Accessed 30th May
2016].
Education Scotland (2016c) What is attainment? Available at:
http://www.educationscotland.gov.uk/inclusionandequalities/sac/about/whatisattainment.asp
[Accessed 30th May 2016].
Equality and Human Rights Commission (2015) Prejudiced-based bullying in Scottish schools: a
report. Available at: https://www.equalityhumanrights.com/en/publication-download/prejudicebased-bullying-scottish-schools-research-report [Accessed 30th May 2016].
Firestone, W.A. et al. eds. (2004) The ambiguity of teaching to the test: Standards, assessment,
and educational reform. London: Routledge.
Florian, L. & Linklater, H. (2010) Preparing teachers for inclusive education: using inclusive
pedagogy to enhance teaching and learning for all. Cambridge Journal of Education, Vol. 40,
Issue 4, p.369-386.
Florian, L. et al. (2007) Achievement and inclusion in schools, 1st edition, London: Routledge.
Florian, L. (2016) Inclusive pedagogy. Moray House School of Education Election Briefings:
Education from early years to 18, Research and Practice Contributing to Policy. 15 th April 2016.
Edinburgh: University of Edinburgh.
Fullan, M. ed. (2003) The moral imperative of school leadership. London: Corwyn Press/Sage.
Gillies, D (2015) A brief critical dictionary of education. Available at:
http://www.dictionaryofeducation.co.uk/ [Accessed 15th July 2016].
Goodlad, S. and Hirst, B. (1989) Peer tutoring. A guide to learning by teaching. New York:
Nichols Publishing.
Gorski, P.C. (2012) Perceiving the problem of poverty and schooling: deconstructing the class
stereotypes that mis-shape education practice and policy. Equity and Excellence in Education,
Vol. 45, p.302–319.
Greaves, E. et al. (2014) Lessons from London schools for attainment gaps and social mobility:
Social Mobility and Child Poverty Commission Research Report. Available at:
http://www.ifs.org.uk/uploads/publications/docs/london_schools_june2014.pdf [Accessed 9th
June 2016].
32
Greenwood, C.R. et al. (1989) Longitudinal effects of classwide peer tutoring. Journal of
Educational Psychology, Vol. 81, No.3, Sep 1989, p.371-383.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/232445474_Longitudinal_Effects_of_Classwide_Peer
_Tutoring
Hanushek, E. and Rivkin, (2006) Teacher Quality. Handbook of the Economics of Education,
Vol. 2, Amsterdam: North Holland, 2006, p.1052-1078.
Harris, A. and Chapman, C. (2002) Effective leadership in schools facing challenging
circumstances: final report. Nottingham: National College for School Leadership.
Hick, P. et al. (2011), Promoting cohesion, challenging expectations: educating the teachers of
tomorrow for race quality and diversity in 21st century schools. Escalate. Available at:
http://www.ceres.education.ed.ac.uk/wpcontent/uploads/Raceequalityandteachereducation24.pdf [Accessed 8th June 2016].
Hopkins, P. et al. (2015) Faith, ethnicity, place: young people’s everyday geopolitics in Scotland
Available at:
https://research.ncl.ac.uk/youngpeople/outputs/finalreport/Faith,%20Ethnicity,%20Place%20exe
cutive%20summary.pdf [Accessed 8th June 2016].
Kerr, K. et al. (2010) Social inequality: can schools narrow the gap? Insight 2. British
Educational Research Association. Macclesfield: BERA.
Kezar, A. (2004) What is more important to effective governance: relationships, trust, and
leadership, or structures and formal processes?. New Directions for Higher Education, Autumn
2004, Issue 127, p.35-46.
Konstantoni, K. et al. (2014) Intersectional childhoods and inequalities. Seminar Series Briefing
Paper, Edinburgh/Glasgow. Available at:
http://www.scottishinsight.ac.uk/Portals/50/Childrens%20Rights/Intersectional%20Childhoods%
20and%20Inequalities-SUII%20Seminar%20Series%20Briefing.pdf [Accessed 9th June 2016].
