What has happened to the attainment gap during the pandemic?

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

Educational Underachievement in Northern Ireland: Review of Research 2021

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

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

 

School Return and Balancing Acts

 

Today a phased return to school begins for some children.   While most weary parents, passionate teachers and isolated pupils agree that a full return is needed for all pupils, there are concerns about timing and the practicalities that schools and parents will now face.

Much of the media discussion has surrounded whether or not children are ‘super-spreaders’. A PHA presentation to education officials suggested that Schools are not a ‘major source’ of transmission. It is vital, however, that this discussion is counterbalanced by consideration of the negative impact of long-term school closures and the subsequent isolation of our children and young people. The negative impact of lockdown on their mental health and wellbeing is becoming clear in research from previous school closures, in practice, in our own experiences and in our conversations with family and friends. This impact is exacerbated by the closure of their other face-to-face social networks outside of school- such as sports clubs, youth clubs and societies.

As a trustee of Links Counselling Service I (John) am acutely of the mental health impact of lockdown throughout society. With many community resources unavailable, we are overwhelmed with self-referrals, GP referrals and signposting from other services. Our waiting list, including children aged 4-18, has more than doubled from a year ago despite a larger workforce that ever before. COVID-19 has not only exacerbated pre-existing mental ill health among individuals, families and communities, it has greatly challenged the systems in place to care for them.

Another balancing act

Balance is also needed is within the public (and media) discourse about children’s mental health. While there is clearly cause for concern, we need to avoid fatalism when it comes to our children. This is not the ‘COVID generation’ forever damaged by a ‘tsumani’ of mental health problems, as some of the more dramatic headlines would have you believe. Recent research from the University of Oxford, reported an increase in emotional, attentional and behavioural issues during the first lockdown period. Reassuringly, these issues decreased when lockdown was lifted, but with increased restrictions these issues have re-emerged. This places an emphasis on decision makers to ensure that lockdown restrictions that impact on children and young people are kept as short-term as possible.

However, a deterministic and fatalistic discourse can be counter-productive, cultivating a self-fulfilling prophecy that paralyses systems and prevents them from fully committing to the support that is needed to recover. Our children are so much more than the pandemic they have lived through. They have demonstrated creativity, kindness and resilience. It’s important to remain hopeful and to help our young people to find hope when they are worried about the future. It is the balancing act of our time to hold both of these realities together; that many people are struggling, and that things can get better.

Resilience Resides in Relationships

We often hear it said that ‘children are resilient’, but the truth is a little more nuanced. Psychologists define resilience as the process of adapting well in the face of adversity or significant sources of stress. Resilience means ‘bouncing back’ from difficult experiences, but it also means being empowered to grow and even improve your life along the way. Research has moved away from seeing resilience as a trait that people do or don’t have. There are various individual psychosocial factors that impact resilience levels, but there is also emerging evidence of a bidirectional relationship between healthy communities and more resilient individuals. This is important. It means resilience can be promoted and developed, and schools can play a role in this.

The majority of kids won’t need counselling post-lockdown. They will benefit from getting back to the structured, stable and secure environment of school. The predictable routine, clear expectations and consistent rules help children to feel safe. Then, most importantly, they will need space to play and to reconnect with others. Research also emphasises the important link between children engaging in sport and physical activity and their wellbeing. We need to see a return to these activities too.

Psychiatrist Bruce Perry states that, because humans are inescapably social beings, the worst catastrophes that we can experience are those that involve relational loss. Therefore, recovery must involve re-establishing human connections.Perry states that the most important healing experiences often occur outside therapy and inside homes, schools and communities. Before ‘catching up’ on missed learning we need to let the kids catch up with each other, and with staff. Resilience resides in relationships.

Through relationships we can reassure children that they are experiencing normal reactions to abnormal events. We can help them, as the Dr Marie Hill has outlined, to emotionally regulate before we educate. Prof Barry Carpenter and colleagues have developed practical resources for a Recovery Curriculum that encourages a systematic, relationships-based approach to teaching and learning post-lockdown. This is an example of the creative and systemic approach required to support our children and young people.

