COMMUNITIES, FAMILIES AND SCHOOLS TOGETHER:

COMMUNITIES, FAMILIES AND SCHOOLS TOGETHER: A route to reducing the impact of poverty on educational achievement In schools across Wales Research report commissioned by Save the Children Wales David Egan May 2012 1

We work in more than 120 countries. We save children s lives. We fight for their rights. We help them fulfil their potential. Published by Save the Children UK 1 St John s Lane London EC1M 4AR UK +44 (0)20 7012 6400 savethechildren.org.uk First published 2012 The Save the Children Fund 2012 The Save the Children Fund is a charity registered in England and Wales (213890) and Scotland (SC039570). Registered Company No. 178159 This publication is copyright, but may be reproduced by any method without fee or prior permission for teaching purposes, but not for resale. For copying in any other circumstances, prior written permission must be obtained from the publisher, and a fee may be payable.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I would like to particularly acknowledge the support and involvement of Sue Allerston, Mark Carrington, Jayne Edwards, Mike Griffiths, Anona Harries, Sian Johnson, Jeff Jones, Pat Jones, Carys Pritchard, Greg Owens, Sharon Mason, Miriam Norton and Eryl Samuel. With myself they have been part of a team based in ESIS: the School Improvement Service for Bridgend, Caerphilly, Merthyr Tydfil and Rhondda Cynon Taff local authorities, which working with nearly one hundred schools in three of those areas has been developing a strategic programme (ASPIRE) that has been testing much of the thinking and practice set out in this report. Also grateful thanks to Ruth Mullineux at Save the Children in Wales. My thanks also to the schools involved in ASPIRE. It is my firm belief that together we are mapping out an evidence-informed practical strategy that will lead to major improvements being made in reducing the impact of poverty on education in the schools of our area and hopefully across Wales. David Egan ABOUT THE AUTHOR Professor David Egan is an Educational Consultant and Adviser. He has been closely involved in education in Wales as a schoolteacher, academic, researcher and policymaker for many years. Currently his major portfolio of interests include acting as a Senior Consultant to the ASPIRE Programme and as Policy Adviser to the Heads of the Valleys Education Programme. SAVE THE CHILDREN In Wales today over 200,000 children live in poverty. Growing up in poverty has a huge impact on a child s health, education and economic future - their opportunities and life chances. To build a society of opportunity and social mobility we must fight inequality. Only by ending the educational disadvantage faced by children in poverty and boosting family incomes can progress be made towards a prosperous Wales. Save the Children is working with families, children and young people across Wales to bring about the changes needed to end child poverty.

CONTENTS 1. Executive Summary 2. Introduction 3. The Problem 4. Causes 5. Solutions 6. Conclusions 7. Recommendations 8. References Page 1 Page 4 Page 6 Page 8 Page 13 Page 27 Page 29 Page 30

1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Introduction In Wales there is a very strong and growing association between poverty and low levels of educational achievement. This is a major influence upon current levels of education performance in Wales. The Welsh Government has, therefore, made reducing the poverty gap one of three national priorities for schools in Wales and introduced significant grant funding to support this. Within this context, this report considers the extent and causes of the poverty gap in educational achievement in Wales and the solutions which should now be applied by schools, local authorities and the Welsh Government to address this situation. The Problem Poverty is a major influence on the extent to which children in Wales can achieve their potential. The gap between the achievement of disadvantaged compared to advantaged children is present at 9 months old, is significant by the age of 3, grows in the primary years and accelerates particularly in secondary education. By the time that students complete their compulsory education at the age of fifteen the gap is at its biggest: it is two and a half times more likely that a student not living in poverty will achieve a high outcome than one living in poverty. There is a very low chance that disadvantaged students who have not achieved to a high level at the age of 15 will go into further and higher education and achieve any further qualifications by the age of 19. Whilst those students living and not living in poverty have improved their educational performance over time, the poverty gap has not narrowed. Large concentrations of FSM students in a school have an adverse effect on the performance of non-fsm students: the evidence is less clear on a possible obverse effect. Causes Poverty and child poverty which affects one in three of all children in Wales is the major cause of low achievement in disadvantaged students. Low educational achievement is a major cause of poverty and poverty the most important reason for low educational achievement. Poverty is concentrated in particular areas and schools in Wales most of which faced the collapse of their local economies and sources of employment in the 1980s, but there is not a consistent correlation between high concentrations of poverty and school performance. The reason why the low performance of FSM students accelerates in secondary schools is likely to be caused mainly by personal and social factors. In disadvantaged communities parents, peer groups and communities generally do not have the positive influence they could on the achievement of students. The reasons why schools are not able to improve the achievement of disadvantaged students can be identified. 1

Solutions The solution to reducing the poverty gap in education in Wales must involve holistic action that includes schools, parents and the community. Schools can have a significant effect in improving the achievement of disadvantaged students. To bring this about they need to: Have strong moral purpose. Leadership that focuses the activities of the school on this purpose. Place a strong focus on the wellbeing of students. Use data to track students and prompt early interventions. Provide high quality teaching. Some schools and local authorities achieve this already, but most have limited success and there is considerable variation in performance. Schools cannot maximize the reduction of the poverty gap unless their work is supported by strong engagement with their parents and communities. Parental engagement can have a significant impact on reducing the poverty gap, but it is unlikely that there is sufficient high quality parental engagement in place in Wales. Significant opportunities exist to improve the links between schools and communities in the most disadvantaged parts of Wales through closer working with Flying Start, Families First, Communities First and Community Focused Schools. The national priority in education to reduce the poverty gap along with the extension of Flying Start, the introduction of Families First and the further development of Communities First provide a unique opportunity to develop a holistic approach within the Welsh Government s Tackling Poverty Strategy that can provide the solution that is required to significantly reduce the impact of poverty on education. This will require partnership working at national, regional and local level. Conclusions Poverty has a significant impact on education and although there are instances which show this is not an inevitable outcome, in general the poverty gap in education is not being narrowed and is a major cause of low performance by the education system in Wales. Whilst the influence of parents, peer groups, communities and schools all affect why disadvantaged students do not do well in education, the biggest impact is that of poverty itself and this is concentrated in particular communities and schools in Wales. Solutions for reducing the poverty gap in education can be found in holistic and mutually reinforcing approaches that unite schools, parents and communities; an opportunity now exists in Wales to bring these approaches together in a national programme within the Welsh Government s Tackling Poverty Strategy. 2

Recommendations The Welsh Government should; Develop within the Tackling Poverty Strategy a national intervention model to reduce the impact of poverty on educational achievement; Provide clear guidance for schools and local authorities on how best to use the funding that is being made available Remit Estyn and the Wales Audit Office to monitor and regularly report on the effective use of this funding. Schools should; Have a strategic plan in place that shows how they will use the resources available to them to reduce the poverty gap in student achievement; Develop leadership structures that enable this to be achieved Regularly monitor, report and evaluate the impact the plan is having on student outcomes. Local Authority Education Consortia should; In the support and challenge work they undertake with their schools have as one of their major priorities reducing the poverty gap in education Ensure that they have the leadership and staff capacity in place to achieve this. 3

2. INTRODUCTION In the schools of Wales there is a very strong association between coming from a relatively disadvantaged background and low levels of educational achievement. This is not a new phenomenon for it has always been a feature of the education system in Wales. Although over time school students in Wales have improved their educational standards, the gap between relatively privileged and disadvantaged students has persisted and is probably growing. Whilst some countries are making progress in narrowing this poverty gap Wales is not currently one of them (Egan, 2007; 2010, 2012; Welsh Government 2011c). The consequences of this situation are serious for our education system and for our children (Brook, 2008; Centre for Research on the Wider Benefits of Learning, 2008; OECD, 2010). Current concerns about educational performance in Wales, an apparent lack of progress in what schools are achieving and unfavourable comparisons between the relative success of our children compared to those elsewhere, are all heavily influenced by the poverty gap. Whilst being controversial the recent publication by the Welsh Government of the banding information setting out the current performance of secondary schools has clearly pointed to the influence that poverty has on the levels of success achieved by schools. The wider consequences for the people of Wales and our country as a whole are even more serious. The Welsh Government describes these effects as follows: Children and young people growing up in poverty are more likely to have poorer health outcomes and have lower skills and aspirations. They are more likely to be low paid, unemployed and welfare dependent in adulthood (Welsh Government, 2011, p.2). Awareness of how serious this situation is has grown in recent years in Wales and has led to increasing amounts of action being taken to address it. In 2006 the Welsh Government introduced a programme (RAISE) which over the next 3-4 years provided a large amount of extra funding for schools that had the largest concentration of disadvantaged students. More recently the Welsh Government has made reducing the gap in achievement caused by poverty one of its three interrelated national priorities for education in Wales. To support the work of schools and local authorities in tackling this national priority a new School Effectiveness Grant (SEG) has been introduced in 2011-12 and from April 2012 this will be supplemented by a new Pupil Deprivation Grant paid directly to each school per head of the number of disadvantaged students (those receiving free school meals) over the age of 5 that they have on their roll. 4

It is clear, therefore, that more than at any time in our history as a nation that Wales seems intent on systematically attempting to reduce the calamitous influence that poverty can have on what over onethird of our students achieve in education and their future life chances. In this context, this report begins by briefly setting out the extent of the problem that we currently face and what causes this relationship between poverty and low educational success rates. It moves on to consider what needs to be done to address this situation and to achieve success. Finally, on the basis of a series of conclusions drawn from this analysis, it offers recommendations to policymakers in the Welsh Government and to practitioners in schools and local authorities on how over the next few years the national priority on reducing the poverty gap can best be addressed. Whilst the report points to a number of areas where action is needed, in essence it has three key findings and associated recommendations: Teachers, schools and local authorities have it within their power to make significant progress in addressing the poverty gap. To sustain this work and to ensure that the gap is reduced as much as possible, it is essential that schools work as closely as possible with parents and the communities they serve. Current developments in policy in Wales provide a unique opportunity to produce a holistic and integrated response that can bring schools, parents and communities together in our most disadvantaged areas in order to achieve a stepchange in reducing the poverty gap forever. This opportunity must not be missed. 5

