0 items
(Close Menu)

Category: CREU News

‘A Fair Start’: just another report on educational underachievement?

Posted on by Andrew McAteer

Six months have now passed since the publication on 1 June 2021 of A Fair Start, the final report and action plan of the Expert Panel on Educational Underachievement in Northern Ireland.  The panel members were Dr Noel Purdy, Director of the Centre for Research in Educational Underachievement, Stranmillis University College; Joyce Logue, Principal of Longtower Primary School, Derry/Londonderry; Mary Montgomery, Principal of Belfast Boys’ Model School; Kathleen O’Hare, former Principal of St Cecilia’s College, Derry/Londonderry and Hazelwood Integrated College, Belfast; Jackie Redpath, Chief Executive, Greater Shankill Partnership; and Professor Feyisa Demie who supported the panel in a research capacity.  A Fair Start presented 47 actions across 8 Key Areas.  In this blog, CREU Director, and chair of the Expert Panel, Dr Noel Purdy, considers the opportunities and challenges ahead.

On 28th July 2020 when Education Minister Peter Weir MLA announced the establishment of the Expert Panel on Educational Underachievement in Northern Ireland, there was a broad welcome in principle that the Executive was seeking to address the issue and honour its New Decade New Approach commitment, but also a fair degree of frustration and scepticism on all sides at the prospect of yet another report on educational underachievement in Northern Ireland.  In the Assembly debate following the ministerial statement SDLP MLA Dolores Kelly commended the Minister on his choice of the expert panel, but added that “it strikes me that he already knows a lot of the answers and findings that it is going to publish”.  Later Sinn Fein MLA Karen Mullan spoke for many when she said it was “crucial that this panel goes beyond words, and outlines real and palpable actions that can be taken by the Minister to effectively address this issue.” PUP councillor Dr John Kyle noted that “Action plans to date have been piecemeal and short-term. A more comprehensive and sustained plan is necessary but this takes continued political commitment” while Prof Tony Gallagher of Queen’s University remarked that “rhetoric and promises are meaningless unless they are followed up by action and a new approach.”  Simon Doyle, education correspondent of the Irish News, concluded that “rather than undertaking another costly, time-consuming review, the minister could easily act on the abundance of already-published information and recommendations”.

As chair of the Expert Panel, I understood this ‘report fatigue’ and was already familiar with the previous ‘un-actioned’ reports (e.g. Dawn Purvis’ Educational Disadvantage and the Protestant Working Class, 2011; John Kyle’s Firm Foundations, 2015; the Equality Commission’s Key Inequalities in Education, 2015; and Prof Ruth Leitch’s Investigating Links in Achievement and Deprivation (ILIAD), 2017) published over a decade and highlighting a wide range of issues including low levels of aspiration, low school attendance, academic selection, funding, early years investment, careers guidance, vocational education, economic investment, school leadership and the importance of forging stronger links with families and communities.  However, while the body of evidence was substantial I believe that A Fair Start is different from previous reports in three key aspects and represents a once in a generation opportunity to address educational underachievement and inequality in Northern Ireland.

First, it is unique because of its inception as a cross-party commitment made by all 5 major political parties who signed up to the New Decade, New Approach political settlement of January 2020.  Part 1 of the agreement set out the priorities of the restored Executive including the following commitment as an immediate priority:

The Executive will establish an expert group to examine and propose an action plan to address links between persistent educational underachievement and socio-economic background, including the long-standing issues facing working-class, Protestant boys

In Appendix 1 of the agreement, the education priorities for year 1 included the following:

Establish an expert group to examine the links between persistent educational underachievement and socio-economic background and draw up an action plan for change that will ensure all children and young people, regardless of background, are given the best start in life.

This may seem insignificant to some, but this raised the status of the Expert Panel’s work from the very start as an agreed cross-party educational priority, and also confirmed that this was not the work of one party or one community alone.

Second, A Fair Start is unique because, under the Terms of Reference, we were tasked with producing a costed action plan and, crucially, one which “must be deliverable in the current economic and political context” (p.2).  Creating a costed action plan is a much more complex, challenging and time-intensive task than simply drawing general conclusions or writing a series of broad recommendations.  To compound matters, the timeframe was demanding: 9 months from beginning to end.  During this time the Expert Panel engaged in an extensive period of consultation through a call for written evidence (which attracted 400 responses), face-to-face or virtual engagement with 344 stakeholders (including school leaders, voluntary and community sector representatives, parents, government officials, MLAs, teaching unions, FE Colleges, children’s charities), two commissioned pieces of research/consultation with children and young people (facilitated by the National Children’s Bureau and Barnardo’s), and a detailed analysis of the most up-to-date statistics by Prof Demie.  The panel also heard evidence from government departments from England, Scotland, Wales and the Republic of Ireland and read countless reports and policy documents.

