Ipsos | Uni Connect Phase 3 : Attainment-raising Activity – Final Report
17 ensure that participating learners were appropriately selected when programmes are targeted for younger year groups :
“ I think that , overall , they were appropriately selected . I think it ’ s really difficult to ask schools to assess Year 8 learners ’ capabilities in terms of GCSE results . Oftentimes that ’ s quite a large group of learners that you ’ re trying to pick out of . A little bit of specificity could have been helpful with the younger years .” ( School stakeholder )
As such , partnerships may want to provide more guidance for the selection of learners in younger year groups to support schools .
Case study example : learner selection
Partnership ‘ A ’ have taken a flexible and iterative approach for learner selection to attend their mentoring programme for learners in Year 8 to Year 10 . The delivered mentoring programme consisted of ongoing sessions ( relating to growth mindset , meta-cognition and other skills-based methods ) that are held in either small groups or 1:1 by partnership delivery staff . School staff were considered best placed to select learners across all programmes being delivered through the attainment-raising strand , with selection especially important for the mentoring programme because it demands higher levels of learner engagement .
Initially the partnership provided schools with criteria on which to base selection , however this was revised through discussions with both delivery and school staff . Originally , the partnership requested schools select learners that were “ disengaged ” or lacking motivation at school . This criterion had varying effect in early delivery , working well with some of the older learners and less so with younger learners ( e . g . Year 8 ). One school emphasised that the nature of the school ’ s learner base ( e . g . proportionately high levels of PP learners and learners with SEND ) further influenced how they interpreted the criteria .
As a result , individual delivery staff continually worked with each school to adapt the criteria at a local level to ensure more suitable learners were selected . For example , one school refocussed the criteria for mentoring to select more engaged learners that were considered on “ borderline ” grades instead . Another school has continued to select disengaged learners , but now delivers the programme in smaller group sessions to optimise engagement . The success of learner selection largely relies on the relationship with a school and their ability to engage :
“ The school that I ’ m working with doesn ’ t necessarily provide support to the link person in school , […] but it is what it is . Schools are very busy , and teachers have a lot going on , so it ’ s also challenging to have them engaging with what [ Case Study Partnership ] wants to provide . So , they might be focused on exams , they might be focused on other things , and might not necessarily want to do other things or dedicate more time to other areas . So , that also plays into how well the school engages and how well the selection process goes on in schools . I think it ’ s down to dynamics , what happens , every school is different .” ( Partnership delivery staff )
Ongoing communication with schools about learner selection within schools has been a key facilitator for more successful delivery more broadly . This example highlights the importance of considering the nature of the programme and the importance of school-partnership relationships at the local level , when selecting appropriate learners .
20-048464 | FINAL | Public | This work was carried out in accordance with the requirements of the international quality standard for Market Research , ISO 20252 , and with the Ipsos MORI Terms and Conditions which can be found at http :// www . ipsos-mori . com / terms .