2

jockeyropeInternet and Web Development

Feb 2, 2013 (4 years and 4 months ago)

628 views









A FRAMEWORK FOR UNDERSTANDING POVERTY


Evaluation of First Round of Training and Implementation by Schools

in Reading Borough Council Education Department

2007
-
2008



Commissioned by The Sutton Trust





JOHN STANNARD AND NANCY WATSON



Final Repo
rt

Submitted July 2008

Acknowledgements


We thank all those who contributed to the evaluation of the pilot training for
A Framework for
Understanding Poverty
(FW4UP)
:




Reading Borough Council, in particular Anna Wright (Director of Education and
Childre
n’s Services) and Tim Coulson (Head of School Improvement). Their commitment
to meeting the needs of all children in Reading was responsible for the pilot FW4UP
initiative.




The Sutton Trust and its Research Director Lee Elliott Major


the Sutton Trust fu
nded
the evaluation and Dr. Elliott Major provided continued support and challenging
questions.




The participants from the autumn 2007 FW4UP training who agreed to participate in the
evaluation. This group cheerfully completed lengthy questionnaires, welco
med us to
their schools and early years centres, and took time to reflect on their experience with
FW4UP and its connection to their work with children and families.


We are grateful for the opportunity to carry out this project and appreciate the partici
pation of all
those who made it possible. We remain responsible for any shortcomings.




John Stannard

Nancy Watson





14/07/2008





ii

Executive Summary


1.

The Reading Local Authority, exploring additional strategies for addressing the needs of
its most disadvantaged chil
dren, identified Ruby Payne’s
A Framework for
Understanding Poverty
(
FW4UP
) (2005) as a potentially useful approach. The
Framework, developed in the United States, was seen as having assumptions about
social cognition and growth of competence that were com
patible with values and
practices in the English school system.


2.

Payne’s work, received enthusiastically by many educators, has been criticized by
academics as being insufficiently informed by research evidence about poverty. Critics
see FW4UP as oversimp
lifying the causes of poverty and low achievement.


3.

In a pilot initiative, Reading provided an initial round of training (2 days) in the autumn
term 2007 to a group of 63 staff from schools and children’s centres. A second round of
training was provided in

late May 2008 to an additional group of Reading staff.


4.

The evaluation of the training and its outcomes is intended to inform the LA in making
subsequent decisions about whether the Framework has sufficient potential to warrant
further training and suppor
t across the LA, and if so, what conditions and supports would
maximize its value.


5.

35 attendees at the initial training agreed to participate in an evaluation of the two
-
day
training course. Data were collected from 14 participants (the others did not con
tinue in
the evaluation), from ten schools and two early years’ centres.


6.

Participants valued the training; the first day was rated as more valuable than the
second. The second day, intended to focus on practices and implementation, was
imprecise and many

of the examples lacked relevance.


7.

Many participants reported an “aha!” experience


a shift in understanding. Most thought
FW4UP was relevant to their work and reflected accurately many features of the lives
and behaviour of children and families they se
rved
.

All thought the FW4UP was helpful
in providing a shared conceptual structure for understanding poverty. For some the
training confirmed and reinforced existing knowledge and practice; for others it sparked
reconsideration of ideas and, to some exten
t, practice.


8.

There was general optimism about the potential of
FW4UP

to improve children’s
progress.


9.

Respondents were generally hesitant about “cascading” FW4UP, indicating that training
should be provided by high quality professionally prepared trainers
. Dissemination and
implementation was stronger in schools/centres where more than one person attended,
and was enhanced following the second round of training where a school or centre now
had a “critical mass” of trained staff.


10.

Participants were more li
kely to implement FW4UP strategies related to behaviour and
behaviour management; a few worked with FW4UP learning strategies, narrative
structure and meta
-
language (all key ideas in the
Primary National Strategy

in England).

14/07/2008





iii


11.

For future assessment, a numb
er of schools identified indicators in the form of tests,
assessments and surveys as possible measures of pupil progress. Tracking pupils
proved impossible for the pilot evaluation.


12.

Based on our findings and reference to current research evidence about im
plementing
new teaching practices, we have six recommendations for the LA:

Recommendations and next steps

Educational investments and initiatives such as
FW4UP

should, in the long run, lead to
measurable differences in children’s school outcomes, particula
rly achievement. To strengthen
impact and build greater coherence, we encourage Reading Local Authority to articulate links
between
FW4UP

and current education policy and practice in England, with a focus on
pedagogy and language development. The following

recommendations are intended to ensure
that the next phase of
FW4UP

builds on the success to date and on lessons learned:


1.

Further development should continue to have the visible and authoritative commitment
of the Director of Children’s Services and the
senior local authority team.


2.

Further training should be mediated by a caution from the local authority


that that the
FW4UP

concepts are a simplified frame for a much more complex set of factors.


3.

The training is more powerful when participants attend a
s teams from the same
organization, with the headteacher as a team member; colleagues working together
provide mutual support in changing practice.


4.

Following the Day 1 introduction to the
FW4UP
, the training should include more specific
and concrete examp
les of how teachers and schools might implement the Framework in
Reading schools and early years centres, focusing on interventions which support the
development and use of language and learning strategies. The local authority might
profitably draw on exis
ting resources in the
Primary National Strategy
, for example those
linked to assessment for learning, teaching learning strategies and developing language
and literacy.


5.

Participation in the training should include a commitment to action/implementation.
Sc
hools would benefit from more sustained implementation support, with assistance for
monitoring and follow
-
through of identified children to track pupil progress.


6.

Systematic evaluation should be built into the next phase of training and development as
a me
ans of (i) evaluating and refining the programme and (ii) assembling evidence of
successful practice fur further dissemination.

14/07/2008





iv

Table of Contents


Acknowledgements

................................
................................
................................
...................

i

Executive Summary

................................
................................
................................
..................

ii

1: A Framework for Understanding Poverty: Context and Relevant Literature

....................

1

Rationale and Aims of the Project

................................
................................
...........................

1

Ruby Payne’s Framework for Understanding Poverty

................................
.............................

1

The Framework

................................
................................
................................
...................

1

Supporting Evidence

................................
................................
................................
...........

2

Relevant Research on Poverty and Education

................................
................................
....

3

Critiques of A Framework for Understanding Poverty

................................
..........................

4

2: Methodology

................................
................................
................................
.........................

6

3. Evaluation Findings

................................
................................
................................
..............

7

The FW4UP Training

................................
................................
................................
..............

7

Schools and Centres in FW4UP Evaluation: Context and Background

................................
...

9

Pe
rceived Strengths and Weaknesses of the FW4UP Training

................................
.............
10

Implementation of FW4UP Training

................................
................................
.......................
12

Support for Implementation

................................
................................
................................
12

Progress and Constraints

................................
................................
................................
...
12

Dissemination to Colleagues

................................
................................
..............................
15

Implementation: End of Pilot

................................
................................
..............................
16

Tracking Pupil Progress

................................
................................
................................
.....
18

Evidence of Impact on Children

................................
................................
.........................
19

4: Conclusions

................................
................................
................................
........................

20

Summary and Discussion of Findings

................................
................................
....................
20

Implications for Local Authority

................................
................................
..............................
21

Rationale for Field Testing FW4UP

................................
................................
....................
21

Ped
agogical Challenges

................................
................................
................................
....
22

A Final Note

................................
................................
................................
.......................
23

5. References
................................
................................
................................
...........................

25



The following documents are submitted as supporting material for the final report:

Annex 1: Follow
-
Up Quest
ionnaire for Participants in FW4UP Training.……….……….……26

Annex 2: Guide for Final Site Visits…...………..……………………………...…………………36


14/07/2008





1

1: A Framework for Understanding Poverty: Context and
Relevant Literature

Rationale and Aims of the Project

The Reading Local Au
thority, committed to exploring and testing out multiple strategies for
addressing the needs of its most disadvantaged children, made a decision in 2007 to pilot Ruby
Payne’s
A Framework for Understanding Poverty

as one additional approach in the Authority
’s
efforts. The Framework, developed in the United States, was seen as potentially powerful, with
assumptions about social cognition and growth of competence which would be compatible with
values and practices in the English school system.


The initial co
mmitment was for a pilot round of training (2 days) provided in the autumn term to a
group of 63 staff from schools and children’s centres. An evaluation of the training and its
outcomes, funded by The Sutton Trust, was intended to inform the LA in making
subsequent
decisions about whether the Framework had sufficient potential to warrant further training and
support across the LA.


Subsequently, during the course of the evaluation, midway through the Summer term the
Authority provided a repeat session of t
he 2
-
day training, to which some of the schools that
participated in the Autumn session sent additional staff.

Ruby Payne’s Framework for Understanding Poverty

The Framework

The book
A

Framework for Understanding Poverty
(FW4UP)
, first published (by the a
uthor) in
1995 and most recently revised in 2005, is based on Ruby Payne’s personal experience with
class differences in the United States and on her experience as an educator. In the author’s
words, the book provides “practical, real
-
world support and gui
dance to improve your
effectiveness in working with people from all socioeconomic backgrounds.” The enthusiastic
initial response of teachers and administrators to the Framework led Ruby Payne, in the late
1990s, to provide formal training sessions for tea
chers in Texas and other states.


The passage of the American federal
No Child Left Behind

law in 2002 led to a huge increase in
demand for programmes intended to assist schools in addressing issues related to poverty.
Under
No Child Left Behind

(NCLB), sc
hools and school districts are required to report scores
on mandatory state tests for various subgroups, including EAL children, children in poverty
(defined as qualifying for “free or reduced
-
price lunch”) and minority groups.
That such children
persisten
tly under
-
performed compared to their peers was already well
-
known; socioeconomic
status has been and remains the most powerful single influence on students’ educational and
other life outcomes, as pointed out by many researchers (e.g. Levin, 2007; Rothste
in, 2004,
2005).
However, disaggregating test results as required by
No Child Left Behind

highlighted a
situation that had often been ignored. Because the new legislation threatened serious
consequences for schools that do not reduce the achievement gaps,
educational authorities
were soon scrambling to find ways of raising the test scores of disadvantaged students
.


A Framework for Understanding Poverty

is seen by many education administrators as offering
school districts and schools an accessible and usefu
l programme for meeting this urgent need.
Payne’s company (
aha! Process
) has expanded to meet the increased demand, offering training
14/07/2008





2

sessions, workshops, DVDs and audiotapes. In addition to the 1995 book, Payne has produced
many training guidebooks and ar
ticles on the application of her thinking to various aspects of
schooling.
Aha! Process

certifies trainers and also provides direct training to school districts,
with more than fifty trainers on contract (Tough, 2007).The programme is in use across the
Uni
ted States, and has now extended to Australia, New Zealand and England.