Following this process of consultation, analysis of the existing evidence, consideration of the newly commissioned research and extensive deliberation, the Expert Panel published its final report and action plan A Fair Start on 1 June 2021.  A Fair Start includes a total of 47 SMART actions across 8 Key Areas costed over the short term (1-2 years), medium term (3-4 years) and long term (5+ years).  The level of projected annual funding builds up year on year as the various programme strands are developed and/or co-designed, reaching a total estimated annual expenditure of £73.1m by year 5 (2025/26).  In the current economic climate, it is important to be able to justify such expenditure and so A Fair Start also includes explanatory notes to accompany each Key Area, setting out a rationale and providing referenced evidence from research.

A key message throughout is that we need to see the delivery of these actions as an investment in the future rather than an expenditure for today, hence the major Early Years focus (Key Area 1) through which we seek to create a seamless journey from pregnancy to pre-school, school and beyond, where every child is provided with the appropriate level of support needed in a timely and appropriate manner in order to realise their potential.  The other Key Areas focus on championing emotional health and wellbeing, ensuring the relevance and appropriateness of curriculum and assessment, promoting a whole community approach to education, maximising boys’ potential, driving forward professional development of teachers and school leaders, and ensuring interdepartmental collaboration and delivery.

While it was considerably more difficult to produce a costed action plan than a series of broad recommendations, the result, I believe, is indeed a plan which is “deliverable”.  As one senior official remarked, we have “made it easy” for officials to implement.

Third, I believe that A Fair Start is unique because it was endorsed by all 5 Executive parties on 27 May 2021, thus fulfilling the stipulation in the Terms of Reference that the Expert Panel should “focus on the wide range of issues on which consensus can be found” (p.2).  Seeking consensus was another major challenge and we were very aware from the outset that although as a panel we were apolitical and sought to meet our stated objective to “ensure all children and young people, regardless of background are given the best start in life”, the outcomes would be read closely by all sides of the community, understandably keen to ensure that we showed no favour or bias.  As a panel there was a determination from the outset to honour that objective, and I believe that we achieved it.  That’s why, I believe, all 5 Executive parties have endorsed A Fair Start and it is also why it is crucial that all parties now follow through on this commitment in principle with a manifesto pledge to support the full implementation of the 47 actions.

The final two actions (in Key Area 8) set out a framework through which delivery of the Action Plan should be subject to oversight by an Implementation Committee chaired by the First Minister/Deputy First Minister and meeting biannually, and recommend that the Action Plan should be explicitly referenced within the next Programme for Government.  These two final actions remain crucial to the implementation of the entire Action Plan and were very deliberately written in as 2 of the 47 actions.  Six months to the day from its publication, there are encouraging signs that, rather than gathering dust like so many previous reports, the process of implementation of A Fair Start has already begun.

However, it is now imperative that all our local politicians work together, despite significant budgetary pressures, to seize this unprecedented opportunity to fully implement A Fair Start, resisting the temptation to settle for “cherry picking” or merely reaching for the “low hanging fruit” in the days to come.  Following more than a decade of unrealised recommendations from numerous previous reports, and as we continue to deal with the many challenges of the Covid-19 pandemic (which has exacerbated existing social and educational inequalities), I am more convinced than ever that the impact of this Action Plan will be significant, promoting equity, fostering greater collaboration between schools, families and communities, closing the achievement gap, investing in the future and giving all of our children and young people ‘A Fair Start’.

To read A Fair Start and its Annexes, please follow this link.

 

What has happened to the attainment gap during the pandemic?

Posted on by Andrew McAteer

Last week, pupils across Northern Ireland received their GCSE and A-level grades – the culmination of two years of work and learning that have been significantly disrupted by the Covid-19 pandemic. Headlines focused on the rise in top grades awarded and the use of teacher-assessed grades, however we at the Centre for Research in Educational Underachievement are keen to understand what the available data can tell us about how the GCSE and A-level attainment gap has been affected by the pandemic.