3. The Problem Most educationalists believe that individuals are born with a certain amount of innate cognitive ability that if developed through their lifetime will enable them to reach their potential. Obviously this will be influenced by many variable factors including motivation and the quality of their educational experience. Another major influence will be the socio-economic circumstances in which individuals are brought up and in this respect poverty and disadvantage present a significant challenge (Chowdry et al, 2009; Duckworth et al, 2009; DCSF; 2009c). It does not follow axiomatically that those born into poverty will not fulfil their potential and some do: but currently most don t. This can begin to occur very early in a child s development as the children who form part of the Millennium Cohort Study including a sample from Wales- clearly demonstrate. It shows that differences in the cognitive ability of relatively advantaged and disadvantaged children are apparent as early as at 9 months old. These differences accelerate from this point and by the age of 3 when they enter schools in Wales, children from disadvantaged backgrounds are often a year behind their more privileged classmates (Hansen and Joshi, 2007). From the age of seven the assessments carried out by teachers (at ages 7, 11 and 14) and the outcomes of national examination at the age of 15 enable us to compare the progress and attainment of advantaged and disadvantaged students more precisely (Welsh Government, 2011c). These comparisons are based on the number of students who are entitled to free school meals (FSM). Whilst this is not a perfect indicator of child and family poverty, it is currently the best measure we have. The table below shows the poverty gap that exists between the percentage of students aged 7, 11 and 14 in 2010 who attained the expected levels of performance in each of English (or Welsh in welshmedium schools), Mathematics and Science: AGE GAP 7 19% 11 22% 14 32% Table 1: Gap between performance of FSM and non- FSM students in Wales at ages 7, 11 and 14 in 2010 (Welsh Government, 2011c). This gap widens through the later primary years and opens up particularly during the time spent in secondary education. The effects are so significant that even most of those who were in the top 25% of achievers in their primary years eventually start to fall behind. 6

The next table shows a similar measurement of the gap at age 15 in relation to student attainment of a level 2 qualification (the equivalent of 5 or more higher grade GCSEs) and a level 2 qualification that included higher grade passes in both English (or Welsh in welsh-medium schools) and Mathematics. LEVEL GAP Level 2 34% Level 2 with English and Mathematics 34% Table 2: Gap between performance of FSM and non- FSM students in Wales at age 15/16 in 2010 (Welsh Government, 2011c). These figures show the extent to which this gap exists early in a child s education career and how much it widens in the secondary years. What it doesn t indicate is that in extreme cases not a single FSM student in some of our secondary schools attains by the age of 15 what is regarded as being the most important qualification for future success: the equivalent of 5 or more higher grade GCSEs that include English and Mathematics. The outcomes of Wales participation in the PISA (Programme of International Student Assessment) skills-based tests for 15 year olds in 2006 and 2009 present similar trends. Particularly in the 2006 tests but also in 2009, students from disadvantaged backgrounds did far less well than those from advantaged backgrounds. Whilst this was a trend common to many but not all countries, it clearly contributed to Wales disappointing overall and comparative performance (Bradshaw et al, 2007 and 2010). The regular monitoring of such data indicates that the biggest improvements in narrowing the gap have taken place by the age of eleven but that there is hardly any change in the attainment of FSM students at age 16 and in the likelihood that between the ages of 16 and 18 they will find themselves not involved in education, employment or training [NEET] (Kenway and Palmer, 2007) Analysis also suggests that those disadvantaged students who have not achieved the expected outcomes by the age of 16 are not inclined to improve their performance by the time they are 19 (Joseph Rowntree Foundation, 2007 and 2009). This supports other evidence which suggests that FSM students are five times less likely to proceed into further and higher education than their more privileged peers (End Child Poverty Network and Children in Wales, 2006) It is also apparent that whilst both FSM and non-fsm students have improved their levels of achievement over time the poverty gap has either not narrowed or hardly at all (Estyn, 2010; Drinkwater, Parhi and Taylor, 2011). There is also evidence that in schools which have relatively high percentages of FSM students, non-fsm students do not appear to do as well as they might in a school with less disadvantaged students (Estyn, 2010). Evidence on whether small percentages of students from disadvantaged backgrounds do better in schools where the large majority of students are advantaged is mixed. One research study suggests that this is not generally the case, but unpublished data in Wales points to successful secondary schools with high proportions of non-fsm students also being able to achieve relatively high levels of success with students from FSM backgrounds when compared to similar schools (Sutton Trust, 2009; unpublished data from ASPIRE programme, 2012). 7

4. CAUSES The predominant cause of low achievement associated with being from a disadvantaged background is poverty itself and particularly child poverty (Field, 2010; Allen, 2011; Wilkinson and Pickett, 2009). The most recent estimate is that as a result of the income coming into their homes falling below what is reasonably required to run a household about 200,000 children in Wales now live in child poverty. This represents about 33% of children living in Wales and is the highest of the UK nations: 2% more than England and 8% above Scotland. About half of these children actually live in homes where at least one adult is in work for part of their time, so this situation is not necessarily caused by worklessness or unemployment (Parekh and Kenway, 2011). This of course should not hide the fact that whilst poverty has always been a feature of our most disadvantaged areas that this increased considerably in the 1980s in many parts of Wales as a result of the decimation of many traditional areas of employment in coal mining, steel production and associated industries. The impact of this on communities, families and the aspirations of individuals, including children in the education system has been described as follows: Despite this the gradual economic recovery of the late 1990s and early 2000s meant that over the decade from the mid 1990s to the mid 2000s the rate of child poverty in Wales steadily dropped enabling us to reach the UK average. As a result of the recent and continuing recession, however, half of that improvement has been lost in the last 5 years (Paretch and Kenway, 2011). As the leading analyst of poverty in Wales has pointed out, the relationship between this extensive poverty and educational achievement is a cyclical one. Low educational achievement itself perpetuates poverty through relegating a significant proportion of the population to labour market failure and consequent patterns of low income, unemployment and benefit dependency (Adamson, 2008, p. 49). Dave Adamson also notes that the geographical concentration of poverty in the urban areas of Wales, particularly the post-industrial South Wales valleys presents an almost insurmountable barrier to the regeneration of our poorest communities (Adamson, 2008, p.52). The graph below illustrates this in relation to the concentrations of disadvantaged primary school children in Wales: As the industries that sustained their lives disappeared, the once-tight bonds holding many working-class communities together unravelled at a breathtaking pace. Those living there could once look forward to respected, relatively well-paid jobs. Their lives had structure. Today, large swathes of communities are haunted by despair, frustration and boredom (Jones, 2011, p. 220) 8

Graph 1 In some authorities, a third or more of the primary schools have a high proportion of their pupils eligible for free school meals. In other authorities, there are a very few such primary schools. 60% Proportion of primary schools which are in the fifth of schools with the highest proportion of pupils eligible for free school meals 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% The Valleys Cardiff The rest GRAPH Blaenau Gwent Rhonda, Cynon, Taff Merthyr Tydfill Cardiff Newport Bridgend Caerphilly Neath Port Talbot Swansea Torfaen Carmarthenshire Isle of Anglessey Conwy wrexham Denbighshire Pembrokeshire Ceredigion Vale of Glamorgan Flintshire Gwynedd Powys Monmouthshire Source: School & Teacher Statistics, Welsh Assembly Government; the data is the average for 2008 to 2010; updated Dec 2010, Joseph Rowntree Foundation Poverty Site: http://www.poverty.org.uk/w19/index.shtml Recent research by Beatty and Fothergill suggests that as the current recession continues and the policies of the Westminster Coalition Government on benefit reform take hold, that the crisis facing areas such as the Heads of the Valleys in south Wales is likely to be tsunami like in its effect and will increase the extent and concentration of poverty they experience (Beatty and Fothergill, 2011). The fact that child poverty is heavily concentrated in particular schools in Wales is itself a significant factor leading to low achievement. As the two graphs which follow below show almost half of all primary school students who are eligible for FSM are concentrated in a fifth of the primary schools of Wales but that there is far less of a concentration of poverty in secondary schools: 9

Graph 2 Almost half of all the primary school children who are eligible for free school meals are concentrated in a fifth of the schools, a similar proportion to a decade ago. 50% Proportion of children in primary eligible for free school meals who are in the fifth of schools with the highest concentration of such children 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 Source: School & Teacher Statistics, Welsh Assembly Government updated Dec 2010, Joseph Rowntree Foundation Poverty Site:http://www.poverty.org.uk/w19/index.shtml Graph 3 Poor children are much more concentrated in primary schools than in secondary schools 30% Average proportion of pupils in the school who are eligible for free school maels 25% 20% 15% 10% 5% 0% Primary schools For pupils not eligible for free school meals For pupils eligible for free school meals Secondary schools Source: School & Teacher Statistics, Welsh Assembly Government; the data is the average for 2008 to 2010; updated Dec 2010, Joseph Rowntree Foundation Poverty Site:http://www.poverty.org.uk/w19/index.shtml 10