The intent of the two
-
day
aha! Process

training programme is to help teachers better
understand their pupils and learn new approaches for helping them. At the core of Payne’s
philosop
hy is a set of “hidden rules among classes”, which purport to explain how each of three
classes (poverty, middle class and wealth) understand time, love, money, language, food,
humour and so on. Payne suggests that in schools, where middle
-
class teachers a
re often
teaching poor pupils, class
-
based misunderstandings are rampant. She argues that teachers
must learn to understand the habits, beliefs and behaviours that exist in many poor families if
they are to recognize the obstacles that such children face.
FW4UP and the accompanying
support materials are intended to give teachers this kind of understanding, particularly in dealing
more appropriately with children and families in generational (as opposed to situational) poverty.
Once teachers understand the h
idden rules of poverty, the next step is to teach poor pupils
about the hidden rules of the middle class, to provide choices. Children would learn that to
succeed in school (or later in a job) they must learn such strategies and behaviours as how to
speak
in a “formal register,” how to keep a schedule, and how to reduce impulsive behaviour
(particularly physical retaliation). Once teachers have been given the Framework, with its clear
distinctions between beliefs and behaviour in the three classes, the trai
ning programme goes on
to present a variety of more specific tactics for teaching the “what, why and how”, along with
lesson design and assessment.


Payne argues that she is not making value judgements about the relative merits of the
strategies used by p
oor and middle class people. She is rather providing choices by informing
children of hidden rules they will need to understand if they want to change their situation in the
future. The training programme for teachers covers topics such as:



the use of diff
erent “ voices” for negotiating relationships;



responding to challenging behaviour;



teaching why, how and when to use formal linguistic registers;



how to use story structures to help children organize their own experience;



teaching children to use meta
-
la
nguage to conceptualize their learning; and



the explicit teaching of learning strategies such as planning, and task organization.


Over the past ten years, Payne has developed a high profile in the United States as an expert in
educating children in pover
ty; she is in great demand, speaking at over 200 conferences a year.
The “Payne School Model” and associated inservice programmes have been well
-
received by
teachers and administrators


testimonials abound on various education websites, most lauding
the c
larity, persuasiveness and apparent applicability of Payne’s framework for understanding
poverty and the educational contexts for poor children.

Supporting Evidence

What evidence is there that
A Framework for Understanding Poverty

has positive effects on
teaching and learning? It is perhaps surprising to find little evidence of the extent to which
Payne training programmes actually influence teacher practice and pupil achievement. A search
for evaluations of
A Framework for Understanding Poverty

or the
Ins
tructional Framework

(the
programmatic version of
A Framework for Understanding Poverty
) revealed a number of
programme evaluations, all apparently done by the same researcher/evaluator (William W.
14/07/2008





3

Swan), all since 2004, and all done under contract to
aha!

Process

(Ruby Payne’s company in
Texas). Although such evaluations might be useful to
aha! Process

and to the schools and
districts involved, the lack of independence of the evaluator makes it difficult to assess the
validity of the findings. Each evaluat
ion report follows the same format


within the group of
teachers who have been trained, an observation scale distinguishes those who are
implementing the model with “high fidelity.” These teachers are then designated the
experimental or intervention group
. Teachers who had no training, or were judged as not
implementing the model with high fidelity, are designated as the control group. All reports
compare results on standardized tests for the two groups, usually on reading and mathematics
tests, with the s
tudents in the “high fidelity” generally scoring better. No information is given
about the implementation process or about the challenges teachers might have experienced in
applying the Framework. As well, the reports do not give the proportion or percenta
ge of
teachers who are deemed to be implementing with “high fidelity.” None of these evaluation
reports has been published in any peer
-
reviewed source, although
aha! Process

contracted an
external review of Swan’s reports on five schools and one school dis
trict (Holmes, no date).
Reports are available either through the website of William Swan’s organization
(www.
educational
-
leadership
-
associates.com)

or through the
aha! Process

website
(
http://www.ahaprocess.com/School_Programs/Research_&_Development/
).

Relevant Research on Poverty and Education

The substantial body of research on the relationship between socio
-
economic status and
educational achievement, referred to earlier

in this report, is relevant to Payne’s work, although
Payne herself does not make reference to it. Pupil outcomes are, we know, shaped by many
factors outside the school, and the relationship between socio
-
economic status and educational
achievement remai
ns high (Levin, 2007). A study in the British Medical Journal (Jefferis et al.,
2002), for instance, noting that “social background is a simplification of a lot of complex
processes,” found that social deprivation and poverty were strongly related to educa
tional
attainment, with “social class at birth having independent effects on maths scores in childhood.”


Two recent reports confirmed the continued strong influence of socioeconomic status by
examining intergenerational mobility; one study was done in th
e UK, sponsored by the Sutton
Trust (Blanden & Machin, 2007) and the other in the US, sponsored by the Pew Charitable
Trusts (Economic Mobility Project, 2008). Both reports come to similar conclusions


intergenerational mobility in the UK and the US is co
nsiderably lower than in Canada and
several European countries, with economic position in adulthood heavily influenced by that of
one’s parents. The UK report presents data suggesting that this situation is not changing. In
2002, for instance, 10 percent o
f those in the lowest 20 percent of family income acquired
degrees, compared with 44 percent of those in the highest 20 percent.


“The real challenge for educators and policymakers today is to avoid the defeatist myth that
schools make no difference witho
ut bouncing to the other extreme, that they make all the
difference” (Rothstein, 2002, p 12). Just as importantly, we would add, is working out
how

schools can actually make a difference


what policies and strategies are most effective in
narrowing the ac
hievement gap? Given the stubbornness and severity of the problem,
governments and educational authorities continue to search for solutions. In this context, many
schools and school systems have looked to Ruby Payne and
A Framework for Understanding
Povert
y

as one approach that may help. One important question about Payne’s work is whether
the principles and assumptions are consistent with current research and understanding about
poverty and schools.



14/07/2008





4

Critiques of A Framework for Understanding Poverty

Alth
ough Ruby Payne became a high profile provider of inservice or INSET in the 1990s, until
recently she appeared to have escaped the notice of academics. This situation changed as
academic researchers became aware of Payne’s increasingly pervasive influence.

Close to a
million copies of Payne’s book had been sold and her organization was conducting workshops
and training sessions for tens of thousands of teachers and administrators. The subsequent
publication of several critiques (e.g. Bohn, 2006; Bomer, Dwor
in, May & Semingson, 2008;
Gorski, 2006; Ng & Rury, 2006) has subjected Payne and
A

Framework for Understanding
Poverty

to close and often sceptical examination.


The critiques, although varied in content and tone, put forward similar arguments. First, th
ey
point to the weak research base for the framework, which Payne herself describes as “a 30
-
year, qualitative, ongoing case study which uses several methodologies” (Payne, 2002) but
more careful reading reveals to be largely her own personal observations
and experiences.
While Payne’s stories may be persuasive, her methodology does not meet accepted standards
for qualitative research; anecdotes are not case studies, and generally are not considered as
evidence. The critiques claim that the Payne framework
ignores much social science research,
both on poverty and on language. For example, nearly forty years ago, Bernstein (1971)
introduced the concept of
restricted

and
elaborated

codes

in language, as a way of accounting
for the relatively poor performance i
n language
-
based subjects of working
-
class pupils in
England. Frequently misunderstood and certainly controversial, Bernstein was distinguishing
between language that was appropriate for situations in which there is considerable shared
knowledge and the mo
re elaborated language necessary when listeners can’t “fill in the blanks.”
Bernstein’s conclusion was that pupils needed to be able to use elaborated code if they were
going to succeed in the educational system. Bernstein’s early formulations have been
su
cceeded by more complex theories (Bernstein’s and those of other researchers) of the
connection between language, social class and school achievement. From the perspective of
educators, however, it is important to acknowledge that such complexity, however
accurate in
charting complicated relationships, may not lead to messages that educators could apply in
schools.


Critics observe that when Payne does refer to research, she is highly selective about what she
chooses to mention. For instance, Payne often re
ferences certain academic studies as
providing support for her theories. Ng & Rury (2006), however, find that the works cited do not
support Payne, giving several examples of her “selective referencing.” Others note that Payne
oversimplifies the complexiti
es of poverty and ignores issues of race and gender (Jones, 2006).


Bohn (2006) and Gorski (2006), among other critics, argue that Payne’s work perpetuates
offensive stereotypes of families caught in poverty, “blaming the victims” because of habits and
at
titudes, instead of blaming society; if society and its schools systematically discriminate
against poor people, the poor are limited in what they can do to succeed in moving out of
poverty. In other words, Payne ignores the structural causes of poverty


economic and social
factors that limit opportunities for many children and their families. As well, Payne’s acceptance
of the concept of a “culture of poverty” does not acknowledge the substantial body of work
challenging this construct from the 1960s and
1970s.


Payne’s critics claim that her work is “riddled with factual inaccuracies and harmful stereotypes”
(Bohn, 2006) and that she “does not challenge the classism that exists everywhere in our
society but is most felt and experienced in schools every da
y” and instead urges “fixing poor
people instead of reforming classist policies and practices” (Gorski, 2006).

14/07/2008





5


A recent article in
Teachers College Record

(Bomer et al., 2008) provides a critical analysis of
the content of Payne’s in
-
service teacher educ
ation programme, using particularly forceful
language. The authors focus on the characterizations of people living in poverty, comparing
Payne’s statements with evidence from existing research about low
-
income individuals and
families. The authors conclude

that “Payne’s truth claims, offered without any supporting
evidence, are contradicted by anthropological, sociological and other research on poverty.”
They suggest that teachers operating on such misinformed claims are likely to have low
expectations of p
oor children.


Teachers College Record

offers readers an opportunity to post responses to articles. The
responses to the Bomer et al. article give a flavour of the strong feelings of practitioners who
have been involved with FW4UP. Here are a few examples
, all from teachers or others involved
in education, often providing a perspective from practice that is very different from the
perspective of the academic critical theorists:


Although this article presents a very well
-
researched critique of Ruby Payne’s

“Framework of Poverty” (sic) I think it is unduly harsh; the article does not acknowledge
that Ruby Payne provides the opportunity for dialogue about children living in poverty
and her workshops promote empathy and encourage teachers to connect to student
s.


In contrast to the authors’ implication that Payne stereotypes the poor in a negative way,
one leaves a Payne workshop sensing that the poor have great strengths and that we
should all be working in our communities to help remove the environmental bar
riers that
keep many from rising out of poverty.


I heard Ruby Payne speak to hundreds of educators earlier this year and, although her
observations did not resonate with me and I found many of her conclusions
objectionable, she had a remarkable ability to

foster empathy, especially among
educators who did not have personal or family experience of poverty. Her workshops
also emphasize the difference a teacher can make in the life of a child.


Before Ruby Payne came along, where were the opportunities to lea
rn about the impact
of poverty on students’ educational achievement?
1


The academic criticism of Payne is well
-
founded but I really wonder who is making more
of a positive impact on children’s lives? Maybe Ruby Payne.



An article in the
New York Times Ma
gazine

(Tough, 2007), provides further evidence of the
strong appeal of Ruby Payne to educators dealing with children in disadvantaged
circumstances. Tough relates how, in a session of 1400 educators in the state of Georgia, “one
audience member after anot
her told their own stories about class and education; teachers
usually related how Payne’s books had helped them understand their students and themselves.”


There is some basis for the charge that academic critics have dismissed Payne’s work without
sugge
sting practical alternatives for schools and teachers who are urgently looking for ways to



1

Practitioners may lack awareness of the research literature on poverty; with longstanding evidence of the
relationship between socio
-
economic level and educational

achievement. Such research, however, is usually
published in academic journals, which are unlikely to be read by those in the field.