In a September 2020 blogpost I predicted that “if we were to consider final grades alone, 2020 will superficially appear as a highly successful year in the Northern Ireland Executive’s long-standing commitment to tackling Educational Underachievement”. In May, the release of the latest edition of “Qualifications and Destinations of Northern Ireland School Leavers 2019/20” by the Department of Education (DE), appeared to indicate that this indeed was the case. These data have been used for several years, according to the release, to “inform a wide range of policy areas aimed at raising standards and tackling educational underachievement”. They are used by “policy teams … across the education service”, “are used to respond to Assembly questions”, and “are included in the Department’s accountability and performance management process”. As such, these data represent the best available information for research and policy relating to educational underachievement in Northern Ireland. They feed into the highest levels of policy accountability through the Executive’s Outcomes Delivery Plan and particularly its Indicator 12: the gap between the percentage of non-FSME school leavers and the percentage of FSME school leavers achieving at Level 2 (GCSE) or above including English and Maths. In this blog, we argue that this data release can only provide misleading, half-answers to our question: “did the attainment gap narrow in 2020?”, and should be improved in order to better serve education policy in Northern Ireland.

A disclaimer was added to this year’s release, acknowledging that the way that GCSE and A-level grades were awarded in 2020 was very different to normal years, as well as many other qualifications:

“given the new method of awarding grades in 2019/20, caution should be taken when drawing any conclusions relating to changes in student performance. Year-on-year changes might have been impacted by the different process for awarding qualifications in 2019/20 rather than reflecting a change in underlying performance”.

Whilst this disclaimer confines itself to the technical detail of the awarding of qualifications, it also serves as a reminder of the wider impacts of the pandemic on education, which were unequally felt across the population. Whilst consistent attainment data prior to GCSE is not currently available for Northern Ireland, systematic studies in England identified a loss of learning across age groups and across the curriculum, which was roughly tripled for children eligible for Free School Meals (FSME). Our own research with parents and carers across Northern Ireland in both 2020 and 2021 found that children in disadvantaged households were spending less time learning, and that their parents were less confident teaching them. However – positive steps were also taken during this time, with the release of extra funding to supply low-income families with digital devices for learning and for catch-up programmes, and many inspirational examples of teacher networking, mutual support and upskilling in the use of blended learning. Having some idea of the effects of these unprecedented challenges and remedial interventions on the socio-economic attainment gap is vital as the education system continues to adapt and recover from the pandemic, to avoid further widening of educational inequalities.

What the data says about the GCSE attainment gap

So, did the attainment gap narrow in 2020? The graph below plots GCSE or equivalent (Level 2) attainment amongst FSME and non-FSME school leavers (Indicator 12), as reported in the school leavers survey data release over the past ten years. The increase in average grades appears to have benefitted FSME pupils slightly more than non-FSME pupils in this metric, closing the gap between them from 29 percentage points in 2018/19 to 27.7 percentage points in 2019/20.

% non-FSME school leavers and % FSME school leavers achieving at Level 2 or above including English and maths, School Leavers’ Survey 2019/2020

Taken at face-value, these data would indicate that the attainment gap did narrow in 2020, and therefore that rates of educational underachievement improved. It is clear that average grades increased significantly as a result of the use of centre-assessed grades, and it appears that FSME pupils benefitted slightly more than non-FSME pupils. Provisional GCSE statistics for 2020 released by CCEA suggest that the percentage of GCSEs awarded C or above increased by 7.5 percentage points in 2020, having remained roughly stable since 2016.

Upon closer examination, however, we see that the data underpinning this picture are misleading. The extent to which the attainment gap was narrowed by the new method of awarding grades is obscured by the fact that each year school leaver survey data includes a large number of pupils who left school in 2020 at the end of Year 13 or 14 and therefore sat their level 2 exams one or two years prior. A rough estimate based on numbers of school leavers with A-levels as opposed to GCSEs as their highest qualifications reported in the release, suggests that two-thirds of school leavers fall into this category. For 2019/20, this means that most school leavers sat their exams in ‘normal’ pre-covid circumstances. These pupils, who according to the same data are more likely to be non-FSME, won’t have benefitted from the 2020 uplift. As such, it may be that much of the closing gap observed in the graph above is due to this discrepancy. This effect will be present in this data for at least the next three years, but it is difficult to know its magnitude as the release gives only a proxy indication of the numbers leaving school at the end of year 12, 13 and 14. Furthermore, as DE has suspended the annual Summary of Annual Examination Results (SAER) for 2019/20 and 2020/21, no other administrative data will be available on Key Stage 4 achievement for corroboration during this period.

What about A-level grades?

The point can be further supported by turning our focus to A-level grades as reported in the 2019/20 school leavers’ data, almost all of which will have been awarded in 2020. Here the increase in the percentage of students achieving the benchmark of 3 or more A-levels A*-C is significantly greater than with the Level 2 benchmark. However, we now see that the increase for non-FSME pupils exceeded the increase for FSME pupils by two percentage points, widening the attainment gap by as much.