Lavy, V. et al. (2012) The Good, the bad, and the average: evidence on ability peer effects in
schools. Journal of Labor Economics, University of Chicago Press, Vol. 30, No. 2, p.367 - 414.
Lazear, E.P. (2006) Speeding, Terrorism, and Teaching to the Test. The Quarterly Journal of
Economics, Vol. 121, No. 3 (August 2006), p.1029-1061.
Leithwood, K., Jantzi, D. (1999) Transformational school leadership effects: a replication.
School Effectiveness and School Improvement, Vol. 10, p.451-479.
Leithwood, K.A. and Riehl, C. (2003) What we know about successful school leadership.
Nottingham: National College for School Leadership.
Leithwood, K. et al. (2008) Seven strong claims about successful school leadership. School
leadership and management, Vol. 28, No.1, p.27-42.
Lepkowska, D. (2016) The building blocks of Pupil Premium success. Research Insights:
National Foundation for Educational Research. Available at: http://www.sec-ed.co.uk/bestpractice/the-building-blocks-of-pupil-premium-success/ [Accessed 12th June 2016].
Little, M. et al. (2004) Research review: risk and protection in the context of services for children
in need. Child & Family Social Work, Vol. 9, No.1, p.105-117.
33
MacLeod, S. et al. (2015) Supporting the attainment of disadvantaged pupils: articulating
success and good practice: Research report. November 2015. London: Department for
Education.
Marzano, R.J. et al. (2005) School leadership that works: from research to results. New York:
Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development: Virginia.
McLaughlin, C., Black-Hawkins, K. and McIntyre, D. (2004) Researching Teachers,
Researching Schools, Researching Networks: a review of the literature, Cambridge: Networked
Learning Communities.
Moseley, D. (2005) Frameworks for thinking: a handbook for teaching and learning. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Norwich, B. (2002) Education, inclusion and individual differences: recognising and resolving
dilemmas. British Journal of Educational Studies, Vol. 50, No. 4, p.482-502.
Ontario Student Achievement Division (2015) Poverty and schooling: where mindset meets
practice. What works? Research-Into-Practice Research Monograph #57. February 2015.
Available at: http://oere.oise.utoronto.ca/document/poverty-and-schooling-where-mindsetmeets-practice/ [Accessed 12th June 2016].
Opfer, D. and Pedder, D. (2011) Conceptualizing teacher professional learning. Review of
Educational Research, Vol. 81, No. 3, p.376-407.
Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (2007) Quality and equity of
schooling in Scotland. Paris: OECD. Available at:
http://www.oecd.org/edu/school/reviewsofnationalpoliciesforeducationqualityandequityofschoolinginscotland.htm [Accessed 10th June 2016].
Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (2008) 21st century learning:
research innovation and policy. Paris: OECD. Available at:
http://www.oecd.org/site/educeri21st/40554299.pdf [Accessed 10th June 2016].
Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (2011) How do some students
overcome their socio-economic background? PISA in Focus 5. Paris: OECD. Available at:
https://www.oecd.org/pisa/pisaproducts/pisainfocus/48165173.pdf [Accessed 12th June 2016].
Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (2013a) Synergies for better learning:
an international perspective on evaluation and assessment. Paris: OECD. Available at:
http://www.oecd.org/edu/school/synergies-for-better-learning.htm [Accessed 11th June 2016].
Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (2013b) School Governance,
Assessments and Accountability. Available at: www.oecd.org/pisa/keyfindings/Vol4Ch4.pdf
[Accessed 18th May 2016].
Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (2014) Strengthening resilience
through education: PISA results, Paris: OECD. Available at:
https://www.oecd.org/mcm/Pisa2012_Overview_v25_04_05_14.pdf [Accessed 12th June 2016].
34
Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (2015) Improving schools in
Scotland: an OECD Perspective. Paris: OECD. Available at:
https://www.oecd.org/education/school/Improving-Schools-in-Scotland-An-OECDPerspective.pdf [Accessed 12th June 2016].
People for Education (2013) Mind the gap: inequality in Ontario’s schools. The annual report on
Ontario’s publicly funded schools. Toronto: People for Education. Available at:
http://www.peopleforeducation.ca/document/mind-the-gap-inequality-in-ontarios-schools/
[Accessed 18th July 2016].