What effect is this pattern of FSM student distribution likely to have on the causes of low education achievement linked to poverty? The work of Ruth Lupton and others suggests that schools that face high concentrations of FSM students find it much more difficult to overcome the effects of poverty without additional support because of the degree and the relentlessness of the challenge they face (Lupton, 2005; Cuthbert and Hatch, 2009; DCSF, 2009b). Conversely, however, primary schools seem to have greater success overall in dampening the effect of poverty on student achievement compared to secondary schools, despite having these greater concentrations of disadvantaged students. This seems to suggest that factors other than the numbers and concentration of FSM students have to be considered. Why, for example, does the effect of poverty increase in secondary schools? A recent review of research literature commissioned by the Welsh Government suggests that the major reason for this would appear to be the low prior attainment of students particularly in literacy before they enter secondary education, rather than the transition process itself (Wilson, 2011). This study also suggests that when they do arrive in secondary school it is the problems faced by students in relation to personal and social skills, rather than changes in the curriculum or styles of learning, that are the major cause of a downward spiral of achievement (Wilson, 2011). It is likely that primary schools because of their smaller size, their classroom-based organisation and the closer relationship between students and teachers provide a more effective context for interventions that successfully address problems with students skills and learning than large secondary schools where students will be less well known to teachers and do not receive as much individual attention. Scale and size does appear to matter. These considerations take us closer to the root causes of why poverty so often leads to low educational achievement. Educational research evidence is clear that the main determinants of students using their innate cognitive ability are the influence of their parents and their peer group. In situations where often parents have themselves experienced poverty in childhood, had a poor experience of education and consequently are limited in their ability to help their children, whilst love and care may be present their engagement in their children s education may be hampered (Desforges and Abouchaar, 2003; Duckworth et al, 2009; Gutman and Akerman, 2008; Vignoles and Meschi, 2010). Often disadvantaged students will find themselves in peer groups where disengagement and cynicism about school are the norm and become a rite of passage into teenage and pre-teenage years. Although the evidence is that children from disadvantaged backgrounds have the same life and career aspirations as their more privileged peers through their primary and into their secondary years, ultimately a culture of low aspirations often caused by the poor prospects of employment pointed out above and lack of role models and mentors who can point the way ahead seem to have a powerful negative effect (Goodman and Gregg, 2010; Horgan, 2007; Cabinet Office, 2008). Often they also face the stigma of not having enough money to meet the costs of education such as new school uniforms, trips and extracurriculum opportunities, all of which may, therefore, be unavailable to them and increase their sense of alienation (Winkler, 2009; End Child Poverty Network and Children in Wales, 2011). The enrichment that advantaged students gain from strong parental involvement and encouragement, frequent opportunities for informal and nonformal learning such as trips and holidays as well as additional tutoring, are all denied to children 11

in poverty. This is often why the children of more advantaged families maximize their potential and why that of children from poor backgrounds is often unfulfilled, thereby repeating a cycle of intergenerational disadvantage and poverty. Families and peer groups are also of course important elements within the communities in which children in poverty grow up and as has been suggested above place can itself make a significant difference to how well they achieve in school. This has been expressed in the following way by a programme that has worked with disadvantaged schools in England: Children living in deprived communities face a cultural barrier which in many ways is bigger than material poverty. It is the cultural barrier of low aspirations and scepticism about education which is seen to be for other people (DCSF, 2008, p.27). If these influences of parenting, peer group culture and community are generally negative or undeveloped then the influence of the school is inevitably constrained (Kerr and West, 2011; Perry and Francis, 2010) but as will be shown in the next section of this report this does not mean that schools cannot overcome this and succeed with disadvantaged students. It does mean, however, that this is much more challenging. What this leads to is the effect that schools themselves can have or not have in addressing the negative influences of poverty on students. If they do not have this effect on large numbers of their FSM students then the school itself will become one of the reasons why poverty and low educational achievement are so strongly connected. Why might this be so? A review of literature on the causes of disengagement combined with the results of a focus group with 11-16 year olds in Wales suggests that the reasons are as follows (Lloyd Jones et al, 2010): A lack of support for learning. Difficulties in relationships with teachers and others. Problems with wellbeing due to weaknesses in social, emotional and behavioural skills. Not being identified early enough as falling behind. Restricted choice and flexibility in the curriculum. A lack of variety in teaching. Whilst, therefore, the reasons why poverty can lead to low educational achievement are complex and will require subtle solutions, the following conclusions arrived at in a previous report published by Save the Children in Wales still ring true: Young people recognised that education is way out of poverty but told us it can be difficult to get a good education when you are in poor areas. They see this as linked to the lower expectations that teachers and adults have of children from these areas, a poorer quality education and problems resulting from a stressed home life because of severe lack of money (Crowley and Vulliamy, 2007). 12

5. Solutions The Welsh Government s Child Poverty Strategy makes the bold claim that education is the route out of poverty and the key to social mobility (Welsh Government, 2011f; p.28).the analysis provided in the previous section of this report on the reasons why poverty results in low educational achievement also points to how this can be overcome. It suggests two things: That because the causes are complex, that holistic rather than narrow solutions must be found that involve interventions at family, community and school level. That whilst such solutions should be available throughout Wales, they should be particularly focused upon those parts of the country where there are high concentrations of poverty in schools and communities. We now have a robust body of knowledge which can provide these solutions. What is now essential is that we use this to shape interventions in every community and school in Wales where they are needed. The solutions that need to be applied holistically to this problem should involve: More effective work by schools. Greater engagement of parents in the education of their children. Stronger links between schools, their communities and community based programmes. Each of these areas is considered below before attention is given as to how they can best be brought together. Schools We have a strong evidence base from Wales that is backed up by UK and international evidence on how schools can successfully reduce the impact of poverty on educational achievement. This is drawn from the reports of Estyn (2010 and 2011), evaluations of the RAISE programme which from 2006-2010 provided significant funding for 648 schools (about one-third) in Wales to undertake interventions in this area (Estyn, 2007, 2008b, Holtom, 2008a,2008b,2009a, 2009b, 2011) and a number of other reports and research-based studies (Ofsted, 2009a and b; Northern Ireland Assembly, 2010;Demie and Lewis, 2010; Welsh Assembly Government, 2002 and 2005c; James et al 2006; Save the Children and Bevan Foundation, 2007; Egan, 2008; Hargreaves, 2010;Egan, 2010; Barber and Mourshed, 2007; Sammons, 2007; Mourshed et al 2010; Chapman et al, 2010; Ainscow et al, 2012, Cassen and Kingdon, 2007; Hirsch, 2007; The London Challenge, 2010). This evidence is clear that if schools are to achieve success with all of their students, including those who experience poverty and other forms of disadvantage they need to: Have a strong moral purpose. This means that all staff in the school, teaching and non-teaching and the school governors should believe that everyone can succeed to their full potential and that poverty should not be seen as an excuse or reason for this not to be the case. This vision should also be shared with students and their families. It is clear that in schools which succeed with their disadvantaged students that this moral purpose is a fundamental requirement for success. Have leadership that focuses the activities of the school on this purpose. This requires practical actions and interventions to ensure that this commitment to achievement by all is realized. 13

Whilst it is essential that this leadership comes from the governing body, the headteacher and the senior leadership group within the school, it should also be at all levels in the leadership chain down to leadership within each classroom. Secondary schools that are succeeding in this area of work generally have staff at senior leadership (Assistant Head-Teachers) and middleleadership level (Year Tutors/ Learning Progress Managers etc) who have a clear focus on students who are low achieving, many of whom will be FSM students. Successful primary schools do not have the same leadership systems in place, but someone at senior leadership level will have a responsibility for low achieving students and in the best examples this will be shared by all class teachers and also by teaching support staff. In primary and secondary schools effective leadership always focuses upon the importance of learning and teaching as being the key influences upon student achievement and, thereby, features which need to be continuously improved. This includes ensuring that the curriculum available to students meets their needs and engages and motivates them to learn. This should include extensive opportunities for extra-curricular activity that attempt to involve all students (National College for Leadership of Schools and Children Services, 2010; DCSF, 2009a). Place a strong focus on the wellbeing of students. This requires the development of the self-confidence, self-esteem, self-efficacy, social and personal skills of all students. The evidence provided by Estyn and in the evaluations of the RAISE programme point very strongly, however, to the particular importance such interventions can have in nurturing and supporting disadvantaged students. It is often difficult to identify how such strategies may have led to improved achievement, but it is generally accepted that if students do not feel a sense of wellbeing that their attendance at school, behaviour and motivation to learn will be hampered and all of this will impact negatively upon their chances of success. Generally primary schools seem to be more successful in developing wellbeing approaches with their students and this may be a major part of the reason why the low achievement of FSM students accelerates in the early years of secondary education. It is also important to recognise that whilst effective approaches to wellbeing appear to be a necessary approach to ensuring that students achieve to their full potential, this is not sufficient to ensure this: this requires high quality learning and teaching to also be in place (Watson et al 2012; Counterpoint Research, 2008). Use data to track students and where necessary to prompt early intervention. Schools now have extensive data available to them on the performance of individual students, year groups and the school as a whole. Schools that successfully overcome the effect of disadvantage make full use of this data and use tracking systems to monitor the progress of all students and to intervene early to address issues of low achievement and to provide appropriate support. Early intervention when students are falling behind or starting from a low base of achievement is seen to be critically important in addressing under-achievement. This might take place at any point in the education cycle but can be used particularly effectively in the nursery and reception classes of primary schools and in Year 7 in secondary schools. It will often involve additional support being provided by teaching support staff and given that some of these students may be facing learning as well as other difficulties by Additional Learning Needs specialists. Often these interventions will require one-to-one or small group support so that students can receive the maximum attention in order to catch up with their achievement. 14