% non-FSME school leavers and % FSME school leavers achieving 3 or more A-levels A*-C

 

If the uplift in average A-level grades benefitted non-FSME pupils more than FSME pupils, it is unlikely that the opposite is true at GCSE, despite the impression we might get from the first graph (indicator 12). The closing of the attainment gap only appears evident in the 2020 data because proportionally more FSME pupils leave education at 16 and received their grade in 2020.

How could the available data be improved?

In sum, this data release can only provide unclear, incomplete and inaccurate answers to the question “did the attainment gap narrow” in any given year. This crucial question lies at the heart of the Outcomes Delivery Plan’s indicator 12, and so we would contend that, given the uncertainties highlighted above, this data release does not serve its purpose to “inform a wide range of policy areas aimed at raising standards and tackling educational underachievement” and this is particularly the case in relation to the Level 2 (GCSE or equivalent) results which are most often cited as the key measure of educational achievement in Northern Ireland. The release would be greatly improved if it were to provide an accurate breakdown of the number/percentage of pupils represented within each year group, and this breakdown should be reflected in Indicator 12 statistics.

Of course, there may be several other policy areas and indicators that we have not considered here that are equally ill-served by this data. A clear implication of this conclusion is that a more comprehensive range of measures and available data are needed for effective policymaking and accountability. England’s National Pupil Database, which since 1996 has provided detailed, individual pupil data for research and policymaking, should serve as an example. Such data not only allows for accurate, disaggregated analysis of the impacts of policies and interventions, it also avoids duplication of data collection efforts by researchers and government departments. It can also be powerfully linked to other administrative data such as census, health, and employment data – something that has been explored recently in Northern Ireland to explore patterns of GCSE attainment.  The recent Action Plan of the expert panel on Educational Underachievement in Northern Ireland (A Fair Start) indicated that a forthcoming System Evaluation Framework in preparation at DE will make progress in this area, and argued that it must include the standardised collection of Key Stage 1-3 cohort data as well as more accurate measures of attainment at GCSE and A-level (or equivalent). Past failure to achieve consensus with teaching unions and schools should not stand in the way of progress in this area, which is it vital to understanding the true nature and extent of educational underachievement (especially post-covid) and to tackling it effectively.

The ongoing challenge for government, and for schools, is not only to keep on closing the attainment gap, but to do so in a way that is meaningful in terms of ensuring quality educational opportunities for all to create a more equal society. To do this, we will need better data, which will necessitate the allocation of adequate resources and require schools, teaching unions and government to reach a consensus.

Dr Jonathan Harris is the Research Fellow at the Centre for Research in Educational Underachievement

Report: School-based Support for Syrian Refugee Pupils in Northern Ireland

Posted on by Andrew McAteer


Over the past 5 years Northern Ireland has welcomed approximately 1,900 Syrian refugees, including almost 700 school-aged children and young people, through the Vulnerable Persons Relocation Scheme (VPRS). Many of these have experienced war and persecution, and a range of additional adversities during and post-migration. Alongside language proficiency, ‘trauma’ has been the most common challenge reported by school staff to the Education Authority’s (EA) Intercultural Education Service (IES). In response, during 2020-21 a new pilot referral service for schools, the Schools Trauma Advisory and Referral Service (STARS), was formed, with the overall aim of reducing the impact of trauma as a barrier to learning and managing the demands of a school day.

This independent research was funded by the EA and had the following aims: i: to better understand the educational experiences of Syrian refugee pupils and explicate the support requirements of teachers and schools; 2: to investigate barriers to accessing the educational environment which may have resulted from the sequelae of previous trauma; 3: to provide an evidence base to inform the service design and delivery of STARS.

A Review of International Evidence

The report contains three distinct strands. The first is a scoping review of international evidence relating to school-based interventions, practices and approaches that address trauma and other psychosocial difficulties among refugee pupils since 2010. This summarised the findings from 11 studies, covering a range of trauma-informed practice in schools ranging from CBT-based interventions to other informed by a TST model, to a wide array of alternative approaches that harness the beneficial effects of music, art and play. We paid particular attention to how these interventions had been implemented in their unique contexts, and with what outcomes, to identify effective, engaging and efficient modes of working.

Consulting with Syrian Refugee Pupils and their Parents

The second strand is a pair of surveys with Syrian parents and pupils to identify barriers and difficulties experienced in school, including those relation to experiences of trauma. Given the exceptional school closures at the time due to the Covid-19, direct engagement through focus groups or interviews was not an option. Survey responses nonetheless covered a significant proportion of Syrian refugee families in Northern Ireland (~20%) and bring their vital voices into the research.