That said, every child and young person will come through this differently and there will be a range of responses needed. While all might need something extra, some will need more ‘extra’ than others. Lockdown has exacerbated disadvantage and pre-existing vulnerability. Some young people will need additional systemic and therapeutic support to prevent more severe mental ill health down the line. It’s vital that long-term planning includes improving availability and accessibility of this support.

Ultimately, we need to trust our teachers and school leaders to know how to best support our children post-lockdown. We need to embrace their professional capacity, support the system where we can, and lobby to ensure that they are properly resourced. It is essential that we prioritise children and young people as we emerge from this pandemic. They have been asked to make huge sacrifices and it is now time that we uphold their rights for equitable access to education, play and social development.

Dr John McMullen is an Educational and Child Psychologist, and a Senior Lecturer at Stranmillis University College and Queen’s University Belfast.

Dr Victoria Simms is the Director of Research in the School of Psychology, Ulster University, and is an expert in child development.

Back to School: Learning Together after Lockdown

The sentiment of the popular inspirational acronym ‘Together Everyone Achieves More’ seems so simple that it could easily be dismissed as a platitude. Yet our current circumstances have brought the value of human togetherness into sharp focus. Our language reflects this too:  the English word ‘teams’ has taken on a new dimension, now often referring to images of solitary figures in rooms contained in little boxes on a screen. Until the onset of Covid-19, sharing actual physical spaces with people outside our own homes was an accepted part of daily life. Our places of learning – nurseries, schools, colleges and universities – were particularly social in this respect. Almost without thinking about it, we shared classrooms and lecture theatres, assembly halls and staffrooms. The arrival of the pandemic disrupted this, and possibilities to spend time in common social spaces with family, friends, colleagues and students remain very limited. It has been said that it is not until we lose something that we realise how good it was. So what exactly have we been missing?

Body matters

Rowan Williams in his book Being Human: Bodies, minds, persons, argues that ‘Persons are more than ‘individuals’; they are both spiritual and material, and their uniqueness is fulfilled in community not in isolation and total independence’ (p. viii). Our bodies matter, as well as our minds: we are sensory. In a recent interview for the Irish Times, Irish philosopher Richard Kearney described the Covid-19 pandemic as an ‘attack on the senses’. This is of course true in a very real way for those who have experienced the loss of taste and smell as a symptom of the Covid-19 virus. But it is also true that the pandemic has accelerated the shift from being together physically with other people to communicating virtually. This change had already been ushered in by the digital revolution. There are multiple examples of technology enhancing many aspects of our lives in recent years, not least in education. Schools in Northern Ireland have harnessed the benefits of digital innovation in a particularly admirable way. Interestingly though, Kearney argues that over the past year the speed of the shift has prioritised, and perhaps overloaded, our sense of sight, while at the same time inhibiting our sense of touch. This imbalance is a matter of concern. As Kearney puts it ‘It is no accident that skin is our largest organ … We need computers but we also need carnality.’

Hands on learning

In Kearney’s view, tangibility, or being close enough physically to touch another person or thing renders us vulnerable as human beings, but it also makes us more receptive to other people and our wider environment. This is particularly important in the learning of young children in play as Glenda Walsh and John McMullen have highlighted. We know all too well that touch can cause injury and harm, but over centuries, touch has also been a source of healing. It is by reaching out and engaging with other people and our surroundings at close quarters that we learn, that we learn to communicate, and that we develop empathy. By being close to people we can begin to read them, rather like a book. This is an important aspect of our being, and it is needed for us to flourish.