14/07/2008





6

help children from the most disadvantaged communities succeed. One such article, for instance
(Ng & Rury, 2006), concludes by stating that “much additional research
will be necessary before
effective programmes of professional assistance [for teachers and schools] can or should be
undertaken.” Many in schools see such evasion as irresponsibility


a generation of children
cannot wait. The ideological positions of some

academic critics suggest that

even evidence of
improvements in children’s literacy and numeracy might not quell their objections to FW4UP.

2: Methodology

When Reading Local Authority launched the pilot project to test out the potential and
applicability
of Ruby Payne’s
A Framework for Understanding Poverty
, the Authority also
commissioned a programme evaluation of the pilot, funded by The Sutton Trust. The original
idea had been to compare pupil outcomes in schools participating in the training with pupil

outcomes in a matched group of schools not participating. However, this plan was not feasible
given the nature of the training, the participant group and the resources available. The plan for
the evaluation was modified to better suit the context, in part
icular the fact that many of the
participants in the training were not actually classroom teachers. As well, the exploratory nature
of the project required a more flexible evaluation designed to help the authority decide whether
Payne’s approach had suffic
ient merit to justify further training and implementation throughout
Reading.


The evaluation used a combination of qualitative and quantitative methods


a written
questionnaire sent to participants in November, followed by two rounds of on
-
site visits to

schools and early years centres (November/December and June). During the on
-
site visits, we
conducted follow
-
up interviews with headteachers, teachers and staff who had attended the
training, and where possible did classroom observations of teachers worki
ng with pupils.


Of the 63 attendees in the 2
-
day training session, 34 agreed to participate in the evaluation
exercise. Of these, 14 (from 11 sites) have actively participated by responding to the
questionnaire and agreeing to be interviewed. In the ligh
t of these numbers, caution is
necessary in interpreting the results of the evaluation; we have data only from about 25% of the
original group, and we do not know how representative the views of this subset are. In
particular, we caution that those who agr
eed to the extra time and effort involved in the
evaluation may well have been those who responded more positively to the training than did
their colleagues. Efforts were made to get feedback from a larger proportion of the attendees.
Through the authority
, we hoped to send a brief survey to all the participants, to counter over
-
reliance on the small and perhaps non
-
representative sample. For a variety of logistical
reasons, however, this broader data gathering was not possible.


The questionnaire asked re
spondents for:



Perceived value of FW4UP training



Planned changes to practice (if any)



Self
-
assessment of understanding and implementation of FW4UP principles



Identification of pupils meeting FW4UP criteria



Brief case description of one identified pupil


D
uring the Autumn Term 2007, visits were made to ten sites


two early years’ centres catering
for children from 0
-
5, two infant schools catering for 5 to 7 year olds and six primary schools
serving 5 to 11 year olds. The focus was on perceived benefits and

limitations of the FW4UP
training, early implementation/dissemination, and possible applicability to specific children
(following up responses to the questionnaire), We interviewed participants and observed
14/07/2008





7

classrooms or other interactions with pupils/chi
ldren. The plan was modified in cases where
such observations would be either impossible or inappropriate, for instance with headteachers
not working in classrooms or centre staff working with parents; we did 9 observations.


In the February interim repor
t, we reported on data collected in the Autumn term 2007. Our
interim findings suggested that participants had found the training to be powerful in raising
awareness and deepening appreciation for the challenges faced by many children and families
in their

school communities. Headteachers and teachers reported the FW4UP gave them
greater understanding; there was, however, little evidence that those who attended the training
were implementing strategies or ideas that had been suggested or that they were yet
disseminating FW4UP across the school.


Reading Local Authority, responding to requests from schools and supported by our interim
report, launched a second round of training midway through the Summer term (late May).


In June 2008, we completed site visi
ts to ten sites, interviewing headteachers and teachers/staff
who had attended the first training session. We also spoke to two headteachers in the
participating schools who had not attended the first training session; in one case the head
attended the sec
ond training session in May.


The second round of on
-
site interviews focused on:



End of pilot assessment of FW4UP and impact on participant/school



Examples of implementation and changing practice



Report on tracking of individual children



Suggestions of h
ow Reading LA could best support centres/schools in addressing needs
of children from generational poverty


As noted above, the original plan for the evaluation included consideration of pupil data. The
modified design included teachers tracking identified

pupils in the months following the training.
The plan was for relevant outcome data on these pupils to be provided by Reading LA. During
the June site visits, however, we found that several of the identified children had moved


young
children moved from
Nursery to Reception or older children had left the school. This
unfortunately meant the number of pupils tracked, for whom Reading might supply additional
data, was so small as to be meaningless for any evaluation purposes, although still useful for
showi
ng how teachers might be applying FW4UP ideas.


The final report reflects findings from the full year of data.

3. Evaluation Findings

The FW4UP Training

The two
-
day training was attended by 63 professionals from the local authority; most were from
schools
but also attending were representatives from early years’ centres, adult education and
various branches of school support services. Most had heard about it through an invitation from
the Director of Children’s Services. Many were unclear about what to expe
ct at the time and
some thought there was a danger that it might feed stereotyping or be
‘one
-
dimensional’.
2

Nevertheless, the prospect of the training was attractive because it appeared to be focussed on
some of the key challenges in an authority serving
large numbers of children from



2

Such concerns echo those of academic critiques of FW4UP, as noted in the introductory sections of this report.

14/07/2008





8

disadvantaged circumstances. Participants hoped that the training would help them understand
and relate better to families and improve the behaviour management of children. Several also
saw it as an important gesture by the l
ocal authority in recognising, as genuine, a problem faced
by many schools:


[The training was an] explicit recognition that the nature and competence of the school
population was an issue…not just a matter of working harder to do better but working
diffe
rently….
FW4UP

seemed to be putting these particular needs on the agenda with
the prospect of developing teaching and learning strategies…the training appealed
because it seemed to fit well with the school’s approach and ethos…good that it was
recognised o
vertly as a real challenge and [we] hoped it would help to articulate some
principles and practices.


Several senior staff came as lone representatives, saying they wanted to assess the worth of
the training for wider dissemination. They were not prepared
to invest heavily in the programme
until they had some idea about what it offered. In retrospect, many said they wished they had
brought some of their colleagues to share the insights. During the second round of site visits, in
June 2008, we found that sev
eral heads had acted on this conclusion, sending teams of several
staff members to the second training session provided by the local authority in late May.


The
FW4UP

training took place over two days. Day 1 explained the rationale and principles
underlyin
g the framework with particular attention to the characteristics of families and children
from backgrounds of generational poverty and how these might manifest themselves in schools.
The main ideas included:



explicit teaching of the ‘hidden rules’ of middl
e class and school cultures
(Payne 2005
ch.3)



functions and uses of different ‘voices’ for negotiating relationships and intervention
(
Payne 2005

pp.82
-
86)



providing effective role models and emotional resources (
Payne 2005
ch.5)



anticipating and respondin
g to challenging behaviour e.g. hostility, rudeness,
aggression, inappropriate behaviour, misinterpretation of teacher instructions or
expectations (
Payne 2005

ch.7)



teaching the use of formal linguistic registers: their features and functions, and when to

adopt them.
(Payne 2005 ch.2)



development and uses of narrative (story structures) in helping children to structure,
connect and relate experience (
Payne 2005 ch. 2)



the significance of meta
-
language to help children conceptualise and talk about what
they

are learning (
Payne 2005 ch. 8)



explicit teaching of learning strategies such as planning, self
-
talk, task organization and
structuring to manage time and tasks


Day 2 was intended to focus on the practical implications with advice about assessment,
teach
ing approaches, strategies and resources for learning; helping students to ‘bridge the gap’
between their expectations and those of the school. The plan for the training was based on use
of a Payne workbook, Learning Structures Modules 8
-
13, during the sec
ond day. At the Autumn
training session, however, the delivery of the workbooks was delayed, so participants received
the workbooks after the completion of the training, a delay that caused problems for
participants. For the second training session, the wo
rkbooks were available for reference
throughout.


14/07/2008





9

No formal follow up or continuing support had been organized at the time of the training.
However, following the training, Reading LA requested two heads who had participated in the
session to facilitate re
gular meetings of participants to provide ongoing support as they explored
and worked with the FW4UP principles and strategies. A small but committed group met on
several occasions, reportedly finding the interaction to be supportive and helpful in thinkin
g
about how FW4UP might support efforts in schools serving disadvantaged families and
communities.

Schools and Centres in FW4UP Evaluation: Context and Background

As noted in the Methodology section, ten settings were included in the evaluation, two early
years centres, two infant schools and six primary schools. All the schools and centres visited
were located within a 10 mile radius of the centre of Reading. Many of the heads and teachers
were experienced and well
-
practised in relating to families and the

local community. Some
schools were networked with others and most shared ideas and practices within the school.
Schools and centres all offered various forms of extended day provision, ranging from breakfast
and after school clubs to specific out of schoo
l support and activities for children and families. In
some, particularly the early years centres, special attention was given to working with families to
induct and introduce new arrivals and to support families when children started school. Many
schools
had one or more additional staff with some responsibility for family liaison. Some had
programmes of home visiting to support, advise and follow up on problems.


The socio
-
economic profiles of the catchments served by the 10 schools varied considerably. Al
l
but one had some proportion of children who matched the generational poverty criteria set out in
the
FW4UP

i.e. not only were they economically poor but that this poverty was associated with
or a cause of, other limiting factors such as goals and aspirat
ions, learning strategies, language
development, behaviour and relationships, which affected children’s abilities to progress and
succeed in school.


In this sample, the majority of children identified by schools as meeting the
FW4UP

criteria
came from wh
ite working class backgrounds. Typically, their families had histories of
unemployment or non
-
employment over at least a generation. Frequently, they lived in rented
accommodation with some history of family disruption. Mobility was high as parents moved
h
ouse or changed their children’s schools, but often within a confined locality. Families tended
to be extended. For example mothers may have lived in the same area since childhood, with
one or more grandparents or other relatives nearby advising or support
ing in various ways. The
following comments, taken from site visits, are illustrative:


…around 60% of our children live in generational poverty. Many come from extended
families, granny is often the key figure; families lead ‘day
-
to
-
day existences with li
ttle
planning, trapped in the pressures of the instant’; typical characteristics include, lack of
confidence about coming into schools, parents ‘…treating their children like babies


almost like they were still part of themselves’, needing to be wanted, o
ften feeling
powerless to change children’s behaviour, having to go with the child…give in and do
what they demand…’


…the most disadvantaged group is predominantly poor white children; high mobility,
family disruption, domestic violence, young, alienated
and isolated parents in need of
support, poor educational and literacy skills in the home;


14/07/2008





10

…we recognise
FW4UP

characteristics of generational poverty in the families we serve,
e.g. aggression and anxiety in the face of simple challenges, parents who find

it hard to
look ahead or even plan simple things like getting to a hospital appointment, or paying
lunch money.