Gathering teachers to share experiences

Finally, a set of online focus groups with teachers investigated the support requirements of teachers and schools, and any barriers to education resulting from the sequelae of previous trauma amongst refugee pupils. 16 teachers representing a range of statutory educational settings were involved in the focus groups, and highlighted a desire for more widespread and available training and support for teachers educating multilingual, trauma-affected children and young people.

The report ends by identifying six major findings and makes six associated recommendations for consideration by EA colleagues and other related agencies.

1. Language acquisition is the main challenge

The first is that language issues were highlighted by all research participants as the main barrier to education and a major area where support is perceived to be lacking. We conclude that language as a barrier needs to be re-visited in terms of commissioning of services as there is not enough capacity in terms of either resourcing or teacher expertise/capacity. In addition, measures to address the impact of language barriers in accessing trauma support are greatly needed.

2. A strong evidence base exists for school-based interventions and practices

Our scoping review found a diverse range of potentially beneficial school-based interventions and practices that support refugee children and adolescents’ recovery from traumatic experiences worldwide. Where they converge is to demonstrate that it is vital that any interventions/practices are culturally sensitive and contextualised, taking into account the participants’ priorities, norms and values. Partnership with members of the Syrian community and other community organisations in the selection, adaptation, implementation and evaluation of interventions is vital.

3. Trauma has impacted some but not all

Our focus group results suggested that there is a default assumption among some school staff that all refugee pupils have experienced trauma and have barriers to learning as a result. However, while a third of Syrian parents reported that their children had experienced a traumatic event, this did not seem to be a barrier to accessing the educational environment according to most parents and pupils. A minority did report signs of trauma including attachment issues, avoidance, separation anxiety, and being quiet and withdrawn. There is a need for psychoeducation to develop understandings of trauma, and of mental health and wellbeing in general, both within the Syrian refugee community and amongst school staff.

4. Schools have a lack of information about refugee pupils

Schools reported a lack of knowledge about refugee pupils’ history and background. In the absence of this information, the biographical experiences that they relate to teachers may lead to the default assumption that trauma has impacted their wellbeing and learning. In the report we suggest systemic approaches through which professionals could gather information about prevalence and impact of previous experiences.

5. Schools have had success, but clear guidance is required

Syrian parents’ and pupils’ reports on school experiences and support were overwhelmingly positive. The focus groups with school staff highlighted professional commitment, passion and creativity in using existing knowledge and understanding, and in a sourcing a range of external supports to support Syrian children and young people. However, some school staff stated that they often had to rely on instinct or personal experience, rather than expertise, which made them feel inadequate and worried about the quality of their provision. A ‘Best Practice Guide’ for supporting refugee and asylum seeking pupils could provide evidence-informed, best practice advice for schools. There are good examples from other areas, but a Northern Ireland-specific, contextualised, guide is needed. In the report we have made further suggestions for what this could include.

6. The EA’s Intercultural Education Service support is valued and should be extended

Existing support is widely seen as helpful and is appreciated by teachers and schools. Interaction with IES/STARS personnel was consistently described as positive and helpful, but there was a clear call for this to be more widely available and accessible. With the addition of Educational Psychology staff to IES there is potential for a joined-up, responsive team with diverse expertise to deliver a holistic service for refugee and other newcomer children and young people.
Trauma training should be available for all schools and all staff, regardless of a school’s VPRS pupil population or a staff member’s role. Further collaboration and integration of trauma-informed training and practice across the EA and beyond may better serve school staff. Finally, local training/networking events that bring together staff from neighbouring schools to connect, share best practice, exchange resources and insights, and build capacity were highly sought-after by teachers in our focus groups. These could be facilitated by IES/STARS through reflective practice groups or group process consultation, which would be an effective and efficient approach to supporting a large number of refugee pupils.

Click here to read the full report

Click here to register for the CREU webinar on June 23rd 2021

Report: Loyalist and Republican Perspectives on Educational Underachievement in Northern Ireland

Posted on by Andrew McAteer

This small-scale pilot project, conducted in collaboration with St. Mary’s University College, owes its origins to an informal conversation held between its Principal Investigator and the facilitator of a group of loyalist community activists including former prisoners. During the discussion, the facilitator made it clear that the members of his group felt strongly about issues of educational underachievement and would welcome a conversation about the challenges faced by the loyalist community and how those difficulties might best be addressed. An invitation was issued to come and meet the members of the group. During the ensuing meeting, it soon became clear that this group felt strongly that theirs was a story that needed to be told and that this was one of educational disadvantage which, they felt, was not being heard or listened to by government. Consequently, they believed, the educational achievement gap, which they fully acknowledged, between the working-class Protestant community and the respective working-class Catholic community was destined to continue and to widen still further.