Tracking and intervention systems of this type are used by effective schools with all students, but in most cases particularly in schools in disadvantaged areas, many of these will be FSM students. Provide high quality teaching for all students. When students are in school the greatest influence upon them will be their teachers and all studies on school effectiveness point to the quality of teaching as being the most important factor leading to student achievement. It is likely that this will be particularly so for students from disadvantaged backgrounds who generally will require highly skilled teaching in order to motivate and support them in their learning. This suggests that our most challenged schools require the most competent teachers and that an important part of the skill set that they will require is the ability to develop the wellbeing and general learning skills of disadvantaged students. Generally primary teachers have been trained and operate in a way that provides the best preparation for such a role. Many secondary teachers are much more focused on subject knowledge. This may be another part of the reason why primary schools are more successful at dampening the effect of poverty than secondary schools. Knowledge derived from inspection evidence, professional networks of teachers and educational research has identified what effective teachers do and in particular what approaches are successful with low achieving students many of whom will be disadvantaged. These teaching techniques include early intervention, providing effective feedback to students, involving them in teaching other students and developing their thinking skills. All of these are seen to have high impact (Hattie 2009; Higgins et al, 2011; Sutton Trust, 2011) and except for early intervention can be achieved at relatively low cost to schools. The importance of literacy for student achievement is also a key feature of high quality teaching. One of the strong characteristics of low achieving FSM students in the latter years of their primary education and in the early years of secondary school are problems that they experience with literacy. As they proceed through school such difficulties will mean that they have increasing problems in accessing what is a literacy-rich curriculum. Schools that succeed in addressing this problem have effective policies that involve all teaching and support staff being trained to a high level to support and develop student literacy. This is again more likely to be strongly embedded in the practice of primary than secondary schools and is another of the probable reasons as to why the achievement of FSM students declines in the early years of secondary education. Whilst these factors are those which are common to all effective and successful schools they are particularly strong characteristics of those schools which succeed the most in reducing the influence of poverty on achievement. We do have a number of schools in Wales that do relatively well with their disadvantaged students but there are many that don t have a great deal of success in doing this and generally there is considerable variation of performance within the system. The information which has contributed to the Welsh Government banding system has begun to make this evident. It can also be seen, for example, in unpublished data from schools in three of the most disadvantaged local authorities in South East Wales. Over a three year period in these authorities the range of performance of schools in various FSM bands is as follows: 15

Key Stage 1 Key Stage2 Key Stage 3 Key Stage 4 Level 2 Key Stage 4 Level 2 with Maths and English 10% +FSM 20%+FSM 30%+FSM 40%+FSM 50%+FSM Highest=100% Lowest =57% Highest=91% Lowest=55% Highest=80% Lowest=48% Highest=74% Lowest=52% Highest=67% Lowest=36% Highest=97% Lowest=52% Highest=94% Lowest=55% Highest=65% Lowest=45% Highest=75% Lowest= 40% Highest=48% Lowest=28% Highest=88% Lowest=46% Highest=90% Lowest=63% Highest=65% Lowest=40% Highest=58% Lowest=40% Highest=42% Lowest=26% Highest=91% Lowest=49% Highest=90% Lowest=56% Highest=78% Lowest=45% Highest=79% Lowest=35% Table 3: Ranges of performance in student achievement at ages 7, 11, 14 and 15 in schools in three south-east Wales local authorities averaged over there year period 2007-2010. The level of performance at 7, 11 and 14 is the expected level of attainment in English (or Welsh in welsh-medium schools), Mathematics and Science. At the age of 15 it is both level 2 (the equivalent of 5 or more higher passes at GCSE) and Level 2 including English and Mathematics. This data shows the attainment of all students and not specifically FSM students. Variations in their performance in the same three local authorities can be seen in the graph below. This shows the range of attainment by FSM students in schools that fall in the average Wales banding for FSM: between 10 and 20%. Thus they can be seen as reasonably typical schools in Wales. It does so against two indicators: attainment of the expected levels of performance in the three core subjects (English or Welsh, Mathematics and Science) at the age of 7 and of Level 2 with English and Mathematics at the age of 15: 16

Graph 4 100 80 60 40 20 0 KS1 CSI KS4 L2+Ma/Eng Range of attainment by Students (in FSM band 10-20%) for core subject indicator at age 7 and level 2 with English and Mathematics at age 15 in Bridgend, Rhondda Cynon Taf and Merthyr Tydfil, 2007-2010. This evidence illustrates powerfully the extent of difference that schools can make to the achievement of students from disadvantaged backgrounds. It is also evident that some local authorities are able to work with their schools to achieve such effects across a wider geographical area. Neath Port Talbot is an example of such a local authority. In 2008, 28% of students receiving FSM in Neath Port Talbot achieved GCSE higher grade passes compared to a Wales average of 18% and the lowest performing authority in Wales where only 8% reached this level. Estyn identify the reasons for their success as being very similar to those identified above as pertaining to schools, including a strong sense of purpose for their schools and rigorous data analysis which enables them to challenge schools about their performance with these students. More controversially they note that headteachers believe that the fact that mainly 11-16 schools exist within the area enables them to concentrate on the achievement of this age group (Estyn, 2010). As with schools, however, Estyn report that significant variations exist in local authority performance in reducing the poverty gap. Most are seen as being at an early stage in analysing data and developing appropriate strategies. Only in the best cases have they developed partnership working with other agencies, drawn up strategic plans to tackle the influence of poverty and trained their staff to develop effective practice (Estyn, 2011). It is also clear that local authorities can have a major role to play in moving around the education system the knowledge that resides in some schools of how the influence of poverty on educational achievement can be reduced (Estyn, 2011; Ainscow et al, 2012). Neath Port Talbot began such work with their secondary schools some time ago and this is likely to be a significant reason for the success they have subsequently enjoyed (Reynolds et al, 2006; Stringfield et al, 2010) 17

Evidence from Estyn and other sources thus identifies that schools and local authorities if they consistently do the things identified above are able to achieve significant success in reducing the impact of poverty on achievement. This evidence is also unanimous that doing these things at school level is critical but it is not enough: maximum success in closing the poverty gap cannot be achieved by schools alone. The greatest amount of success is achieved when this effective practice in schools is supported by strong engagement with their parents and communities (Holtom, 2011; Kerr and West, 2011; Cummings et al, 2010; Dyson and Kerr, 2011). Parents Powerful evidence on the importance of parental influence on a child s education was highlighted in the previous section of this report (Desforges and Abouchaar, 2003; St Clair et al, 2011; Duckworth et al, 2009; Goodman and Gregg, 2010). As was also noted there the fact that many of the parents of children who live in poverty are likely to have had negative experience of education themselves, endangers that either they will not be a positive force on their own children or despite wanting to make a difference they will lack the requisite knowledge and skills to support them. If the home learning environment is, however, a positive one poor families are able to have high aspirations for their children and provide significant support for them (Siraj-Blatchford, 2010). The evidence on successful attempts to reduce the poverty gap in education strongly suggests that the home learning environment can be improved through parental engagement which is capable of having a major impact on student achievement (Harris and Goodall, 2007). It is recognised that achieving this can be particularly challenging for schools in disadvantaged areas (Estyn, 2011) and that what is required in the first place is improvements in the way in which schools communicate with parents (Estyn, 2009). Whilst as will be seen below parenting engagement is a strong but challenging feature of the Flying Start programme in Wales, examples of sustained interventions to improve engagement at primary and secondary level seem limited. Much informal and some formal work takes place particularly in the early years of primary education to involve parents in both improving their basic skills and in working alongside teachers and teaching assistants with their children. Some of these approaches are supported by local authority interventions and include opportunities for parents to acquire formal qualifications. Five local authorities in South East Wales have been involved in developing the Investors in Families (IiF) programme. The aims of this programme include involving families as partners with schools in their children s learning and closing the gap between social disadvantage and achievement. Schools have to submit a portfolio of evidence every three years to demonstrate that they are achieving these aims and to be assessed for the IiF standard. Currently 83 schools in this area of high disadvantage have achieved the award and a further 100 schools and services are working towards accreditation (ESIS, 2011). Save the Children is working in partnership with Families and Schools Together (FAST) to improve access across the UK, to the FAST parental engagement programme. FAST was developed by Dr Lynn McDonald, Professor of Social Work Research at Middlesex University and is based on the socioecological theory of child development. At the time of writing the programme has been introduced by Save the Children into seven primary schools in the Caerphilly, Cardiff and RCT local authority areas in Wales and there are plans to expand it further. The aims of FAST are to enable children to improve their 18

educational achievement and life-chances and to live in strengthened families and communities. Groups of children and parents are offered an experiential eight-week curriculum to build relationships between parents and children, parents and school and parents and other parents within the local community (Save the Children, 2011, p2). In 2010 FAST undertook such a programme at Upper Rhymney Primary School, Caerphilly where 47% of the children receive FSM. It involved twentyone children between the ages of 3 and 5 and their families and saw a retention rate of 86%. The evaluation of the intervention notes that significant improvements took place in the behaviour of children at school and at home that led to improved learning and stronger family relationships (McDonald and Fitzroy, 2010). Other than these interventions little more is known about parental engagement programmes in Wales although it is certain that much more is happening at school and community level. Given the evidence base for the importance of parental engagement there is, therefore, a pressing need to establish exactly what is currently taking place at school and local authority level, where good practice exists and how this might be used with the knowledge we have from research in this area (Harris and Goodall, 2007) to develop a programme or accredited list of evidence-based techniques that schools and local authorities can implement to support the national priority on poverty and education. Communities and Community Programmes The third ingredient that can lead to successful strategies to overcome the influence of poverty in education is to strengthen the links between schools and their communities. Many schools and local authorities are already doing this through providing out-of-hours learning for children and their families utilising the Welsh Government s Community Focused School funding and the support of the voluntary organisation Contin You Cymru (Contin You Cymru, 2006; see also Cummings et al, 2011 and CfBT, 2007). In Rhondda Cynon Taff additional support provided by the local authority has led to a number of the secondary schools offering such activities through an extended programme known as E3 which provides a rich menu of opportunities for children and families. These are encouraging developments particularly as it is such opportunities for extended learning that children from disadvantaged backgrounds are often denied compared to their more privileged peers. It is recognised, however, that children from poverty backgrounds are often hard to reach in gaining their involvement in such programmes. Given this and the lack of evaluation that has been undertaken it is difficult to ascertain what impact this type of activity is having in improving attainment of students from poverty backgrounds. In noting this Estyn have also reported on the limited quality of much Community Focused Schools activity and the need for improved guidance to be provided for schools on how they should develop their activity in this area. Given that young people spend only 12% of the time they are awake in school, the potential for such programmes which provide informal and non-formal learning to be linked to more formal learning activities in schools and in particular to support the development of basic skills in literacy and numeracy is, therefore, largely untapped (Estyn, 2008a,2010 and 2011). Some local authorities have begun to work with other service areas to develop multiagency working that is focused on the needs of disadvantaged learners. This sometimes involves sharing data sources so that families can be targeted better for support and schools can be 19