Pirrie, A. and Hockings, E. (2012) Poverty, educational attainment and achievement in Scotland:
a critical review of literature. Scotland’s Commissioner for Children and Young People.
Edinburgh: SCCYP.
Priestley, M. et al. (2015) Teacher Agency: an ecological approach, London: Bloomsbury
Pring, R. (2004) Philosophy of educational research. 2nd ed. London: Continuum.
Raffe, D. (1994) Modular strategies for overcoming academic/vocational divisions: issues
arising from the Scottish experience. Journal of Education Policy, Vol. 9, No. 2, p.141-154.
Raffe, D. and Iannelli, C. (2007) Vocational upper-secondary education and the transition from
school. European Sociological Review, Vol. 23, No. 1, p.49-63.
Restorative Justice Council (2016) Restorative justice in schools. Available at:
http://www.restorativejustice4schools.co.uk/wp/?page_id=217 [Accessed 13th July 2016].
Robinson, V.M. (2007) School leadership and student outcomes: identifying what works and
why, Vol. 41. Melbourne: Australian Council for Educational Leaders.
Rutter, M. (1985) Resilience in the face of adversity. Protective factors and resistance to
psychiatric disorder. The British Journal of Psychiatry, Vol. 147, No. 6, p.598-611.
Rutter, M. (1987) Psychosocial resilience and protective mechanisms. American Journal of
Orthopsychiatry, Vol. 57, No. 3, p.316.
Sahlberg, P. (2009) A short history of educational reform in Finland. White paper, April.
Available at: http://www.oxydiane.net/IMG/pdf/Finland-Sahlberg.pdf. [Accessed 2nd June 2016].
Sahlberg, P. (2011) Finnish lessons. New York: Teachers College Press.
Sammons, P. (1995) Key characteristics of effective schools: a review of school effectiveness
research. A report by the Institute of Education and the Office for Standards in London: Institute
of Education. Available at: http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED389826.pdf [Accessed 27th July
2016].
Sammons, P. et al. (1997) Forging links: effective schools and effective departments. London:
Sage.
Sammons, P. et al. (2015) Subject to Background: what promotes better achievement for bright
but disadvantaged students?. University of Oxford Department of Education and the Sutton
Trust. Available at: http://www.suttontrust.com/researcharchive/subject-to-background/
[Accessed 27th July 2016].
35
Scottish Government (2015b) Attainment statistics 2014/15. Available at:
http://www.gov.scot/Topics/Statistics/Browse/SchoolEducation/leavedestla/follleavedestat/attainmentandleavers1415 [Accessed 20th July 2016].
Scottish Government (2016) Delivering excellence and equity in Scottish education: a delivery
plan to Scotland. Available at: http://www.gov.scot/Publications/2016/06/3853 [Accessed 1st
July 2016].
Scottish Parliament Information Centre (SPICe) (2016) Key Issues for parliament in Session 5.
SPICe Briefing 16/33. Available at:
http://www.parliament.scot/ResearchBriefingsAndFactsheets/S5/SB_1633_Key_Issues_for_the_Parliament_in_Session_5.pdf [Accessed 3rd June 2016].
Shepard, L.A. (2000) The role of assessment in a learning culture. Educational Researcher,
Vol.29, No.7, p.4-14.
Siraj-Blatchford, I. (2011) Performing against the odds: developmental trajectories of children in
the EPPSE 3-16 study. Research Report DFE- RR128. London: Department for Education.
Sosu, E. and Ellis, S. (2014) Closing the attainment gap in Scottish education. York: Joseph
Rowntree Foundation.
Stenhouse, L. (1975) An Introduction to curriculum research and development. London:
Heinemann.
Stiggins, R.J. et al. (1986) Classroom assessment: a key to effective education. Educational
Measurement: Issues and Practice, Vol. 5, No. 2, p.5-17.