However, applying these criteria is not a simple matter; heads in particular stressed the need for
schools to avoid prejudging and stereotypi
ng children. The relative poverty or social class of
families was not necessarily a key indicator of educational deprivation. A significant proportion
of economically poor families were very supportive and aspiring with strong family values and a
keen inte
rest in the education of their children, who were progressing well. Equally, some more
affluent families did not support their children and, while not poor, still met some of the other
criteria in the
FW4UP
. Applying the
FW4UP

criteria across this small sa
mple produced very
different combinations of characteristics. It is essential that schools understand the deeper
criteria in the Framework when making judgements about how best to support children. As one
headteacher observed:


…many of our families are po
or. They live in rented and over
-
crowded housing but
many, particularly Asian and East European families have high aspirations and support
their children strongly; 26 languages are spoken in the school. Nevertheless, there is a
tendency for high aspiring p
arents to migrate to more affluent areas where schools have
higher attainment and access to good quality secondary education, depleting the ability
pool particularly at the upper end of the school.


FW4UP is not intended to address all forms of challengin
g behaviour or educational
disadvantage. FW4UP is intended to apply to families and children in generational poverty, not
to all situations when children are not achieving or behaving appropriately.

Perceived Strengths and Weaknesses of the FW4UP Training

The structure of
FW4UP

was seen as a major strength in the training. Many participants found
the framework a powerful means of identifying and explaining problems, and generating
possible solutions. A third of participants said the ideas in
FW4UP

were new

and exciting


…we were aware of and could recognise issues but FW4UP pulled it all together


a
light bulb moment!

We recognised the insights, anecdotes and some of the practical
solutions and thought ‘
Why hadn’t we thought of that?’ We wanted to write i
t all down.
We were buzzing …wanted to pursue ideas and start straight away…


The majority felt that the ideas were more familiar but still valued the framework as a clear
means of structuring and explicating them.


…it was good to have principles articul
ated to help organise our thinking
-

also confirming
…lots of disparate things we already do to support children are interlinked and the
FW4UP helped us to see connections.


…it was refreshing to receive training that didn’t focus on ethnic groups/boys etc

and
recognized that everyone is as equally important as others and that the hidden rules run
through every culture.


The leading idea of ‘hidden rules’ challenged teachers’ assumptions. Typical comments
included:

14/07/2008





11


…gaining a much deeper insight into gener
ational poverty and a better understanding of
how we have to adapt our way of working with these families, if we are to have any
chance of reaching them. Ultimately, we then give them the choice rather than their
futures being pre
-
determined by the ‘trap’
they are in.


Some participants reported that insights from the training helped them manage their
relationships with children and families with greater understanding and tolerance, and to deal
with discipline in a more objective way.


...it really change
d our perceptions of the children and parents and helped us make
better sense of some parents’ behaviour. This gave us more confidence in how to
respond to hostility, inconsistent, sometimes bizarre behaviour. We still need to be clear
about rules and limi
ts but now we understand importance of quick up
-
front responses
without grudge; correction without blame; slate wiped clean… followed by positive
inclusive responses from teacher.


…consciously thinking about children, what their experience means and how t
o interpret
behaviour. It doesn’t mean you need to go soft on discipline but you try a more
understanding approach just being firm.


In the course of both days the trainer made reference to video examples of family life and used
anecdotes to illustrate sim
ple strategies for dealing with difficult situations. Participants found
these practical examples relevant and helpful. Some had taken these ideas back to their
schools or settings and begun to use them. Illustrative comments include the following:


… exa
mples about hidden rules, especially the video which gave eye
-
opening insights
into home
-
life and, despite different context, chimed well with the characteristics of
families we recognise


The concept of ‘voices’ (child, parent, adult) was a neat and effec
tive way of
conceptualizing something we understood intuitively and should help teachers to get
more objectivity and emotional distance from highly charged situations to be more
effective in dealing with them


In most people’s views, Day 1 was extremely su
ccessful. Day 2, however, was much less so.
Some participants had missed Day 1 which meant that part of the second day had to be
devoted to revision and so lost impetus.


The second day was not as useful. The afternoon … dragged and diminished my
enthusia
sm …far too rushed and full. I do not feel that I have assimilated those concepts
and do not feel in a position to implement any strategies from this part of the course...


Some found Day 2 frustrating after expectations had been raised on the first day ‘
…we had
defined the challenges, but needed more help with the solutions…’ Participants thought that the
practical examples used were not linked to UK schools, policies or priorities. As well, such
practical examples were too often related to children of di
fferent ages and school phases to
those taught by participants. “We had not enough time to think things through and work out our
own solutions.” “There was insufficient attention to how implementation might be managed by
schools.” Finally, at the first tra
ining session, the absence of the workbooks designed to support
Day 2 input added to the frustration of participants.

14/07/2008





12

Implementation of FW4UP Training

Support for Implementation

Studies of the implementation of various education initiatives have shown tha
t if training is to
have an impact on pupil behaviour or learning, several things need to happen. First, training
must go beyond raising awareness; participants must commit to action and be ready to begin
changing their practice. Second, participants need
support as they begin to implement their new
learning in their school/centre settings. Such support could come from colleagues or from
external consultants or coaches; ideally it would come from both. Third, participants should
participate in training and
implementation as school teams rather than just as individuals.
Whereas sending a single individual back into an unchanged school environment makes
implementation difficult, the “lateral capacity building” that comes from colleagues working
together foster
s implementation of new learning.


For FW4UP, the expectation was that a headteacher or teacher who attended the training would
“cascade” or disseminate the information to others in the school. Such cascade approaches,
however, are weak implementation str
ategies, as shown in England for instance in some of the
early work of the National Literacy and Numeracy Strategies (Earl et al., 2004). Cascades can
be useful in building awareness but are less effective in changing practice, particularly if new
skills a
re required.


To support implementation, the Local Authority created a networking group of participants under
the leadership of two headteachers which would meet periodically over the course of the school
year to share ideas and practices. No other dedicat
ed support or follow
-
through was planned
and it was left for schools to decide for themselves, how and whether FW4UP work would be
disseminated and implemented in their schools. The group met sporadically throughout the
year; although only a few participan
ts attended, these few found it helpful. When the two
headteachers suggested disbanding, on the grounds that the meetings had served their
purpose and attendance had dropped, the group disagreed, strongly indicating a wish to
continue.


During the pilot ye
ar, only a few participants felt that they had access to any other form of
ongoing support in implementing FW4UP strategies. However, participant views on the value of
external support were mixed. While most thought it could be valuable as a way of embeddi
ng
the training at a whole school level, only a third thought that a consultant to support and observe
in the classroom would help them implement what they had learned in the FW4UP training.
3


While all had opportunities to work with colleagues in schools
and settings, most thought it
would be helpful to have more opportunities to share and develop their thinking and practice,
and to discuss with colleagues how they were using FW4UP. The challenge was how to
orchestrate and provide more support for implemen
tation.

Progress and Constraints

While participants took differing perspectives from the training, the group who agreed to
participate in the evaluation were prepared to try implementing the ideas. Two thirds of
participants chose to focus on improving beh
aviour management and relationships (hidden



3

It is n
ot clear just why participants rejected the idea of such support; considerable evidence points to the value of
on
-
site support for implementing and refining new skills However, the egalitarian (and to some extent private)
culture of teaching remains strong
; reliance on external “expertise” may be perceived as counter to the existing
culture.

14/07/2008





13

rules) while one third focused on aspects of learning strategies, e.g. helping children to plan,
teaching uses of more formal language, language enrichment, the uses of story and narrative
structure. While the tr
aining had raised awareness and provided potential foci for teachers, it
was less helpful in suggesting how new learning might be implemented. At the time of the first
site visit, intentions and plans were vague and not clearly articulated.


In the on
-
site

interviews and in the questionnaires, teachers expressed high aspirations for
children, focused in the main on enabling them to become more independent and better
motivated to learn with more self
-
control and self
-
esteem. Teachers emphasized the importanc
e
of relationships in schools and with families. All saw challenging behaviour as a barrier to
learning and saw the teaching of learning behaviours as the key to success, for example:


We want our children to be able to:



act without being prompted



be able

to sequence operations independently



take responsibility for their own learning



describe the process they have just undertaken


Most thought that FW4UP practices could be integrated into their teaching without unduly
increasing workload, although a third
of respondents thought that implementing FW4UP would
be difficult given existing demands on schools. Everyone expected the implementation of
FW4UP principles to improve the behaviour and attitudes of children in their schools or settings
and that this had
the potential to improve children’s progress and achievement.


Participants were asked (in the questionnaire) to rate how confident they were about their
understanding of the following ideas, central to the FW4UP:



KEY IDEAS AND PRACTICES IN FW4UP


P1

E
xplicit teaching of the ‘hidden rules’ of middle class and school cultures (FW4UP
捨⸳c

P2

Functions and uses of different ‘voices’ for negotiating relationships and intervention
Ect4rm 捨K㜠灰K㠲
J
㠶F

P3

Providing effective role models and emotional

res
ources (FW4UP ch.5)

P4

Anticipating and responding to challenging behaviour (hostility, rudeness, aggression,
inappropriate behaviour, misinterpretation of teacher instructions or expectations)
(FW4UP ch.7)

P5

Teaching the use of formal linguistic regist
ers: their features and functions, and when
to adopt them. (FW4UP ch.2)

P6

Development and uses of narrative (story structures) in helping children to structure,
connect and relate experience

P7

The significance of meta
-
language to help children conceptu
alise and talk about what
they are learning

P8

Explicit teaching of learning strategies such as planning, self
-
talk, task organization
and structuring to manage time and tasks


Participants were then asked to rate their ability to implement these central

ideas. The
responses showed that while participants were quite confident about their level of
14/07/2008





14

understanding, they expressed greater ambivalence about their capacity to implement such
ideas and strategies.


These key concepts seemed to fall into two broad
groups:



those concerned with behaviour and relationships e.g. responding to aggression or other
kinds of inappropriate behaviour by parents and children (P1


4)



those focussed more on learning strategies which demanded changes in pedagogy and,
in most ca
ses some understanding of language (P5


8).


To improve children’s learning, concepts related to learning strategies and pedagogy are likely
to have greater value than those concerned with behaviour. However, teachers expressed less
confidence about thei
r understanding of these potentially more powerful pedagogical ideas and
significant uncertainty about implementing them with children.


Self-assessment of teachers' understanding of FW4UP
principles
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
P1
P2
P3
P4
P5
P6
P7
P8
strong
average
weak


Self-assessment of teachers' confidence to implement FW4UP
principles
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
P1
P2
P3
P4
P5
P6
P7
P8
strong
average
weak


Most participants felt that they could apply the FW4UP principles to help them understand and
manage behaviour
and relationships more effectively, and all agreed that this would be a
significant contribution to improving the conditions for learning among the most disadvantaged
children.


By the time of the second site visit, when teachers and heads reported on the
ir work with
children and families, we saw considerable evidence of more conscious and deliberate use of
some of these behavioural principles, focused on interactions with parents and with pupils. In
many of our conversations, respondents gave examples of
how FW4UP had given them greater
insight and also suggested specific responses to behaviours they might previously have found
puzzling or challenging:


Some of the examples of interventions were also easy to adopt especially discussing
reasons and expectat
ions with children who behave inappropriately:
What did you want
when you did that? What did you expect to happen?

Why do you think it didn’t work out?


…small practical points like stepping towards hostile parents rather than stepping back
-

standing your

ground.