Struck by the eagerness of the members of this loyalist group to talk and to seek to redress the imbalance of their community’s educational outcomes, a project design was drawn up to explore individuals’ educational journeys, and to consider how they felt educational underachievement could best be addressed. Increasingly, however, it became clear that there was a need to include the “other” story too, the story of working-class republicans, including former republican political prisoners, to provide perspective on the loyalist concerns, but also as a story of immense interest in its own right.

Over twenty years since the signing of the Belfast Agreement, the Troubles continue to cast a shadow over communities in many different respects. Cycles of disadvantage and poverty within the communities most affected by the conflict are reflected in low levels of educational achievement, high unemployment, entrenched criminality and continued paramilitary activity. This small-scale pilot study, conducted in autumn 2020, examines the links between educational underachievement and social disadvantage in the context of Northern Ireland’s loyalist and republican communities. It draws on focus groups involving loyalist community activists (including former prisoners) and members of Coiste Na nlarchimí, a coordinating body for groups and projects providing services to republican ex-prisoners and their families.

Using a Bourdieusian theoretical framework, the report unpacks the salient points of similarity and difference in the reported educational experiences of loyalist and republican interviewees, and in their perspectives on how best to address educational underachievement within their communities. In doing so, it provides a basis for further work to understand the educational experiences and perspectives of loyalist and republican activists, as well as young people most at risk of involvement in paramilitarism. Such work is vital if our society is to unleash the transformative ‘liberating force of education’ to create a truly equitable education system to benefit all our children and young people within a more peaceful and prosperous society.

Loyalist and Republican Similarities and Differences

Despite obvious differences of political allegiance between the loyalist and republican focus group participants, there emerged some striking convergences of childhood educational experience within the respective working-class communities. There was a strong sense in which, as children, their opportunities were severely limited. Most grew up in families where education was valued, and there were several examples recounted of inspirational parents whose lack of formal educational qualifications did not limit their practical intelligence or readiness to engage in often political discussion and debate. Participants recognised that access to grammar schools was a pathway to academic success leading to enhanced job prospects, but most never contemplated such an educational pathway and knew few if any other children from their communities who had passed the 11+.

Nonetheless, significant differences began to emerge when discussion turned to the value and purpose of education at that time. Several of the loyalist participants spoke of how employment opportunities in Belfast’s heavy industry sector depended on family or community connections, rather than educational qualifications. The republican experience was markedly different, as forced displacement during the early years of the Troubles and greater involvement in street protests led to a much stronger identification with political struggle. A further significant distinction emerged in how education was perceived in prison by the respective groups. While the loyalist former prisoners spoke of their realisation of the value of education and of their engagement with Open University courses (e.g. Maths), these were on an individual level, and were unrelated to the external circumstances of the Troubles. For the republican prisoners, by contrast, education played a key role in developing greater cultural awareness and identity, but also provided an opportunity to instil political principles (including radical socialism) and to prepare for a longer republican political struggle following release from prison.

Addressing current challenges

Discussions around the current challenges of addressing educational underachievement again raised many similarities of perspective, with both groups speaking of the importance of a relevant, engaging curriculum which aimed to prepare children and young people for employment but also to develop a broader set of skills for life within broader society. Both groups agreed the need to abolish academic selection and transfer tests, which were universally seen to favour middle-class children and discriminate against children from their working-class loyalist and republican communities. Both groups were also clear that the problem of educational underachievement in their communities was complex and would require a range of solutions at different levels, including tackling poverty, housing and hunger, the problem of drugs (mentioned solely by loyalists), investing in early years provision in their communities and developing more extensive opportunities for community education and life-long learning. Both groups felt that there was a need for stronger links between schools and families/communities, but this seemed to be most acute among the loyalist participants, who spoke of a general disconnect between schools in their areas and the surrounding community.

This feeling of disconnection fed into an overriding impression from the loyalist participants of marginalisation, disenfranchisement and abandonment by the education system, the churches and mainstream Unionist political leaders. Participants spoke repeatedly of “closed shops”, “closed doors” and a lack of opportunity to exert a positive influence on children and young people’s educational futures, despite their best efforts. In contrast, the former republican prisoners enjoyed greater levels of acceptability within their own communities, easier access to schools, and a clear line of communication to political leaders, many of whom had similar life experiences to themselves as former prisoners or relatives of former prisoners.

The report ends by asking the following questions:

  • How do we, as a society, address effectively the underlying causes of educational underachievement (e.g. income poverty, unemployment, poor housing, hunger), exacerbated by the current pandemic and within a resulting context of financial constraints?
  • How do we create a more equitable education system in which no child is disadvantaged as a result of their social background?
  • How do we address the increasing political, social and educational marginalisation of the loyalist working-class community?