linked to such interventions. An example of this is the Canopi Project in Rhondda Cynon Taff funded through Families First [see below] where a number of service areas have pooled data so that the full circumstances of disadvantaged families can be identified. Estyn have also pointed to innovative practice in this area in Neath Port Talbot and suggested that this in one of the factors that explains their relatively high level of performance with disadvantaged learners. They also note, however, that few local authorities monitor this work and thereby are able to identify its impact (Estyn, 2010 and 2011). Over the last decade the Welsh Government working with local authorities in Wales have developed a number of intervention programmes designed to tackle the impact of poverty at family and community level. It is envisaged that these programmes will form an integral part of the Tackling Poverty Strategy (due June 2012) of the Welsh Government which has the ambitious overall target of eliminating child poverty by 2020 (Welsh Government, 2005b;2006a, 2006b, 2008a, 2008b, 2010a, 2011f). The most prominent of these programmes are Flying Start, Families First and Communities First. Flying Start was introduced by the Welsh Government in 2006. It is an anti poverty programme that supports intensive and targeted interventions with pre-school children and families in the most disadvantaged communities in Wales. Among the risk factors that were identified for children living in these families was that they were less likely to be engaged in home learning and in only about a quarter of cases would an adult read to a child more than once a day (Welsh Government, 2011d). Each local authority in Wales has received a Flying Start grant allocation reflecting its relative socioeconomic deprivation. Although it is an area and not a school-based programme, it is recognised that there will be advantages where a school is at the centre of each catchment area (Welsh Assembly Government, 2005a). The key interventions supported by Flying Start are: Free, part-time, good quality childcare for two year olds¹ Increased health visitor support. Parenting programmes. Language and Play programmes. Flexibility is allowed for between these elements and the precise approaches to be followed in particular areas. Nevertheless, all the targeted families should experience elements of the full entitlement. What, therefore, is being put in place is localised provision within a prescriptive approach. ¹ Interestingly, this was originally accompanied by a commitment to make this full-time by 2011 see WAG (2005). Flying Start, Cardiff: Welsh Assembly Government. 20

An ongoing independent evaluation of Flying Start commenced in 2007 and has already produced a number of reports. In general these suggest that the early impact of Flying Start on children and families has been positive and include (Welsh Government, 2009; York Consulting, 2009; SQW Consulting, 2008, 2009a,2009c, 2010a; 2010c; White et al, 2008): Strong engagements with the targeted families that address critical needs and through multiagency working provide better quality support. High levels of satisfaction from client families. Improvements in the attainment of children by the age of 7, although there is variation between local authorities in these outcomes and in general an acceptance that it is too early to be sure that these are sustained improvements. Parents reporting significant benefits from their children attending quality pre-school childcare including improvements in language, literacy, numeracy, social development and behaviour as well as positive wider family effects. Extremely positive experiences by those parents who attend parenting courses. When they have been established popular language and play courses which providers believe have significant impact on children and parents. The important role of Health Visitors in encouraging parents to participate in parenting programmes and language and play courses. Three quarters of parents report that they have a much better understanding of the development of their child as a result of Flying Start. A particularly strong impact of language and play approaches on parents who are the most in need of support and a greater likelihood that they will use these approaches with their children. In general a much higher proportion of parents being involved in home learning activities with their children than was previously the case and compared to similar areas that are not part of Flying Start. The evaluations recognise, however, that at this early stage of Flying Start that the take-up of parenting and language and play courses by parents have been low and many of the most disadvantaged parents do not take these opportunities. It is also the case that at this stage the evaluation has focused on qualitative findings from families with children under the age of 2 and that, therefore, up to this point there has been a limited focus on evaluating the impact of these interventions on children s learning including when they begin to attend school and in their early years in the education system. This will be the focus of the next evaluation report which is due in 2012. The Welsh Government in its budget in 2011 has committed itself to a significant expansion in funding and activity by Flying Start that will double the number of children who will benefit from the programme. This should ensure that the situation in some disadvantaged communities where some schools are in Flying Start catchment areas and others are not will be significantly reduced. Whilst the evaluation has not considered the links between Flying Start and primary schools, the evidence on the ground suggests that this is variable. In some instances schools are strongly involved with programme activity and are very aware of the experiences that children have had through the programme before they enter the nursery class. In some of these cases this is facilitated by Flying Start 21

activity being located within the school. In other cases awareness and liaison between schools and the programme is limited if it exists at all. Given the importance of pre-school experience for a child s learning, the engagement of parents and the effects of home learning it is absolutely essential that there should be closer liaison and joint working between schools and Flying Start in our most disadvantaged communities as part of the national priority to reduce the influence of poverty on educational achievement and the wider ambitions of the Tackling Poverty Strategy. Families First is a programme which has replaced the former Cymorth strategy. Cymorth was a Welsh Government programme began in 2010 that enabled local authorities (through the Children and Young Peoples Partnerships which brought together various services involved with children and young people and the voluntary sector) to use grant funding on targeted projects that supplemented mainstream provision. These projects were to focus on early intervention and were to be either innovative or to be based on evidence of what works. Examples of projects that were linked to education included language and play approaches with families, summer play schemes for children, the employment of additional Youth Workers to work with disaffected school children in an attempt to re-engage them and additional childcare provision. As this suggests many of these activities were precursors of what has become Flying Start provision. An independent evaluation of Cymorth (SQW Consulting 2008, 2009a, 2009c, 2010b; Welsh Assembly Government, 2010b; York Consulting, 2006; White et al, 2008) identified a number of benefits achieved by the programme including strengthening partnership working, developing innovative provision and meeting real needs in children and families. Some projects were able to bring in additional funding from other sources and to eventually become part of mainstream provision. Among the concerns expressed by the evaluation was the lack of evidence demonstrating the impact of interventions and that would have allowed then to be considered for wider implementation. It was also felt that in the period before Flying Start was introduced that there was a tendency for Cymorth to concentrate on interventions with 0-3 year olds at the expense of older groups of children and young people. A specific evaluation of the work of Cymorth with schools (SQW Consulting 2009b) identified significant challenges that had been faced in developing partnership working. It suggested that this could be overcome through involving all teachers (not just the headteacher) in this work and that it was essential that school should be involved in the design as well as implementation of interventions at individual school and a strategic partnership level. Although this evaluation also reported difficulties with the monitoring and evaluation of the impact of interventions developed with schools, it did recognise that in the best instances the work had led to improved attendance and achievement and less exclusions of disadvantaged students. The overall conclusion of the Cymorth evaluation was that in future any funding made available by the Welsh Government should be focused upon a smaller number of critical areas of local need in disadvantaged communities rather than being spread across a diversity of age ranges and themes. It can be assumed that the intention was also that this would also allow the impact of interventions to be more closely measured. Families First was developed as a direct response to this recommendation. It is a programme that targets both pre and post school children and their families. It is intended to help transform local authority 22

services through multi-agency approaches that better meet the needs of children, young people and families living in poverty and to help reduce inequalities. It eschews one-size-fits-all approaches for an approach that will offer help and support of varying intensity throughout life (GHK and Arad Research, 2011;Welsh Assembly Government, 2011b; Welsh Government, 2011e). In so doing it adopts an implementation approach that departs from the traditional tiered model of universal, targeted, referred and specialist services to one that focuses on: Prevention. Protection. Remediation. Families First attempts to work between preventative and protective approaches. This and a focus on the family as a whole rather than individuals is seen to be the most effective way of improving outcomes including the educational attainment of family members. The delivery of Families First will be focused on both individual complex families and community driven approaches. Through these means it is intended that a whole system approach will emerge at national, regional and local level and that with Flying Start, Communities First and Integrated Family Support Services (targeted at the most complex and vulnerable families) Families First will provide a seamless strategic approach to dealing with and mitigating the impact of poverty on children and families. It is funded through a new Families First Fund that replaces Cymorth and which attempts to build upon its experience. Following a pilot programme in Wales from 2010-12 that brought together local authority consortia in south and north Wales, from April 2012 the programme will be implemented across all parts of Wales with an initial lifespan of 5 years. Local authorities were required to submit their proposals for funding to the Welsh Government by October 2011 and these were to include evidence of how Families First delivery would be linked to Flying Start and Communities First. A further requirement is that the local Delivery Groups that must be set up to lead the Families First programme should include representatives of the four local authority Education Consortia that will be in place from September 2012. This final point is a welcome recognition of the need to involve schools and the education system in Families First. As with Flying Start there is no clear evidence of joint working between schools and Families First although it is presumed that this is taking place at service level within local authorities. As Families First moves forward it is absolutely essential that such joint working at area and local level is achieved as part of the need to build closer links between schools and family/community programmes in order to contribute to reducing the poverty gap in education. Communities First was launched by the Welsh Assembly Government in 2000 as an area-based regeneration strategy to tackle widespread poverty in Wales. Using the Welsh Index of Multiple Deprivation and through agreement with local authorities it identified the most deprived wards in Wales as the location for the programme (Adamson, 2010). Through Communities First Partnerships in each of these areas an active role is given to the community itself in deciding on the interventions that are used to stimulate regeneration. Six areas for potential interventions were identified by the Welsh Assembly Government including education and training. The intention of the programme was that it in time 23