However, the claims and implications of
FW4UP

go beyond behaviour. While learning how to
behave is useful adaptive behaviour, enabling children to cope with the demands of the
14/07/2008





15

classroom and reducing the stress of difficult behaviour on everyone
else, the major benefits to
children’s progress and success in schools come through teaching them to learn more
effectively. In this respect, principles 5


8 above are potentially most valuable but also much
more challenging. Participants showed less conf
idence overall about these principles, and a
greater gap between their awareness and their confidence to apply them in practice. These
principles, which align well with the aims and precepts of the Primary National Strategy in
England,
Excellence and Enjoy
ment

(DfES 2003), were the least well explained on Day 2 of the
training in both Autumn and Summer sessions.


In at least a few schools, however, there was evidence of FW4UP sparking a fresh approach to
teaching language and literacy. During the second sit
e visit, for instance, one headteacher (who
had attended with a colleague) explained:


I don’t know why I didn’t realize it before but after FW4UP I [thought about formal and
casual language and] realized that we teach formal language far too late. Year 5
is too
late to transition to formal language and writing. So we decided to focus on casual and
formal language from Foundation Stage through Key Stage 2. We were not prescriptive,
but encouraged teachers to do this in different ways.

Dissemination to Colle
agues

At the time of the first site visits, few participants had made or planned any systematic
dissemination of the training, although there had been some informal, and largely positive,
discussion among colleagues in most of the schools and settings vis
ited.
Some had attended
the training in pairs but others came as lone representatives. Dissemination was stronger in
schools/centres where more than one person attended, though overall, it was not strong in any
of the schools or settings.
Most

respondents
felt that they needed more training before starting
to teach strategies proposed in
FW4UP

training
. It was one thing to be trained and benefit
individually from the insights but that ‘…does not necessarily equip us to train others.’ Several
commented on th
e high quality of the trainer and how important it was for all staff to receive that
level of input. There was also awareness of the hazards of passing on the big ideas on in
attenuated and insufficiently reflective ways. At the same time, almost everyone
felt that their
colleagues would benefit from the training, and there was widespread support for the view that it
would be more effective as a whole
-
school initiative, delivered to all the staff, including teaching
assistants, extended day staff, meals sup
ervisors etc., as a part of ongoing school development.


It would be wonderful if the training were available to whole staff, via an INSET day,
rather than a few teachers cascading the training (especially since they may have had
very little experience of

trialing the ideas, so are not coming from an experience base).


An additional challenge to implementation was the timing of the initial training, at the beginning
of a school year, schools and settings were already in the course of implementing developme
nt
plans. FW4UP was seen as a potentially useful approach, but schools could not see how to
connect it with existing plans and priorities. The timing of the second round of training (late May)
may make it easier for schools to incorporate FW4UP into their
plans.


For at least some of the schools/early years centres, however, as the year progressed, the
relevance of the FW4UP training became more salient. When the local authority offered the
second round of training, at least two of the participating sites s
ent a second team, adding to the
“critical mass” of FW4UP
-
informed staff. Having had many months to think though FW4UP, the
senior management teams in several centres saw an opportunity to build on the initial
foundation; planning school
-
wide efforts for 2
008
-
2009, with a solid core of staff trained in a
14/07/2008





16

high
-
quality programme. Such an opportunity overcame the dangers and limitations of a
“cascade” relying on lightly trained staff to train others. In another school, the headteacher
noted:


FW4UP took on a l
ife of its own


both [teacher] and I were inspired. In the past teachers
would go off and do something but there was no lasting impact. This has been different:
at each staff meeting, teachers report to colleagues on how they are teaching formal
language,

for instance, using weather forecasts, debates


they are “seizing the
moment.”

Implementation: End of Pilot

The second round of site visits, in June, revealed substantial progress with implementation.
Participants reported on their work with more confide
nce and with greater sense of
“connectedness” between FW4UP and other efforts in the school. Interviews reflected a genuine
belief on the part of headteachers and teachers that FW4UP had “made a difference”.


Evidence from the follow
-
up visits confirmed th
at the training affected participants at different
levels as follows:


1.

Awareness
-
raising

and insight (the “aha!” experience) into the lives of those in generational
poverty. In particular, we heard about practical insights in how to conduct relations with
parents who were sometimes very challenging and unpredictable. These practical
suggestions sometimes involved strategies learned through anecdotes in the training e.g.
stepping up to rather than backing down from aggression, staying calm helping hostile
pa
rents to take a pause to break the tension. In other cases, the insights had helped
teachers to control their own emotions better. By understanding more about what drove
challenging behaviours and beginning to understand something of the ‘logic’ behind
oth
erwise incomprehensible reactions, many heads and teachers reported that they could
be more objective about, and take more emotional distance from, situations that previously
would have been emotionally stressful and caused personal offence. This was widel
y
reported as a positive benefit and many thought that the training, through enabling this
change in attitude and understanding had, of itself, proved the worth of the investment.
There was a palpable sense in some schools of greater confidence and less st
ress among
staff about how to relate to parents. Most spoke in one way or another about greater
empathy. While this may not have any immediate or measurable impact on children’s
achievement, it was for most participants, fundamental.


2.

Managing behaviour:
T
here were also widely reported benefits for teachers in managing
children’s behaviour. For example, (a) helping children reflect on what they had done and
what they wanted to achieve, (b) explicit teaching of appropriate language to avoid conflict
or insul
ting others, (c) teaching children to think through alternatives and plan actions.
Although these strategies had no immediate or measurable impact on standards and
achievement they did, in the opinion of teachers, help children to integrate and relate bett
er
to others It supported their learning through improving cooperation, concentration and self
-
control. This second level impact, combined with the insights of the first, was viewed by
most participants as highly beneficial. Not only had it helped refine t
heir practice but it
increased their own ‘emotional intelligence’ and their ability to handle tough challenges with
greater confidence and less personal stress. These consequences were strongly rated by
all.



14/07/2008





17

3.

Language
-
related teaching and learning strateg
ies, for example:



teaching the use of formal linguistic registers: their features and functions, and when to
adopt them.



development and uses of narrative (story structures) in helping children to structure,
connect and relate experience



using meta
-
languag
e to help children conceptualise and talk about what they are
learning



using meta
-
language to help children conceptualise and talk about what they are
learning.


Although these elements were a focus of the second day of training, they had a relatively
slig
ht impact compared with the other two levels because the second day of training gave
only passing attention to these deeper implications. Most participants felt the input was too
cursory and many did not understand the practical implications well enough to

take them on
in their schools. One HT commented that the training, while valuable, helped to understand
challenges but not how to deal with them she said ‘…it’s a bit like having a Ferrari but not
being able to get out of first gear…’


One conclusion emer
ging from the above is the significance of the
concept

of generational
poverty. Because, for the most part, social disadvantage is defined in relation to economic
indicators, the distinction between ‘…relatively supportive and aspiring parents who don’t ha
ve
any money…’, as one HT put it, and those who live in a different world is obscured by general
economic definitions of poverty such as ‘free school meals’.


In Reading these characteristics appear to be most strongly, though not exclusively, associated
with white working
-
class families. For most teachers, because these families are local,
indigenous and English speaking, they present a particular challenge.
Political correctness and
a proper concern about equality and valuing cultural differences can com
bine to intensify rather
than ameliorate disadvantage. It can lead teachers to assume that the values and aspirations of
schools, and the language in which they are embedded, must be common and transparent to
parents and children,
when in practice they are

very different. These families are frequently the
most alienated, challenging and recalcitrant group but their needs are often the hardest for
teachers to define. For most participants, the ‘Aha’ experience was strongest in relation to this
group.


Earlie
r concerns that drawing attention to these differences might encourage stereotyping and
prejudice appear to be unfounded among this sample of practitioners all of whom found the
ideas helpful and said that they were sensitised to the hazards of jumping too

easily to
conclusions about the effects children’s family backgrounds and economic circumstances.


Most headteachers placed special value on the legitimacy and authority they felt the FW4UP
provided. ‘…it gave me the right to insist with teachers and tea
ching assistants that they would
respond in common ways.’ Many participants described how they had changed or adapted their
strategies in ways they were convinced, had positive impacts on children’s behaviour and
learning. For example:



ensuring that 5 minu
tes per day were spent in conversation with each individual



helping children discuss choices they had made, or might make: ‘…what were you
trying

to do/get/make happen?’ ‘…what did you think would happen?’ ‘…what else could you
have done?’ etc., to make de
cisions ‘smarter’ and more in children’s own interests



helping children develop self
-
control and strategies for anger management

14/07/2008





18



specific strategies to avoid or resolve conflict with adults and children e.g. teaching
children what to say when confronted ra
ther than just ‘…flying off the handle.’



‘…translating home language into school language.’ e.g. teaching a five year
-
old what to
say instead of ‘you’re an arsehole…’ whenever she responded to instructions or
directions.



dealing in more measured, confident

and relaxed ways with challenging behaviour e.g.
looking at the ceiling instead of eyeballing children, taking a break, distracting attention,
using humour, and getting better at anticipating and avoiding tricky situations before they
cascade into serious

confrontations



helping children to plan and organise, especially using visual strategies in various ways,
e.g. pictures or simple texts on the wall or a card, that could be put in sequence and
checked off in the course a task or activity. One teacher obse
rved ‘…this was really
helpful in getting him to internalise simple processes that previously just fell apart after
the first move.’



using metaphorical stories to distance children from the contexts of their own difficulties
and help them think more object
ively about options and alternatives



using humour to relieve tension, avoid confrontation or distract



being positive and staying calm in crises.


Although these strategies were not particularly new to anyone, the training brought previously
unconnected ide
as together and, by providing a coherent, common language, had a focussing
and multiplying effect.

Tracking Pupil Progress

As indicated earlier, the original evaluation design included plans to assess the outcomes of the
FW4UP training by tracking pupil pr
ogress. For a variety of reasons, this proved to be
impossible for the pilot but should be included in any longer term monitoring of FW4UP.


The evaluation questionnaire (completed in November 2007) asked participants to indicate how
many children in their

classes met the general definitions of children in poverty in the FW4UP.
The majority estimated between 30% and 40 % of children with whom they worked met the
FW4UP criteria, confirming that FW4UP would be relevant for working in these schools


Teachers w
ere asked to identify up to five children with whom they worked, to focus on in the
course of the year. Not all were able to do this for a variety of reasons. Some were
headteachers and did not work regularly with the same children. In other cases, for exa
mple, in
one early years centre, the head had elected to work with families rather than individuals. In all,
40 children across the age range 4


11 years were identified, and from this group, ten teachers
selected one child each as a particular case
-
study

focus. The plan was for case study children
to be tracked by their teachers over the course of the school year. However, several factors
prevented such data contributing to the evaluation. The number of teachers and children was
small, teachers did not ex
press a high degree of confidence or clarity about implementing
FW4UP principles, and there was no formally agreed strategy (or allocated time) for recording in
such detail. June site visits revealed even more challenges, with several of the identified
chi
ldren having left the programmes and thus no longer available for tracking. In the end, the
tracking results were useful for clarifying teacher strategies and perceived outcomes for pupils,
but not for statistical purposes.


In the long run, the test of th
e worth of FW4UP will be whether its implementation improves
pupil outcomes. Teachers participating in the evaluation agreed to assess children’s progress in
14/07/2008





19

the expectation that such work might provide a basis for further development should the
Authority
decide to launch FW4UP on a broader scale, when pupil outcomes would need to be
monitored to assess the impact of such a system intervention. Participant suggestions of
possible assessment tools for future tracking included:



National Curriculum and Founda
tion Stage tests and teacher assessments



a verbal questionnaire about book sharing, book experience and motivation with parents.



a school behaviour log which could provide evidence of progression over time.