Link to the full report

Educational Underachievement in Northern Ireland: Review of Research 2021

Posted on by Andrew McAteer

This updated review seeks to build on the Evidence Summary published by CREU in January 2020. In the year since then, the significant and complex challenge of educational underachievement has been thrown into fresh relief by the coronavirus pandemic. This updated review adds more recently published research in the field of Educational Underachievement in Northern Ireland, to provide an up-to-date account of the research literature. It also considers this evidence in the light of the upheaval caused by the pandemic in our education system through school closures, home learning, and exam cancellations.

The review includes 62 original research articles and reports in its qualitative synthesis, highlights core themes and gaps in the existing research evidence, and recommends several priorities for future research and policy in this area:

1.

The overall assessment that in Northern Ireland, socio-economic inequalities in education lead to wider disparities in educational achievement based on wealth and class remains unchanged since Gallagher and Smith’s report in 2000. Since then, and despite policymakers’ repeated calls for progress in this area, only one substantial academic research project (Leitch et al., 2017) has fully focused on educational underachievement.

2.

It appears to be widely accepted that boys underachieve in relation to girls, but little research has attempted to explain why this might be the case in Northern Ireland. More research in this area is needed to identify ways in which boys can be more equally served by the curriculum in place here.

3.

Several statistical analyses point to inequalities between and within religiously defined groups in Northern Ireland. However, no recent research has evaluated the impacts of faith-based education on educational attainment and inequality or the role of the churches in addressing educational underachievement.

4.

Further research on the fairness of assessments, whether related to academic selection or public examinations, must be prioritised post-pandemic. Two key foci should be a) how curricular choices can be widened and access/inclusion improved through the use of educational technologies, and b) what adaptations are needed following a year with no transfer test, and what changes to the transfer process could enable greater social mobility.

5.

The impacts of Covid-19 have been wide-ranging and will continue to affect children and young people well into the future. Research is urgently required both to help understand the pandemic’s effects, and to rapidly identify and evaluate any new interventions introduced to mitigate these effects or to retain valuable elements of pandemic school practice, for instance around blended learning.

6.

Existing research and government monitoring of educational underachievement using GCSE and A-level attainment data skews our attention to post-primary education. However, there is a need for long-term evaluation of key policy interventions in Early Years introduced with the stated aim of raising attainment for disadvantaged children.

Click here to access the full report

On the 11th of May 2021 we held a webinar event to share the findings of the report and to stimulate discussion – you can catch up below:

Report: Second Northern Ireland Survey of Parents/Carers on Home-Schooling during the Covid-19 Crisis

Posted on by Andrew McAteer

The ongoing COVID-19 pandemic has once again forced the vast majority of parents/carers of school-aged children in Northern Ireland to engage in responsibility for ‘home-schooling’, with this second extended period of home learning extending from January to March/April 2021, with the exception of vulnerable children, the children of key workers and children attending special schools. In May 2020, the Centre for Research in Educational Underachievement (CREU) at Stranmillis University College, Belfast, published its first report on Home-Schooling in Northern Ireland During the COVID-19 Crisis (Walsh et al., 2020) which highlighted the often very different experiences of children and young people during the first six weeks of the first lockdown. Our report highlighted how home-schooling exacerbated existing inequalities: for instance, we found that less well educated parents felt less confident in supporting their children’s learning; we heard of particular frustrations expressed by working parents, especially key workers; and we learnt that digital poverty was presenting a challenge to many families with limited access to devices, printers and broadband. In the 2020 survey 31% of parents felt that their child(ren)’s emotional wellbeing had become ‘worse’ or ‘much worse’, 49% felt that it had stayed the same, and 20% felt that it had got ‘better’ or ‘much better’.

As we entered the second period of extended home-schooling, CREU launched its follow-up online survey which remained open from 9th-22nd February 2021. The survey had 2002 usable responses, which included data for a total of 3668 individual children, from every part of Northern Ireland. Our comprehensive report shares preliminary findings in order to inform policy and practice in the short- to medium-term as government, schools and society continue to confront the challenges of Covid-19.

Summary of Key Findings:

Home-schooling favours children with better-educated parents

As in 2020, parents with higher levels of education felt more confident in their home-schooling role, and were more likely to play an active role in supporting their child’s learning.