Sturgeon, N. (2016) First Minister’s Statement: Taking Scotland Forward, Address at the
Scottish Parliament: 25th May 2016. Available at: http://news.scotland.gov.uk/SpeechesBriefings/Priorities-speech-Taking-Scotland-Forward-24f8.aspx [Accessed 26th May 2016].
The Royal Society of Edinburgh (2016) An educational research strategy for Scotland:
discussion report. Advice Paper 16-14, June 2016. Edinburgh: RSE.
Timperley, H.S. (2008) Teacher professional learning and development. Geneva: The
International Bureau of Education. Available at:
http://www.ibe.unesco.org/fileadmin/user_upload/Publications/Educational_Practices/EdPractice
s_18.pdf [Accessed 27th July 2016].
Timperley, H.S. et al. (2009) Promoting professional enquiry for improved outcomes for students
in New Zealand. Professional Development in Education, Vol. 35, No.2, p. 227-245.
Troman, G. et al. (2007) Creativity and performativity policies in primary school cultures. Journal
of Education Policy, Vol.22, No. 5, p.549-572.
Trow, M. (1996) Trust, markets and accountability in higher education: a comparative
perspective. Higher Education Policy, Vol. 9, No.4, p.309-324.
Volante, L. (2004) Teaching to the test: what every educator and policy-maker should know.
Canadian Journal of Educational Administration and Policy. Issue 35, September 25, 2004.
Available at: http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ848235.pdf [Accessed 22nd July 2016].
36
Wall, K.et al. (2009) Teacher enquiry as a tool for professional development: investigating
pupils' effective talk while learning. Australian Educational Researcher, Vol. 36, No.2, p.93-117.
Wall, K. et al. (2010) Learning to learn in schools phase 4 and learning to learn in further
education projects: annual report. London: Campaign for Learning. Available at:
http://www.campaign-for-learning.org.uk/cfl/learninginschools/projects/learningtolearn/index.asp
[Accessed 21st July 2016].
Wall, K. and Hall, E. (2016) Teachers as metacognitive role model. European Journal of
Teacher Education. Available at:
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/02619768.2016.1212834 [Accessed 21st July
2016].
Wall K. and Hall, E. (in press) Negotiating partnership working with teacher-researchers – three
of the principles of action research networks.
Wall, K., Higgins, S. and Burns, H. (under review) The role of research in learning and teaching:
practitioner enquiry as a catalyst for both teachers’ and students’ metacognitive development.
Submitted to Teaching and Teacher Education (May 2016).
Westbury, I. et al. (2005) Teacher education for research‐based practice in expanded roles:
Finland's experience. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, Vol. 49, No. 5, p.475-485.
Wiley, S.D. (2001) Contextual effects on student achievement: school leadership and
professional community. Journal of Educational Change, Vol. 2, p.1-33.
Willms, J.D. and Echols, F. (1992) Alert and inert clients: the Scottish experience of parental
choice of schools. Economics of Education review, Vol. 11, No. 4, p.339-350.
Winch, C. and Gingell, J. (2008) Philosophy of education: The key concepts. London:
Routledge.
Wyness, G. (2011) London’ schooling: lessons from the capital. Centre: Forum. Available at:
http://www.centreforum.org/assets/pubs/london-schooling.pdf [Accessed 17th July 2016].
37
Scottish Parliament Information Centre (SPICe) Briefings are compiled for the benefit of the
Members of the Parliament and their personal staff. Authors are available to discuss the
contents of these papers with MSPs and their staff who should contact Camilla Kidner on
extension 85087 or email [email protected]. Members of the public or external
organisations may comment on this briefing by emailing us at [email protected].
However, researchers are unable to enter into personal discussion in relation to SPICe Briefing
Papers. If you have any general questions about the work of the Parliament you can email the
Parliament’s Public Information Service at [email protected].
Every effort is made to ensure that the information contained in SPICe briefings is correct at the
time of publication. Readers should be aware however that briefings are not necessarily updated
or otherwise amended to reflect subsequent changes.
Published by the Scottish Parliament Information Centre (SPICe), an office of the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate
Body, The Scottish Parliament, Edinburgh, EH99 1SP
www.parliament.scot
38