successful interventions would be incorporated into mainstream provision. The evaluation of the programme commissioned by the Welsh Government (Welsh Government, 2011a) whilst accepting that major gaps in educational achievement continue to exist between these areas and the rest of Wales identifies that the average attainment of students in Communities First areas has improved at a greater rate than in non-community First areas, particularly for 15 year olds where there has been an improvement equivalent to half a GCSE grade. It also suggests that most partnerships have developed good relationships with schools leading to education being the second highest level of additionality provided by the programme. The work undertaken includes supporting: Improvements to facilities such as ICT equipment for students to complete homework. Groups with particular needs such as those at risk of becoming NEET. Early Years provision. Youth diversion activities. Out-of-school learning activities. The evaluation notes that the impact of such work on improvements in student achievement is difficult to identify and is likely not to be seen for some years into the future and that this is also accepted by the partnerships. It also suggest that other benefits such as the involvement of schools and students with their communities and vice versa, greater community cohesion, improved aspirations and improved behaviour and attendance should not easily be discounted and are likely to be as important as achievement. Other evaluations of Communities First have been less sanguine about the impact it has had on education. Adamson (2008 and 2010) and Adamson and Bromiley (2008) believe that too few of the successes of the programme have been in the area of education and training and where they have occurred they have not generally influenced future mainstream provision. A study undertaken for the Joseph Rowntree Foundation of Communities First Neighbourhoods in Wales (Hincks and Robson, 2010) pointed to evidence that improvements which had taken place in Communities First areas appeared to be only marginal compared to those that had taken place in neighbouring non-communities First areas. This was particularly true of what it defines as isolate areas such as those to be found in significant numbers in the South Wales Valleys. This evaluation suggested that a particularly strong indicator of success or otherwise appeared to be the extent to which improvements took place in education and skills levels in the communities as there was a clear relationship between improvements in economic activity resulting from increases in skills levels. The conclusion arrived at by the authors was that particularly in these isolate areas Communities First had been incapable on its own of bringing about the changes which were needed in education and training and, therefore, more holistic interventions were required that linked policy agendas, objectives and funding streams. 24

Whilst these three evaluations present somewhat different interpretations on the impact of Communities First on educational participation and achievement in the most disadvantaged communities of Wales, they are at one in accepting the importance of improvements in education as a measure of community regeneration and combating poverty. They also agree with the need for more holistic approaches involving schools and communities together and a stronger focus on discernible outcomes including improvements in educational achievement. Since coming to power in 2011 the Welsh Government has renewed its commitment to Communities First but initiated a consultation on the direction the programme should take in its next period of development from 2012. The outcome of the consultation has reaffirmed many of the current priorities and methods of working of the programme and in order to strengthen its impact as a major anti-poverty programme has introduced an increased focus on educational achievement (along with improvements in health and employability) aligned to measurable improvements in benefits. The fact that Communities First will also expand the number of communities in which it will be working overcoming some of the anomalies which currently exist whereby schools in disadvantaged communities find themselves either within or outside programme areas, will also help to improve its reach into education. Partnership The analysis provided above, therefore, suggests that in the attempt to reduce the poverty gap in education in Wales an extremely rare and, therefore, highly important opportunity now presents itself to achieve the holistic approach between schools, families and communities that is being argued for in this report based on significant evidence of what is known to work (Dyson and Kerr, 2011; Kerr and West, 2010; Ainscow et al, 2012; Lupton, 2006; Lupton and Kintrea, 2008; Nelson et al, 2010; Perry and Francis, 2010; C4EO,2010). That opportunity is created by the fact that: This is one of the three main national priorities established for the education system in Wales supported by the School Effectiveness Grant and the new Pupil Deprivation Grant. The Welsh Government is due to publish its Tackling Poverty Strategy during 2012 within which reducing the impact of poverty on educational achievement will be a major strand. Flying Start is now at a stage of development where it should be directly impacting upon children in the first years of primary school and where the expansion of the programme that is now being planned could allow for increased liaison between schools and Flying Start provision. The new Families First programme which will begin its national implementation from April 2012 presents an opportunity for a more integrated approach to working with parents, children and families faced by the challenges of poverty and in a way that can impact upon parental engagement and student achievement.communities First will soon begin the next stage of its development with an increased focus upon education and more measurable improvements in outcomes. 25

The combined potential that these programmes and priorities have to impact upon the poverty gap in education within the Welsh Government Tackling Poverty Strategy present a once in a lifetime opportunity to achieve the holistic approach that evidence suggests is required. Whilst the alignment of these policies and programmes at national level is essential, even more important will be the need to ensure that there is strong partnership working in their delivery at regional and local level if real impact is to be achieved. More will be said below about how this can best be realized, but in this context it is worth considering why it is that partnership working so often presents a challenge and is not currently a strong feature in addressing the poverty gap in education. A study that looked at partnership working in the area of child poverty in Wales in 2009 (Holtom and Sims, 2009) provides useful insights on this issue. It found that in the two case study local authorities [Neath Port Talbot and Pembrokeshire] it investigated that there were respectively 24 and 32 different partnerships and networks that were addressing the child poverty agenda. This was unsurprisingly one of the main barriers to partnership working that they identified. Others were the scale of the challenge faced, a limitation to the resources available and their fragmentation across multiple funding streams, differences in cultures and priorities between service areas (particularly education and social services), a lack of holistic targets and perhaps most of all a lack of real will. Among their recommendations were proposals to locate service and programme delivery much more closely with school clusters in communities. Based on such evidence it is, therefore, clear that if partnership working is to have the impact on reducing the poverty gap in education that is possible, these barriers are not acceptable and must be overcome. Perhaps the greatest need is for these services to believe that in partnership they can make the impact that is required and which would not be possible through working alone. Moral purpose should be important at national and regional level as well as in schools and local authorities. The analysis offered in the previous sections of this report supports the following conclusions on the influence of poverty on educational achievement in Wales: Poverty has a significant impact and although there are instances which show this is not an inevitable outcome, in general the poverty gap in education is not being narrowed and is a major cause of low performance by the education system in Wales. Whilst the influence of parents, peer groups, communities and schools are all major influences on why disadvantaged students do not do well in education, the biggest impact is that of poverty itself and this is concentrated in particular communities and schools in Wales. Solutions for reducing the poverty gap in education can be found in holistic approaches that unite schools, parents and communities; an opportunity now exists in Wales to bring these approaches together in a national programme within the Welsh Government s Tackling Poverty Strategy. What implications flow from these findings for policy development at national, local and school level that can over the next period begin to make a major impact on reducing the influence of poverty on educational achievement? 26

6. Conclusions National Level For too long in Wales, as elsewhere, attempts have been made to tackle the influence of poverty in education by grafting on new policies to existing ones and generally the success of this approach has been very limited. What is now needed is a much more innovative solution that develops a holistic and system-wide intervention which brings together schools, parents and communities in those areas where the greatest challenges are faced. Such an approach is supported by evidence from the work of Estyn, evaluations of the RAISE Programme, the Extended Schools programme and Sure Start in England, the experience of the national challenge programme in England and major evidence reviews undertaken by the British Educational Research Association and the Royal Society for Arts (Estyn, 210 and 2011; Holtom, 2011; Cummings et al, 2011; Dyson and Kerr, 2011; Ainscow et al, 2012; Eisenstadt, 2011; Kerr and West, 2011; Perry and Francis, 2010). A powerful international example of such an approach which may have strong messages for Wales is provided by the Harlem Children s Zone in the USA (Dobbie and Fryer, 2009; Tough, 2009). All of this evidence recognises that developing such a solution is more complex and challenging than the individual policies which have been introduced in the past, but ultimately is much more likely to be successful. Within this holistic intervention programme increased focus will need to be placed upon measurable outcomes including significant improvements in participation and achievement by disadvantaged students. This should to be a common feature of the national priority on poverty in education, of Flying Start, Families First and Communities First. It should also be recognised that it will take time to achieve these improvements.this will require the Welsh Government to ensure that in order to develop interventions that are focused jointly upon schools, parents and communities that integrated policy development and planning takes place between the Department s for Education and Skills, Health and Social Services and Local Government and Communities within the overarching Tackling Poverty Strategy. Local At local level integration of planning and policy delivery will be of even greater importance to ensure that service areas, particularly education, children s services and social services work together to provide a seamless continuum of support between schools, local authorities, Flying Start, Families First and Communities First. The replacement of the current Children and Young People s Partnership structure at local authority level provides an opportunity for this to be achieved and it is essential that new regional Education Consortia play a full part in the new structure. The arrival of the new regional Education Consortia in September 2012 provides a significant opportunity for greater challenge and support to be provided by local authorities so that their schools focus increasingly on solutions to reduce the poverty gap by action at school level and with their parents and communities. In particular the Consortia should take the lead in moving effective practice around their schools and ensuring that it is adopted (Kerr and West, 2011; Ainscow et al, 2012; Hargreaves, 2010). 27