EBD criteria from Qualifications and Curriculum
Authority (QCA)



a criterion
-
referenced scale on motivation, attitudes and application in the classroom



an annual ‘happiness survey’ which children respond to by saying how happy they are
on a self
-
assessment scale.

Evidence of Impact on Children

Notwithst
anding the lack of statistical data on children, considerable information was available
through the interviews. Follow
-
up site visits in June were made to three early years settings and
seven primary schools. In practice, no clear measurable outcomes were
available from the
interventions and none could be directly attributed to the FW4UP. This was a very small sample
and, even if measurable outcomes were available, they would be insufficiently reliable to report.
That said, in some schools there was very ef
fective practice which well exemplified the teaching
and learning implications of the Framework. These included:



teaching children systematic learning strategies



focussed assessment and monitoring



the effective teaching of reading where literacy was taken

as the key priority for raising
attainment, especially the uses of narrative to help children structure and relate
experience



teaching language structures and vocabulary to increase repertoires for describing,
explaining and justifying.


While
heads and
teachers saw the Framework insights as complementary and confirming, they
said that the practices were already embedded in the school’s agreed approaches and would
have been in place with our without the Framework.
Some children had made significant
academ
ic progress though no
-
one thought this could be directly attributed to the effects of the
training on their practice.


Participants reported that the impact of the training on students had been positive. The most
obvious effects had been on relationships a
nd behaviour and most participants commented that,
while this did not produce any measurable outcomes in terms of progress and attainment, the
effects mattered because they created conditions for more effective learning. Many commented
on the need for high
ly structured and consistent attention over a sustained period to create the
conditions for successful learning. Others made the point that these investments in children’s
progress were important but also fragile. When children move to another setting, a y
ear’s
sustained effort can be undermined in weeks through lack of awareness and inconsistency.


Two points stand out. Firstly, FW4UP is an important contributory factor but needs to be
complemented by practical classroom strategies underpinned by effectiv
e subject
-
related
pedagogies e.g. in the teaching of language and reading. Secondly, significant achievements
identified by teachers may look to an outsider like very small steps that, in other schools could
be taken for granted. The fact that these are no
t measured in national tests should not diminish
their significance.


14/07/2008





20

For example, one teacher described a difficult student making progress, who before the training,
would probably have been excluded from school. Several teachers spoke positively about th
eir
developing ability to manage learning by paying systematic attention to setting achievable goals
for students, helping them to plan and persist in achieving them. There were examples of
teachers teaching children explicit forms of language e.g. to chal
lenge and question without
causing offence, and of helping children with strategies to self
-
manage hostile and aggressive
behaviour. Another said that the whole school was more focussed on sharing information and
talking with children. In another school, t
he head and a senior teacher pointed to changes in
children’s learning behaviour and self
-
organisation as a result of using visual checklists provided
by the teacher. Another commented on the fact that a very difficult child had started to smile.


There w
as some evidence of children making good progress in reading. One boy advanced 10
months and a Year 2 girl who, at the start of the year could identify only four sounds is now
reading fluently at level 2B. The careful and vigilant approaches commended by F
W4UP had
contributed to these successes in the view of the school.


A further constructive consequence was that, in a number of cases, teachers recognised and
were more positive about children’s interests and abilities e.g. a highly disruptive bright boy w
ho
wanted to become a police dog
-
handler, was an aspiration constructively exploited by his
teacher.

4: Conclusions

Summary and Discussion of Findings

As a pilot project, Reading Local Authority provided two days of training on Ruby
Payne’s A
Framework fo
r Understanding Poverty
. Of the 63 participants, about 25% participated in the
evaluation; we have no evidence about the perceptions of the others. Respondents valued the
FW4UP training highly, particularly Day 1. Participants found the ideas understandabl
e and
helpful in legitimizing and organizing their perceptions of children whose families lived in
generational poverty. The resonance of the Framework for teachers, along with its clarity and
simplicity, is obviously a strength of the programme. There was

no evidence of the Framework
or the training fostering or sustaining inappropriate stereotypes about children or families in
poverty, contrary to concerns of some academic writers.


Following the first round of FW4UP training, a small group of schools/cen
tres was ready to
tackle implementation. Meetings facilitated by two headteachers provided some follow
-
up
support, much valued by the small but committed group who attended. Although the Local
Authority did not provide onsite support for implementation, in

schools or centres where more
than one person attended the training, colleagues provided substantial support to each other.

With the second round of training in May, several schools/centres now have the “critical mass”
necessary to move to school
-
wide im
plementation of FW4UP
-
informed initiatives.


Participants in the FW4UP pilot perceived real value in the training, reporting that they gained
fresh and revealing insights. The “aha!” experience


a “light bulb” of sudden awareness about
children coming fr
om poverty


is important, particularly as a “teachable moment” for
participants.


On its own, the “aha!” experience, however powerful, is not enough. Awareness alone does not
lead to changes in teaching behaviour or changes in pupil outcomes. Most partic
ipants focused
on the behavioural implications of the framework, recognising that improving behaviour could
14/07/2008





21

contribute to more effective learning. But the ultimate value of the
FW4UP

programme will
depend on its potential to close the achievement gap and m
ake a real difference to the
educational prospects of the most disadvantaged children, reaching beyond behaviour
management into the careful teaching of formal language and its uses, the forms and workings
of narrative structure, the uses of meta
-
language
and strategies for learning. While this is
explicitly part of the
FW4UP

agenda, it was also its weakest aspect in the context of Reading’s
schools.


Where the “aha!” experience sparks exploration and development of an increased repertoire of
effective teac
hing strategies, schools have a real opportunity to improve the lives of children.
Without such “going deeper” FW4UP may simply “confirm and reinforce what we are doing.” At
least a few of the pilot schools/early years centres used the “aha!” to revitalize

their work with
disadvantaged families and children, rethinking how they might go about doing this.


The positive response to
FW4UP

in Reading has led the local authority to plan further training,
some of which has already taken place. The interim finding
s from this evaluation, along with
research evidence about successful implementation of educational innovations, suggest how
Reading could refine and develop the authority’s work with FW4UP, with explicit connections to
current education practice in Englan
d, and practical strategies for raising attainment and closing
the achievement gap. With continued support from the LA, we assume that more
schools/centres will be ready to take on the challenges of implementing, rather than just
appreciating, FW4UP ideas.

Implications for Local Authority

Rationale for Field Testing FW4UP

In the light of the controversies and strong feelings about Ruby Payne and
A Framework for
Understanding Poverty
, what is the rationale for using Payne’s model to support schools in
addres
sing the needs of economically disadvantaged children in England? Certainly Payne’s
popularity attests to the urgently felt need to address the longstanding achievement gaps
related to socioeconomic status. Such urgency is now intensified, in England as el
sewhere, by
increased concerns about “closing the gap.”


Several arguments can be advanced to support further field testing to assess the value of
FW4UP in the context of Reading and similar communities in England.


First, many teachers substantiate the
claims from Payne and her associates that participating in
the training has led to an “aha!” experience. Heads and teachers agreed that Reading “has
done a brave thing by getting this issue into the open”, and facing up to the fact that a significant
minor
ity of their disadvantaged population may be cognitively as well as socially and
economically disadvantaged as a direct consequence of their family cultures. As a result, many
felt less isolated in

what

had previously been

rather intuitive perceptions and,

despite
uncertainty about

implications at the pedagogical level, FW4UP does seem to have created
conditions for open discussion and development

which had not previously existed. Participants
placed high value on this shift. Many said the training helped t
o reframe familiar challenges
within a common and accessible framework.
Agreement of this kind could give heads more
influence with their own staff because it confers legitimacy and authority. More fundamentally, it
has some potential as a basis for develo
ping a more explicit repertoire of common and
transferable practices and possibly for developing assessment/evaluation criteria for schools
who may be achieving significant success which is overlooked by the current testing and
inspection regimes.

14/07/2008





22


Second,

leaving aside
A Framework for Understanding Poverty
, many of the specific teaching
strategies Payne suggests, including explicit teaching of planning and task organization and the
use of graphic organizers, are useful teaching approaches. Similarly, the u
se of meta
-
language
can help children conceptualize what they are learning. Such strategies have been shown to
help all children, and should be added to the teaching repertoires of educators; they may be of
particular value in schools serving disadvantaged

pupils (although their use does not depend on
Payne’s framework).


Third, the programme is a relatively low cost way of reaching a large number of teachers and
schools.
Participants universally agreed that the LA should repeat the training and that it was

most valuable when all or most staff from a school could be involved. Day 1, which focussed on
understanding the FW4UP was widely applauded, while most thought that day 2 was of limited
value. Many also felt that the day 1 insights had not been sufficient
ly exploited by the LA,
though there were differences of view about how this might be done, Some thought that the LA
should recruit and train its own trainer who could offer the training more flexibly and at school
level. One suggested that the Day 1 train
ing, which was largely input from the trainer, could be
run for big audiences at a local theatre or conference centre. There was also widespread
support for the idea that the training, carefully presented to avoid stereotyping, could be part of
an inductio
n package for new teachers in schools where these challenges were likely to be met.
The two
-
day training is a manageable way of reaching many educators with moderate
commitments in terms of time and funding. However, a two
-
day training session on its own i
s
unlikely to lead to any significant change. Research on changing teaching practice shows that
follow
-
up support is necessary if teachers are to implement new strategies. Training
programmes and workshops can increase awareness of issues but changing teac
hing
behaviour requires practice, along with assistance, from colleagues or consultants, in working
through implementation challenges. This means some costs in addition to the costs of the two
-
day training session.

Pedagogical Challenges

Almost all partici
pants in this evaluation came from early years settings or primary schools
where, in general, an emphasis on enrichment, exploration, creativity and play are seen as vital.
Without diminishing the importance of these aims, a key feature of the most success
ful
parenting that easily goes unnoticed in schools, is the extent of the formulaic, didactic and
imitative learning experienced by young children. Many of the children described by the
teachers in this study lacked any experience of this kind and, when th
ey did get it, it was
inconsistent, authoritarian and most often related to the negative control of behaviour.


Frequently, teachers identified deficits in children’s knowledge of vocabulary, forms of
expression and basic language functions essential for
expression, thinking and communication
e.g. how to make polite requests, invite, decline, disagree, question; to describe simple
experiences in the present or narrate events in the past; to plan a simple sequence of actions or
predict an outcome. Such limi
tations are at least as serious as those that confront a second
language learner and confounded by the fact that the majority of the children described spoke
only English and were growing up in a culture where basic language of this kind was seldom
used. T
hese restrictions set a low threshold against what an individual can achieve and are
widely recognised as a significant block to progress. Most importantly, these things are very
unlikely to be learned effectively or rapidly through discovery and experienc
e alone. They need
to be explicitly taught, and consistently and extensively practised. For some teachers, especially
those in the Foundation Stage, this may appear to run counter to their aims and values.
Nevertheless, this explicit and often quite formul
aic teaching is characteristic of many of the
14/07/2008





23

successful interventions described by teachers, some of whom likened it to the relatively
didactic but enjoyable approaches recommended for teaching phonics in the literacy curriculum.