Mind matters too

Human beings, according to Rowan Williams, are both spiritual and material. Similarly, health is not simply either mental or physical, but embraces the whole person. There are real and valid concerns around physical contamination by a potentially dangerous virus, and these require a concerted response. But they need to be balanced by concerns for health more broadly, and particularly by an awareness of mental health. In a recent blog Noel Purdy highlighted the need to promote emotional health and wellbeing among young people especially. As lockdowns continue across the globe, concern for mental health generally is growing. For example, according to a recent study reported in the Lancet, ‘the increase in probable mental health problems reported in adults also affected 5–16 year olds in England, with the incidence rising from 10·8% in 2017 to 16·0% in July 2020 across age, gender, and ethnic groups’.

The focus of governments has turned in recent weeks to children and young people going back to school. There has been talk of lost months and years of education, identifying learning gaps, catch-up plans and reducing school holidays. In the middle of all this we shouldn’t lose sight of what it is to be human. For according to Rowan Williams, ‘Unless we have a coherent model of what sort of humanity we want to nurture in our society, we shall continue to be at sea over how we teach’ (p. x).

 

On being human … together

Absence might make the heart grow fonder, but spending time with each other in a shared physical space is a vital part of healthy human development and relationships. Not being together has made lockdown periods very difficult for many people,  and young people in particular have found that being apart makes friendships very difficult. Research has also shown that face to face social interaction results in better learning. For example, in language acquisition, Patricia Kuhl’s 2003 early childhood study found that ‘infants show phonetic learning from live, but not pre-recorded, exposure to a foreign language’. Teachers need to spend time face to face with their students. To create learning opportunities that are really valuable we need to get to know peoples’ needs and preferences. And we need to spend time together, talking and listening.

From Zoom to room

There is something of a sense of déjà vu (see last year’s blog) as yet again, we face the prospect of going back to school. The challenges involved in moving from Zoom to room are real. But so are the potential rewards: physical, mental and spiritual. People of all ages are trying to make sense of our world’s complexities and of strangeness of the days and nights that we have known. For this reason, many believe that as far as education is concerned, a playful, nurturing approach will be vital for children and young people, with language and communication, one of its 6 core principles, at its heart. In Northern Ireland it is encouraging to see signs of a commitment by government to this, with funding allocated to a new Nurture Programme.

Experiences of pandemic lockdown have gifted us with a greater awareness of the benefits of technology to keep us connected digitally. But we have also come to understand, perhaps more fully than at any point in history, that isolation from each other physically is unhealthy. Perhaps what we need most is getting back to exactly what we have been missing: being together.

Dr Sharon Jones is a Stranmillis University College Lecturer and member of the Centre for Research in Educational Underachievement

 

Home-schooling in the COVID-19 crisis: second survey launched

A team from Stranmillis University College’s Centre for Research in Educational Underachievement (CREU) has launched a second survey for parents/carers home-schooling children aged 3 to 18/19 within the context of the renewed 2021 COVID-19 restrictions in Northern Ireland.

CLICK HERE TO COMPLETE THE SURVEY.

The team are keen to gather information from parents/carers about the everyday realities of home-schooling, to compare with findings from last year’s survey. The last survey was really successful in informing the work of the Department of Education, the Education Authority, schools and voluntary sector organisations – we’d like to repeat that success, and find out how things have changed since last year.

Dr Noel Purdy, Director of CREU, explains, “This is an important and timely survey and we would encourage as many parents and carers as possible to take some well-deserved time out from home-schooling to complete the survey by noon on Monday 22nd February.  And please tell your friends and share the survey so that we have as many responses as possible, allowing us to have as representative a picture of what home-schooling is really like across all age groups and abilities in Northern Ireland.”

Click here to complete the survey.

The Centre for Research in Educational Underachievement is based at Stranmillis University College, Belfast.  It is committed to researching issues around achievement affecting children, their parents/carers and teachers in Northern Ireland and beyond, and is guided by the principles of rigour, partnership and impact.  Read our recent blog posts on homeschooling and other educational issues here here.  See also ‘Playful Ideas for Active Minds’ – free resources, ideas and activities produced by our PGCE (Early Years) students to minimize the impact of school closure on young children’s educational development.