Schools Estyn and the independent evaluators of the RAISE programme have identified that generally schools do not have in place strategic plans which show how through their work with students, parents and communities they intend to improve the achievement of disadvantaged students, including how they will monitor, report and evaluate interventions and student outcomes (Estyn, 2010 and 2011; Holtom, 2011). The same evidence sources have identified that schools often use the funding available to them to focus on the work of low and underachieving students many of whom will be disadvantaged - rather specifically students living in poverty including those who may be achieving at moderately successful levels and also need additional support (Estyn, 2010 and 2011; Holtom, 2011). Whilst additional funding sources are important for schools in tackling the poverty gap, much more important is that they use these resources on interventions which are known to work (Holtom, 2011). Schools need to have access to far more specific knowledge about what are the right things to do. 28

7. Recommendations The Welsh Government should: Develop within the Tackling Poverty Strategy a national model of how schools, parents and communities can together reduce the impact of poverty on educational achievement. This should include the specification of effective work that can be undertaken by schools, the development of a Parental Engagement Programme based on an evaluation of interventions that are currently in place, and the potential for links with Flying Start, Families First and Communities First. Provide clear guidance for schools on evidence of what works in successfully undertaking interventions with students, parents and communities in reducing the poverty gap so that the School Effectiveness Grant and Pupil Deprivation Grant can be used to maximum effect. Remit Estyn and the Wales Audit Office to undertake monitoring and publish regular evaluations and reviews of effective practice in the use of the School Effectiveness Grant and Pupil Deprivation Grant to reduce the link between poverty and low achievement. Ensure that strong partnership working is in place at national level (through interdepartmental activity) and at regional and local level (between the local authority education consortia, children s services and social services) so that schools, local authorities, Flying Start, Families First and Communities First work together to develop the holistic implementation strategies that are essential to reduce the poverty gap in education. Local Authority Education Consortia should: Ensure that one of their major priorities is to reduce the influence of poverty on educational achievement through multi-agency working that joins schools and local authorities to parents and communities. Dedicate a senior role in their leadership structures and staff capacity to support the realisation of this priority Facilitate the moving around of knowledge on what works best in reducing the impact of poverty on achievement and ensure this is included within the challenge and support that they provide to schools. Schools should: Have a strategic plan in place that shows how they will use the resources available to them to reduce the poverty gap in student achievement and undertake interventions at student, parental and community level that are proven to be effective in raising the achievement of all disadvantaged students Develop leadership structures that enable this to be achieved including having a senior leadership role that is focused on reducing the poverty gap in achievement. Monitor, report and evaluate the impact on student outcomes of the interventions identified in the strategic plan as part of their annual review processes. 29

8. References Adamson, D. (2008). Still Living on the Edge ; Contemporary Wales, 21, 1, 47-66. Adamson, D. and Bromiley, R. (2008). Community Empowerment: Lessons from Communities First. Joseph Rowntree Foundation: York. Adamson, D. (2010). The Impact of Devolution: Area- Based Regeneration Policies in the UK. Joseph Rowntree Foundation: York. Ainscow, M., Dyson, A., Goldrick, S. and West, M. (2012). Developing Equitable Education Systems. Routledge: Abingdon. Allen, G. (2011). Early Intervention: the Next Steps. HM Government: London. Barber, M. and Mourshed, M. (2007). How the World s Best Performing School Systems Come Out On Top. McKinsey and Company: London. Beatty, C. and Fothergill, S. (2011). Tackling Worklessness in Wales. Centre for Regional Economic and Social Research: Sheffield Hallam University. Bradshaw, J., Sturman, L., Vappula, H., Ager, R. and Wheater, R. (2007). Achievement of 15 Year Olds in Wales: PISA 2006 National Report. Slough: National Foundation for Educational Research. Bradshaw, J., Ager, R., Burge, B. and Wheater, R. (2010). PISA 2009: Achievement of 15 Year Olds in Wales. Slough: NFER. Brook, A. (2008). Raising Education Achievement and Breaking the Cycle of Inequality in the United Kingdom. OECD: Paris. Cabinet Office (2008). Aspiration and Attainment Amongst Young People in Deprived Communities. Cabinet Office: London. Cassen, R. and Kingdon, G. (2007). Tackling Low Educational Achievement. Joseph Rowntree Foundation: York. Centre for Research on the Wider Benefits of Learning (2008). The Social and Personal Benefits of Learning. Institute of Education: London. CfBT Education Trust (2007). Schools As Community Based Organisations. CfBT Trust. C4EO (2010). Grasping the Nettle: Early Intervention for Children, Families and Communities. C4E0:London. Chapman, C., Mongan, D., Muijs, D., Williams, J., Pampaka, M., Wakefield, D. and Weiner, S. (2010). Evaluation of the Extra Mile. Department for Education: London. Chowdry. H., Crawford, C. and Goodman, A. (2009). Drivers and Barriers to Educational Success. DCSF:London. Conti You Cymru (2006). Community Focused Schools: Making It Happen. Cardiff: Contin You Cymru. Counterpoint Research (2008). Childhood Wellbeing: Qualitative Research Study. Department for Children, Schools and Families: London. Crowley, A. And Vulliamy,C. (2007). Listen Up! Children and Young People Talk About Poverty. Cardiff: Save the Children. Cummings, C., Dyson, A. and Todd, L. (2011). Beyond the School Gates. Routledge: Abingdon. Cuthbert, C. and Hatch, R. (2009). Educational Aspiration and Attainment Amongst Young People in Deprived Communities. 30

Desforges, C. and Abouchaar, A. (2003). The Impact of Parental Involvement, Parental Support and Family Education on Pupil Achievement and Adjustment: A Literature Review. DfES: London. Department of Children, Schools and Families (2008). The Extra Mile: How Schools Succeed in Raising Aspirations in Deprived Communities. DCSF: London. Department for Children, Schools and Families (2009a). Narrowing the Gaps: Leadership for Impact. DCSF: London. Department for Children, Schools and Families (2009b). Breaking the Link Between Disadvantage and Low Attainment. DCSF: London. Department for Children, Schools and Families (2009c). Deprivation and Education. DCSF:London. Demie, F. and Lewis, K. (2010). Raising the Achievement of White Working Class Pupils. Lambeth Council: London. Drinkwater, S, Parhi, M. and Taylor, C. (2011). Inequalities in Educational Outcomes in Wales in Wales Institute of Social and Economic Research: An Anatomy of Economic Inequality in Wales. WISERD: Cardiff. Dobbie, W. and Fryer, R. (2009). Are High Quality Schools Enough to Close the Achievement Gap? Evidence from a Social Experiment in Harlem. National Bureau of Economic Research: Cambridge, Ma. Duckworth, K., Akerman, R., Gutman, L.M, and Vorhaus, J. (2009). Influences and Leverages on Low Levels of Attainment: A Review of Literature and Policy Initiatives. Centre for Research on the Wider Benefits of Learning: London University Institute of Education. Dyson, A. and Kerr, K. (2011). Taking Action Locally: Schools Developing Innovative Area Intiatives. Centre for Equity in Education: The University of Manchester. Egan, D. (2007). Combating Child Poverty in Wales: Are Appropriate Education Policies in Place? York: Joseph Rowntree Foundation. Egan, D. (2008). Why Not the Best Schools? The Wales Report ACER Press: Victoria. Egan, D. (2010). Educational Equity and School Performance in Wales in Poverty and Social Exclusion in Wales. Ebbw Vale: the Bevan Foundation. Egan. D. (2012). School Effectiveness in the Learning Country: Wales and School Improvment in Chapman, C., Armstrong, P., Harris, A., Muijs, D., Reynolds, D. and Sammons, P. School Effectiveness and Improvement Research, Policy and Practice. Routledge Abingdon. Eisenstadt, N. (2011). Providing A Sure Start: How Government Discovered Early Childhood. Policy Press: Bristol. End Child Poverty Network and Children in Wales (2006). Tackling Child Poverty in Wales. Children in Wales: Cardiff. End Child Poverty Network and Children in Wales (2011). Child Poverty: A Manifesto Towards Eradication. Children in Wales: Cardiff. ESIS (2011). Investors in Families Update Autumn Term. ESIS: Nantgarw. Estyn (2007). The Impact of RAISE Funding: An Interim Report. Estyn: Cardiff. Estyn (2008a). Provision of Community-Focused Services and Facilities by Schools. Estyn: Cardiff. 31

Estyn (2008b). The Impact of RAISE. Cardiff: Estyn. Estyn (2009). Good Practice in Parental Involvement in Primary Schools. Estyn: Cardiff. Estyn (2010). Tackling Child Poverty and Disadvantage in Schools. Estyn: Cardiff. Estyn (2011). Tackling Poverty and Disadvantage in Schools: Working With the Community and Other Services. Estyn: Cardiff. Field, F. (2010). The Foundation Years: Preventing Poor Children Becoming Poor Adults. HM Government: London. GHK and Arad Research (2011). Learning from the Early Implementation of the Families First Pioneers. GHK and Arad: Birmingham. Goodman, A. and Gregg, P. (2010). Poorer Children s Educational Attainment: How Important Are Attitudes and Behaviour? Joseph Rowntree Foundation: York. Gutman, L. and Akerman, R. (2008). Determinants of Aspirations. London: Centre for the Research on the Wider Benefits of Learning. Hansen, K. and Joshi, H. (2007). Millenium Cohort Study Second Survey. Centre for Longitudinal Studies: University of London Institute of Education. Hargreaves, D. (2010). Creating A Self-Improving School System. National College for Leadership of Schools and Children s Services: Nottingham. Harris, A. and Goodall, J. (2007). Engaging Parents in Raising Achievement: Do Parents Know They Matter? DfCSF: London. Hattie, J. (2009). Visible Learning. Abingdon Routledge. Higgins, S., Kokotaski, D. and Coe, R. (2011). Toolkit of Strategies to Improve Learning. Sutton Trust:London. Hincks, S. and Robson, B. (2010). Regenerating Communities First Neighbourhoods in Wales. Joseph Rowntree Foundation: York. Hirsch, D. (2007). Experiences of Poverty and Educational Disadvantage. Joseph Rowntree Foundation: York. Holtom, D. (2008a). Evaluation of RAISE: Interim Report. Abergavenny: People and Work Unit. Holtom, D. (2008b). Evaluation of RAISE: Thematic Report on the Work of Regional Coordinators. Abergavenny: People and Work Unit. Holtom, D. (2009a). External Evaluation of RAISE; Thematic Report on Options for Sustaining the Impact of RAISE. Abergavenny: People and Work Unit. Holtom, D. (2009b). Evaluation of RAISE: 2nd Interim Report. Abergavenny: People and Work Unit. Holtom, D. and Sims, J. (2009). Tackling Severe Child Poverty in Wales: the Impact and Effectiveness of Partnership Working. Welsh Assembly Government: Cardiff. Holtom, D. (2011). Evaluation of the First Three Years of RAISE. People and Work Unit: Abergavenny. Horgan, G. (2007). The Impact of Poverty on Young Children s Experience of School. Joseph Rowntree Foundation: York. James, C., Connolly, M., Dunning, G. & Elliot, T. (2006). How Very Effective PrimarySchools Work. London: Paul Chapman Publishing. Jones, O. (2011). Chavs; the Demonization of the Working Class. Verso:London. 32