Digital accessibility at home is strongly related to household income

Although there was a slight increase from 2020 in the number of digital devices available to children, and a reduction in the percentage of parents reporting that they had no printer (18% in 2021, compared to 23% in 2020), children from households in the lowest income band were three times more likely to have no printer than children from households in the highest income band (30% vs 11%) and their parents/carers were considerably more likely to feel that the costs of printing (in terms of paper and ink) prevented them from using their printer (25% vs 3%). Children from low-income homes were also more likely to have to share a digital device and/or wait to be able to go online, and were less likely to report fast internet speeds. The geographical analysis also revealed that internet connectivity was worst in rural areas.

Parental experiences varied considerably by gender and employment

Once again the vast majority (96%) of respondents were female and there is a strongly gendered division of labour within most households in the sample, with women much more likely to be in the home, whether working or not, and responsible for child-care and home-schooling to a much greater degree than their male partners. Overall findings suggest that children spent longer on home-schooling activities in 2021 than in 2020, while those parents who reported finding time for home-schooling a challenge were most likely to be juggling work and home-schooling commitments, working either outside or inside the home. Additional questions explored the impact of home-schooling on parental mental health and highlighted that overall almost 80% of parents reported a negative impact on their own mental health and wellbeing, with the most acute impact felt by parents who were working from home.

The impact on children’s mental health and wellbeing, social skills, and behaviour was much more negative in 2021 than during the first lockdown of 2020

The majority of parents/carers felt that the current lockdown/school closures had resulted in their child/ren’s mental health and wellbeing becoming ‘worse’ or ‘much worse’ (51% in 2021 vs 31% in 2020). While 20% of parents in 2020 felt that their child’s mental health had become ‘better’ or ‘much better’, by 2021 this figure had fallen to just 7%. The more negative experiences in 2021 can also be seen in relation to parent/carers’ estimation of the impact of lockdown on their child’s social skills (49% ‘worse’ or ‘much worse’ in 2021 vs 29% in 2020), and level of behaviour (35% ‘worse’ or ‘much worse’ in 2021 vs 29% in 2020). In the current survey we also asked parents/carers about the impact on their child’s physical health and wellbeing and found that 47% felt that this was now ‘worse’ or ‘much worse’ than pre-lockdown with only 8% believing that it was ‘better’ or ‘much better’.   The survey did reveal, encouragingly, that where schools placed importance or high importance on nurture, safety and well-being (according to parents/carers) this had a highly significant, positive, impact on reported levels of motivation, mental health and wellbeing, social skills, and physical health and wellbeing, compared to those schools who were not reported to value these approaches.  Only a third (33%) of parents indicated that they were in favour of their child repeating the 2020/21 year due to the impact of school closures, with 54% opposed to the idea and 13% unsure. Parents of primary aged children were on the whole more likely to be in favour of their child repeating the school year than post-primary aged children, with the exception of the parents of P7 children where less than a quarter (24%) were in favour of their child repeating the year.

Parents/carers are broadly happy with both the quality and the quantity of learning resources provided by their children’s schools

Almost two-thirds (65%) of parents felt that the quality of learning resources was better or much better than during the first lockdown, with only 6% claiming that the provision was worse. The same majority (65%) were happy with the quantity of resources, an increase of 3% since the 2020 survey.

The number of parents who report that their child’s school engages in some live online teaching has doubled since 2020

Reports live teaching increased from 24% to almost 50%, while the number of schools not engaging at all in live online teaching has fallen from 77% to just over 50%. This is a significant shift, and represents a positive response to the most common recommendation given by parents in the May 2020 survey and in this survey. Nonetheless, this study has shown that the provision of live online teaching is still not universal, and is significantly skewed towards older, post-primary pupils and especially those attending voluntary grammar schools and Irish medium schools.

There are widely divergent experiences depending on the age and year group of the children

There were particular issues to emerge in respect of our youngest children who spent least time engaged in formal home-schooling activities and least time being taught live online. Their parents often reported that their children were missing opportunities to play and to be outside, but there are indications from the data that opportunities during lockdown to engage in play and in outdoor learning were associated with higher levels of motivation, mental health and physical health and wellbeing.

There was a focus on disrupted assessment for many parents

For instance, for parents of pupils in years 6-8, there was a strong focus on the transfer tests, including fear and anxiety expressed by parents of the current P6 cohort faced with the uncertainty of what might happen next year; anger and frustration by parents of the current P7 cohort whose year had been dominated by the postponement and eventual cancellation of the transfer tests, with a feeling among a majority that contingency assessment methods ought to have been planned earlier; and among year 8 parents a belief that their children had missed out on the normal preparation for transition to post-primary schools and that some were not adjusting as well as might have been expected as a result. For many parents of pupils in years 12-14, there was again a sense of frustration that the revised methods of assessment could disadvantage their children’s future.

Read the full report here