A further obvious point
is that, while many schools serve varying proportions of children who
meet the FW4UP criteria, some serve very high proportions indeed. There are differences in the
extent to which schools can support and ameliorate disadvantage where their intake is more
comprehensive because, handled sensitively, less advantaged children can benefit from the
ambience, learning culture and values of others. In some schools, however, there are few if any
role models of this kind and all that the children and teachers experi
ence are inconsistent and
often hostile behaviours brought in from the home. These schools face a particular challenge
which needs to be recognised and carefully supported. They may have too little critical mass to
tip them towards success. Heads and teach
ers often work very hard under great stress to
provide models and strategies for children and families, but feel they are swimming against a
tide of contradictory values, parental migration and teacher turnover, struggling to stave off the
threat of ‘speci
al measures’. FW4UP has considerable potential in these schools because its
approach is realistic and optimistic. Small steps in these schools may be like great strides in
others, and need to be carefully recognised
4
.


Nevertheless, arguments for caution
exist. Academic critics warn that the FW4UP may
unwittingly reinforce stereotypes about class differences, by suggesting that individuals can
move out of poverty by learning and living by the “hidden rules” of the middle class. In
marginalizing the influen
ce of political, social and economic contexts, the complexity of poverty
and disadvantage may be veiled. However, educators could use the Framework as a guide
without accepting it as a full, complete and accurate depiction of a community’s situation and
co
ntext. This is an empirical question that can only be answered by further field testing, and by
evaluating the outcomes of FW4UP training. A search of relevant literature and research
revealed no evidence of such stereotyping as a result of participating i
n FW4UP sessions, nor
did we find any evidence in our interviews with participants in the pilot training.


A Final Note

Reading Local Authority, in efforts to further improve its work with the most disadvantaged
children, has identified Payne’s work as ha
ving potential for improving the way schools and
teachers deal with such children. In beginning with a small pilot project, and commissioning an
objective evaluation of the pilot, the Authority has shown a willingness to explore options while
also relying
on evidence and feedback in making decisions about future use of
A Framework for
Understanding Poverty.
The findings of the pilot would support continued exploration in a
broader field test, with more systematic support for implementation and continued mon
itoring
and data collection to evaluate outcomes.


Our recommendations for doing this further field testing are summarised in the Executive
Summary at the beginning of this report.


A recent article by David Brooks in the New York Times (15 July 2008) su
ms up the wider policy
challenge and makes a fitting end note for this report,


We can strive to eliminate that multivariate thing we call poverty. We can take people out
of environments that (somehow) produce bad outcomes and try to immerse them into



4

In contrast to this general point, we note that one of the most challenged schools in this evaluation, Geoffrey Field
Infant School, has just achieved an ‘outstanding
’ grade in its recently published Ofsted inspection report.

14/07/2008





24

envi
ronments that (somehow) produce better ones. But we’re not close to understanding
how A leads to B, and probably never will be. This age of tremendous scientific
achievement has underlined an ancient philosophic truth


that there are severe limits
to what

we know and can know; that the best political actions are incremental, respectful
toward accumulated practice and more attuned to particular circumstances than
universal laws.


14/07/2008





25

5. References

Bernstein, B. (1971).
Class, codes and control
. London: Paladin
.


Blanden, J. & Machin, S. (2007).
Recent changes in intergenerational mobility in Britain
.
Report for The Sutton Trust. London: The Sutton Trust.


Bohn, A. (2006). A framework for understanding Ruby Payne.
Rethinking Schools
Online, 21

(2).


Bomer, R., D
worin, J., May, L., & Semingson, P. (2008). Miseducating teachers about
the poor: A critical analysis of Ruby Payne’s claims about poverty.
Teachers College
Record

Volume 110 Number 12, 2008, p.
-

http://www.
tcrecord.org

ID Number: 14591, Date Accessed: 7/15/2008 10:56:25 AM


DfES (2003)
Excellence and Enjoyment
-

a strategy for primary schools
, London:
Department for Education and Skills.


Earl, L., Levin, B., Watson, N., Leithwood, K., & Fullan, M. (2004).
Watching and
learning: Final report on England’s National Literacy and Numeracy Strategies.

London: Department for Education and Skills.


Economic Mobility Project. (2008).
Getting ahead or losing ground: Economic mobility in
America.

Washington: The Pew C
haritable Trusts.


Gorski, P. (2006). The classist underpinnings or Ruby Payne’s framework.
Teachers
College Record
. Available
http://www.tcrecord.org/content.asp?contendtid=12322
.


Jeff
eris, B.J., Power, C., & Hertzman, C. (2002). Birth weight, childhood socioeconomic
environment and cognitive development in the 1958 British birth cohort study.
British
Medical Journal, 325,
no.7359.


Jones, S. (2006).
Girls, social class, and literacy: W
hat teachers can do to make a
difference
. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.


Levin, B. (2007). Schools, poverty, and the achievement gap.
Phi Delta Kappan (89),

01, p. 75
-
76.


Ng, J.C., & Rury, J.L. (2006). Poverty and education: A critical analysis of the Ruby
Payne phenomenon.
Teachers College Record
. Date published July 18, 2006.
http://www.tcrecord.org

ID Number: 12596, Date Accessed: 2/11/2008.


Payne, R. K. (1998, revised 2006).
A framework for understanding poverty
: Modules 1
-
7
workbook.

Launceston, Australia: Social Solutions.


14/07/2008





26

Payne, R.K. (2002). Research base of the poverty work of aha! Process. online paper
3/14/2002)


Payne, R. K. (2005).
A framework for understanding poverty
. Highlands, TX: aha!
Process, Inc.


Payne, R.K. (2006).
Learning Structures: Modules 8
-
13 workbook.

Launceston,
Australia: Social Solutions.


Rothstein, R. (2002).
Out of balance: Our understanding of how schools affect society
and how society affects schools
. Chicago: The Spencer Foundatio
n.


Rothstein, R. (2004).
Class and schools: Using social, economic and educational reform
to close the black
-
white achievement gap
. New York: Teachers College Press.


Tough, P. (2007). The class
-
consciousness raiser.
The New York Times Magazine
,
June 10.


14/07/2008

FW4UP
evaluation; teachers’ questionnaire

07 November 2007

27

Annex 1


EVALUATION OF READING LOCAL AUTHORITY SUPPORT
PROJECT: A FRAMEWORK FOR UNDERSTANDING POVERTY


TEACHER/PRACTITIONERS’ QUESTIONNAIRE


This questionnaire forms part of a longitudinal evaluation of the
Framework for
Understanding Poverty

(
FW4UP
) pr
oject. The purpose of the evaluation is to discover:

.

what impact the
FW4UP

training has on teachers’ perceptions and expectations,

.

to what extent teachers are able to implement
FW4UP

strategies in their classrooms

.

how this helps them to modify practices to

support socially excluded children and

.

what impact this has on the children.


CONFIDENTIALITY


All information submitted on this or any other questionnaires related to
this evaluation will be held in confidence and only disclosed with the
permission of
those to whom it refers.


For purposes of evaluation, we need to identify individual pupils and plot
their progress. However, no children should be identified by name. If
names are used for reporting purposes, they will be pseudonyms. Please
use children’s

r湩煵n P異il Nu浢敲m

ErPN猩 獯 t桡t t桥y 捡渠扥⁴牡捫敤
慮搠d潮it潲敤 潶敲etim攠e桲潵杨 t桥 摡ta
-
扡s攠桥ed 批 t桥 䱯捡l
Aut桯物ty.


Please answer the following questions as fully and accurately as you can. If possible,
answer in electronic form and exte
nd tables to accommodate comments if there is
insufficient space on the form.


Completed questionnaires should be sent to John Stannard at:
FW4UProject@gmail.com

by
MONDAY 26 November 2007
. If you prefer to
r
espond in hard copy form, please send your completed form to
Monica
Grimsey at the Education Department, Civic Centre Reading.



1.

BASIC INFORMATION


Name of school
organisation


Address


Teacher/Practitoner name


Email address


Year/Key Stage group of

pupils


No of children in class


14/07/2008

FW4UP
evaluation; teachers’ questionnaire

07 November 2007

28

2.

TEACHERS’/PRACTITIONERS’ PERCEPTIONS


2.1

The
FW4UP

training is built around a number of key principles. Use the scales in the
table below to assess

(a) your understanding and (b) the strength of your own practice i
n
each of the following:


FW4UP

Key principles


How well do I
understand the
principle?

How well am I
implementing the
principle?


strong


weak

strong


weak

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

Explicit teaching of the ‘hidden rules’ of middle class and
school cul
tures
(
FW4UP

ch.3)












2

Functions and uses of different ‘voices’ for negotiating
relationships and intervention (
FW4UP

ch.7 pp.82
-
86)











3

Providing effective role models and emotional

resources (
FW4UP

ch.5)











4

Anticipating and
responding to challenging behaviour
(hostility, rudeness, aggression, inappropriate
behaviour, misinterpretation of teacher instructions or
expectations) ((
FW4UP

ch.7)











5

Teaching the use of formal linguistic registers: their
features and functio
ns, and when to adopt them.
(
FW4UP

ch.2)











6

Development and uses of narrative (story structures) in
helping children to structure, connect and relate
experience











7

The significance of meta
-
language to help children
conceptualise and tal
k about what they are learning












8

Explicit teaching of learning strategies such as planning,
self
-
talk, task organization and structuring to manage
time and tasks












2.2
What was

the most valuable aspect of the training to you?
















14/07/2008

FW4UP
evaluation; teachers’ questionnaire

07 November 2007

29

2.3

Describe an aspect of your own practice that you plan to change or develop as a
result of the
FW4UP

training.


1. Briefly describe the change












2. explain why it is important for your pupils
















3. describe the effect yo
u want the change to have on the children
















14/07/2008

FW4UP
evaluation; teachers’ questionnaire

07 November 2007

30

2.4
Implementation the
FW4UP

training


Please tick one box on the ‘agree
-
disagree’ scales for each item below




Strongly
Agree

Agree

Neither
agree nor
disagree

Disagree

Strongly
disagree

1

The id
eas (about poverty and children
in poverty) in the
FW4UP

training were
new to me






2

FW4UP

has raised my awareness
about the perceptions and expectations
of children in my class






3

I feel more empathy toward my pupils
because of
FW4UP






4

I ha
ve gained new ideas about how to
adapt my practice to support the
children in my class






5

FW4UP

practices can readily be
integrated into the way I teach and
should not increase my workload.






5

I expect the implementation
FW4UP

ideas to improve t
he behaviour and
attitudes of children in my class






6

I expect the
FW4UP

practices to
improve the progress and achievement
of children in my class






7

I have access to the
FW4UP

workbooks
and other relevant resources related to
FW4UP






8

The r
esources provided to support
FW4UP

are of practical help to me in
the classroom






9

I can work with a colleague in my
school/centre to share and develop my
teaching






10

I would find it useful to have more
opportunities to speak with colleagues
ab
out using
FW4UP






11

The headteacher in my school is
knowledgeable about
FW4UP






12

The headteacher in my school is
supportive of the changes I would make
to implement
FW4UP







13

I have ongoing support in implementing
strategies learned in the

FW4UP

training






14

I need more training before I can start
teaching strategies proposed in
FW4UP

training






15

Implementing
FW4UP

is difficult given
the existing demands in my classroom
and school/centre






16

A consultant to support and obser
ve in
my classroom would help me implement
what I learned in the
FW4UP

training






14/07/2008

FW4UP
evaluation; teachers’ questionnaire

07 November 2007

31

2.5
The
FW4UP

training:













In your opinion, should other teachers/practitioners also receive this training?
(Y/N?)