Kenway, P. and Palmer, P. (2007). Monitoring Poverty and Social Exclusion in Wales 2007. York:Joseph Rowntree Foundation. Kerr, K. and West, M. (2010). Social Inequality: Can Schools Narrow the Gap? British Educational Research Association. BERA: Macclesfield. Lloyd-Jones, S.; Bowen, R., Holtom, D., Griffin, T. and Sims, J. (2010). A Qualitative Research Study to Explore Young People s Disengagement from Learning. Welsh Assembly Government: Cardiff. Lupton, R. (2005). Social Justice and School Improvement: Improving the Quality of Schools in the Poorest Neighbourhoods, British Educational Research Journal, 31, 5, 589-604. Lupton, R. (2006). How Does Place Affect Education? IPPR:London. Lupton, R. and Kintrea, K. (2008). Community-Level Influences on Educational Attainment: A Review for the Social Exclusion Task Force. London: London School of Economics/Glasgow University/Cabinet Office. McDonald, L. and Fitzroy, S. (2010). Evaluation Report for Caerphilly: Participating School: Upper Rhymney Primary School. Save the Children and FAST: Middlesex University. Mourshed, M, Chijioke, C. and Barber, M. (2010). How the World s Most Improved School Systems Keep Getting Better. McKinsey and Company:London. National College for Leadership of Schools and Children s Services (2010). 10 Strong Claims About Successful School Leadership. NCLS CS:Nottingham. Nelson, J., Wilson, R. and Bielby, G. (2010). Tackling Child Poverty Through Whole-Area Strategies. C4EO:London. Northern Ireland Assembly (2010). Successful Post- Primary Schools Serving Disadvantaged Communities. Northern Ireland Assembly: Belfast. OECD (2010). The High Cost of Low Educational Performance. OECD:Paris. Ofsted (2009a). Twenty Outstanding Primary Schools; Excelling Against the Odds. Ofsted: London. Ofsted (2009b). Twelve Outstanding Secondary School Excelling Against the Odds. Ofsted:London. Parekh, A. and Kenway, P. (2011). Monitoring Poverty and Social Exclusion in Wales 2011. York:Joseph Rowntree Foundation. Perry, E. and Francis, B. (2010). The Social Class Gap for Educational Achievement: A Review of the Literature. Royal Society of Arts: London. Reynolds, D., Stringfield, S. and Schaffer, E. (2006). The High Reliability School Project: Some Preliminary Results and Analyses in Chrispeels, J. and Harris, A. (Eds) School Improvement: International Perspectives. London: Routledge. Sammons, P. (2007). School Effectiveness Research and Equity. Centre for British Teachers: London. Save the Children and Bevan Foundation (2007). Children in Severe Poverty in Wales. Save the Children: Cardiff. Save the Children (2011). Families and Schools Together. Save the Children: London. Siraj-Blatchford, I. (2010). Learning in the Home and at School: How Working Class Children Succeed Against the Odds, British Educational Research Journal, 36, 3, 463-482. 33

SQW Consulting (2008). National Evaluation of Cymorth and Flying Start: Area Case Studies Overview Report Year 1. SQW Consulting. SQW Consulting (2009a). National Evaluation of Cymorth and Flying Start: Area Case Studies Overview Report Year 2. SQW Consulting. SQW Consulting (2009b). Involvement of Schools: Cymorth Review. SQW Consulting. SQW Consulting (2009c). Cymorth and Flying Start National Evaluation: Designing and Delivering Effective Parenting Support Programmes. SQW Consulting. SQW Consulting (2010a). Flying Start Evaluation: Case Study Overview Report 2009/10. SQW Consulting. SQW Consulting (2010b). Value for Money-Evidence from Review of Cymorth Projects. SQW Consulting. SQW Consulting (2010c). National Evaluation of Flying Start: Baseline Update Report. SQW Consulting. St Clair, R., Kintrea, K. and Houston, M. (2011). The Influence of Parents, Places and Poverty on Educational Attitudes and Aspirations. Joseph Rowntree Foundation: York. Stringfield, S., Reynolds, D. and Schaffer, E. (2008). Improving Secondary Students Academic Achievement Through A Focus on Reform Reliability. CFBT. Sutton Trust (2009). Attainment Gaps Between Pupils in the Most Deprived and Advantaged Schools. Sutton Trust: London. Sutton Trust (2011). Improving the Impact of Teachers on Pupil Achievement in the UK-Interim Findings. Sutton Trust. The London Challenge (2010). Lessons Learned from London. The London Challenge. Tough, P. (2009). Whatever It Takes. New York: First Mariner Books. Vignoles, A and Meschi, E. (2010). The Determinants of Non-Cognitive and Cognitive Schooling Outcomes. DCSF:London. Watson, D., Emery, C. and Bayliss, P. (2012). Children s Social and Emotional Wellbeing in Schools: A Critical Perspective. Policy Press: Bristol. Welsh Assembly Government. (2002). Narrowing the gap in the performance of schools. Cardiff: Welsh Assembly Government. Welsh Assembly Government (2005a). Flying Start. Cardiff: Welsh Assembly Government. Welsh Assembly Government (2005b). A Fair Future for Our Children: the Strategy of the Welsh Assembly Government for Tackling Child Poverty. Cardiff: Welsh Assembly Government. Welsh Assembly Government. (2005c). Narrowing the gap in the performance of schools project: Phase 2 primary schools. Cardiff: Welsh Assembly Government. Welsh Assembly Government (2006a). Eradicating Child Poverty in Wales: Measuring Success. Cardiff: Welsh Assembly Government. Welsh Assembly Government (2006b). Child Poverty Implementation Plan: Phase 1 Proposals. Cardiff: Welsh Assembly Government. Welsh Assembly Government (2008a). Taking Action on Child Poverty. Cardiff: Welsh Assembly Government. Welsh Assembly Government(2008b). Child Poverty Expert Group:Education 4-14 Recommendations. Cardiff: Welsh Assembly Government. 34

Welsh Assembly Government (2009). Qualitative Evaluation of Flying Start. Welsh Assembly Government: Cardiff. Welsh Assembly Government (2010a). Child Poverty Strategy for Wales. Cardiff: Welsh Assembly Government. Welsh Assembly Government (2010b). Evaluation of Cymorth Final Report. Welsh Assembly Government: Cardiff. Welsh Assembly Government (2011). 2011 Children and Young People s Wellbeing Monitor for Wales. Welsh Assembly Government: Cardiff. Welsh Government (2011a). The Evaluation of Communities First. Welsh Government: Cardiff. Welsh Assembly Government (2011b). Families First: Guidance for Invitation to Become A Pioneer. Welsh Assembly Government: Cardiff. Welsh Government (2011c). Achievement and Entitlement to Free School Meals in Wales 2010. Welsh Government: Cardiff. Welsh Government (2011d). Evaluation of Flying Start: Findings from the Baseline Survey of Families. Welsh Government: Cardiff. Welsh Assembly Government (2011f). Child Poverty Strategy for Wales. Welsh Assembly Government: Cardiff. White, G., Bennett, A., McCrindle, L. And Turner, R. (2008). National Evaluation of Cymorth and Flying Start: Area Case Studies Overview Report Year 1 and Draft Final Overview Report. Cardiff: Welsh Assembly Government. Wilkinson, R. and Pickett, K. (2009). The Spirit Level: Why More Equal Societies Almost Always Do Better. London: Allen Lane. Wilson, P. (2011). A Rapid Evidence Assessment Investigating the Drop in Attainment During the Transition Phase With a Particular Focus Upon Child Poverty. Welsh Assembly Government: Cardiff. Winkler, V. (2009). What Is Needed to End Child Poverty in Wales? Joseph Rowntree Foundation: York. York Consulting (2006). First Stage Evaluation of Children and Young People s Frameworks, Early Entitlement and Cymorth. York: York Consulting. York Consulting (2009). Effective Engagement With Families and Young People: Good Practice from the Cymorth and Flying Start Programmes. York Consulting: York. Welsh Government (2011e). Families First: Programme Guidance. Welsh Government: Cardiff. 35

About us Save the Children works in more than 120 countries. We save children s lives. We fight for their Rights. We help them fulfil their potential. For more information please contact: Ruth Mullineux, Policy Officer Save the Children r.mullineux@savethechildren.org.uk Sara Drysdale, Communications and Campaigns Officer Save the Children s.drysdale@savethechildren.org.uk 36 cardiffdesign.co.uk