2.6

If this training is to be re
-
run what

would you most like to see improved or changed?






















SECTION 3:

PUPILS


In relation to official indicators e.g. national census and DCSF criteria, typical family
characteristics of children from generational poverty include combinations o
f:


TABLE 1

Children


.

eligibility for free school meals

.

poor progress and attainment in school

.

challenging behaviour and limited social strategies

Parents/carers


.

low
-
paid routine employment or unemployment

.

few or no qualifications

.

rented or shared accom
modation with limited space

.

family breakdown, children in care, or lone parenting

.

limited English proficiency


3.1

Estimate how many children in your class meet the general definitions of
children in poverty in the
FW4UP



14/07/2008

FW4UP
evaluation; teachers’ questionnaire

07 November 2007

32


3.2

Choose
five

pupils in the

class you teach who meet these
FW4UP

criteria. From this
group, you will also be asked to select
one

child to be the focus of a more detailed case
study.
Please list this pupil as number 1



Pupil UPN
5


Age

(y/m)

Boy or Girl?

1




2




3




4




5







3.3

Please rate the progress and achievement of the five pupils you have identified.
(Please ignore this question if you are working with Foundation Stage children or
families)



Pupil

UPN

Progress

good


poor

Enter
(ESL) if
not a
native
speaker

Achie
vement: please note levels attained in last
year’s teacher assessments or tests (where
available)

1

2

3

4

5

KS1/2

Reading

Writing

Maths

1













2













3













4













5

















5

Please use the unique pupil numbers for anonymity and security.


14/07/2008

FW4UP
evaluation; teachers’ questionnaire

07 November 2007

33


3.5
Choose
pupil no.1

to wri
te a brief profile using the prompts below. (refs. from
A
Framework for Understanding Poverty

are given in brackets at each prompt).


N.B.

if you are working with families or other adults e.g. in a Children’s Centre, you may
still be able to answer these
questions in relation to the child in your care. If this is not
possible, please would you go to section 6 at the end of this table to explain briefly the
context of your work.


CASE STUDY PUPIL No. 1

UPN?

Age?

Boy/Girl?



1.

Classroom behaviour
(
FW4UP

pp 7
9, 80)















good


poor


1

2

3

4

5








2.

Learning strategies:
e.g. understanding and
following instructions,
attention,
concentration, asking
and answering
questions,
independence,
planning and seeing
tasks through, self
-
monitoring and self
-
correction, problem
-
solving (see also
FW4UP

pp.93
-
94 on
cognitive strategies)
























good


poor


1

2

3

4

5







14/07/2008

FW4UP
evaluation; teachers’ questionnaire

07 November 2007

34


3.

Relationships with
children, teachers and
other adults (
FW4UP

ch9 pp108


112)















Rating

good


poor


1

2

3

4

5








4.

Comment on any
strengths, talents or
interests shown by the
pupils













5.

Briefly comment on
home and family
background (use
criteria in
Table 1, p.5

as a guide)






















6.

Further comment
(optional)

























14/07/2008

FW4UP
evaluation; teachers’ questionnaire

07 November 2007

35

3
.6
Give an example of typical learning or behavioural (or both) challenges this pupil has
presented in the classroom during the past few weeks



















3.7

Please summarise the characteristics of the other four pupils you selected in the
ta
ble below. Prompts are the same as for pupil 1 but only ratings are needed. If you wish
to comment further, please do so in section 4 overleaf.



1. Classroom
behaviour

2. Learning strategies

3. Relationships with
others: children and
teachers


Pupil

UPN

Rating

good


poor

Rating

good


poor

Rating

good


poor

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

2


















3


















4


















5



















14/07/2008

FW4UP
evaluation; teachers’ questionnaire

07 November 2007

36



SECTION 4


4.1
If you wish to add further comments on any aspect of this questionnai
re or the
FW4UP

project, please do so below:


14/07/2008

FW4UP evaluation; final site visit

June 2008

37

Annex 2


EVALUATION OF READING LOCAL AUTHORITY SUPPORT
PROJECT: A FRAMEWORK FOR UNDERSTANDING POVERTY


Final Site Visit: June 2008



The site visit is the last step of the evaluation of the
Framework for Under
standing
Poverty

(
FW4UP
) project. The purpose of the site visit is to:

.

Confirm or correct the information we have from this site

.

Clarify, as the year draws to a close, the impact of
FW4UP

training on teachers’
perceptions, expectations, and practice

.

Focus
on experience with one specific child identified as representing socially
excluded children in class

.

Identify strategies used and progress of this child



CONFIDENTIALITY


Remind head and/or teachers that we are reporting on the FW4UP but will
ensure that

in our reporting no school/centre or persons can be identified.

When we ask about children, no children should be identified by name. If names
are used for reporting purposes, they will be pseudonyms. Please use children’s
Unique Pupil Numbers

(UPNs) so

that they can be monitored over time through
the data
-
base held by the Local Authority.


2.

BASIC INFORMATION (check that what we have is accurate)


School name


Headteacher


Teacher name


Teacher Email address


Year group of pupils


No of children in

class



14/07/2008

FW4UP evaluation; final site visit

June 2008

38

2. HEADTEACHER AND/OR TEACHER PERCEPTIONS


2.1

The
FW4UP

training is built around a number of key principles, some of which may
have proved more helpful to you than others. Could you look at this list, and indicate
which, if any, you have foun
d useful? Could you give an illustration of how you have
used or applied this approach?
[ have separate copy of this list to show teacher]


FW4UP

Key principles



1

Explicit teaching of the ‘hidden rules’ of middle class and
school cultures

2

Using d
ifferent ‘voices’ for negotiating relationships and
intervention

3

Providing effective role models and emotional

resources

4

Anticipating and responding differently to challenging
behaviour (hostility, rudeness, aggression, inappropriate
behaviour, mis
interpretation of teacher instructions)

5

Teaching the use of formal linguistic registers: their
features and functions, and when to adopt them.

6

Development and uses of narrative (story structures) in
helping children to structure, connect and relate

experience

7

Using meta
-
language to help children conceptualise and
talk about what they are learning

8

Explicit teaching of learning strategies such as planning,
self
-
talk, task organization and structuring to manage
time and tasks


2.2
From your curr
ent perspective, as the school year comes to a close, could you
identify any benefit of the training to you as a practitioner? Possible prompts:



made me think differently about poverty



better understanding of children in my class



practical idea about adap
ting my teaching to better meet needs of children in my
class



no real benefit













14/07/2008

FW4UP evaluation; final site visit

June 2008

39


2.3

Again, from your perspective near the end of the school year, can you identify any
aspects of your teaching practice that you have worked on as a result of the

training?


Can you describe one or two specific changes in your practice?









Have these changes affected your pupils? How?








What helped or supported you in making this change?









Anything that made it more difficult for you to make th
is change?











14/07/2008

FW4UP evaluation; final site visit

June 2008

40



SECTION 3:

PUPILS


Remind head/teacher of official indicators e.g. national census and DCSF criteria,
indicating that characteristics of children from generational poverty include combinations
of:


TABLE 1

Children


.

eligibility fo
r free school meals

.

poor progress and attainment in school

.

challenging behaviour and limited social strategies

Parents/carers


.

low
-
paid routine employment or unemployment

.

few or no qualifications

.

rented or shared accommodation with limited space

.

family br
eakdown, children in care, or lone parenting

.

limited English proficiency


3.1

We asked you earlier to estimate how many children in your class meet the
general definitions of children in poverty in the
FW4UP. You indicated X


is this
still a reasonable e
stimate from your perspective?




3.2

You identified and talked about one pupil in particular in the earlier phase of our
evaluation of FW4UP. We’d like to follow up to hear what’s happened as you observed
and worked with this child over the last few mont
hs.




Pupil UPN
6


Age

(y/m)

Boy or Girl?

1






3.3

This is how you reported the earlier progress and achievement of the one pupil you
identified and talked about in our earlier visit (if they did complete this….).



Pupil

UPN

Progress

good


poor

Enter

(ESL) if not
a native
speaker

Achievement: please note levels attained in last year’s teacher
assessments or tests (where available)

1

2

3

4

5

FS

KS1/2

PSE
dev.

CLL

Ma

Reading

Writing

Maths

1




















6

Please use the unique pupil numbers for anonymity and security.


14/07/2008

FW4UP evaluation; final site visit

June 2008

41


3.4 Has this child been asse
ssed

or tested this year? If so, in what areas? Are these
assessments are part of the reported national data
-
base e.g. end of KS tests?












3.5

We’d like you now to think about the development of this child over the year.

Can you comment on each

of these categories, and indicate changes, if any, over the
last 6 months or so?


CASE STUDY PUPIL No. 1

UPN?

Age?

Boy/Girl?



7.

Classroom behaviour
(
FW4UP

pp 79, 80)













good


poor

How would you rate the child’s progress in this area?

1

2

3

4

5

(over last 6 months)







8.

Learning strategies:
e.g. understanding and
following instructions,
attention,
concentration, asking
and answering
questions,
independence,
planning and seeing
tasks through, self
-
monitoring and self
-
correction, problem
-
so
lving (see also
FW4UP

pp.93
-
94 on
cognitive strategies)


















good


poor

How would you rate the child’s progress in this area?

1

2

3

4

5

(over last 6 months)






14/07/2008

FW4UP evaluation; final site visit

June 2008

42


9.

Relationships with
children, teachers and
other adults (
FW4UP

ch9 pp108


112)














Rating

good


poor

How would you rate the child’s progress in this area?

1

2

3

4

5

(over last 6 months)







10.

Any strengths, talents
or interests shown by
the pupil













11.

Briefly comment on
home and family
background (use
crit
eria in
Table 1, p.5

as a guide)


















3
.6
What strategies or approaches have you used in working with this child?




First, what strategies
have you used in
addressing/improving
behaviour?


To what extent would you
say these are drawn from
FW4
UP?











14/07/2008

FW4UP evaluation; final site visit

June 2008

43


Second, what strategies
have you used in
addressing/improving
the child’s learning
strategies?




To what extent would you
say these are drawn from
FW4UP?












Third, what about
addressing/improving
the child’s relationships,
with ad
ults and other
children?



To what extent would you
say these are drawn from
FW4UP?









Any other comments
about working with this
child?








4
. What could the LA do to best support you and your colleagues in addressing the
needs of children from
generational poverty?








12.

Anything else we haven’t talked about that you think is important?








Thanks etc.


insights, time, acknowledgement that participating in this evaluation was
sometimes hard work


appreciate their commitment.



14/07/2008

FW4UP evaluation; final site visit

June 2008

44

13.

Our observ
ations/impressions

14.


Does FW4UP seem to be a strong influence:


a.

in the school?


b.

for the head?


c.

For the teacher we met with?





When teacher talks about strategies used, to what extent do they seem to be drawn from
FW4UP?












What is the relative

emphasis on behaviour as compared to learning strategies for the
child?










Other?