Effective Pre-School and Primary Education3-11 Project (EPPE 3-11)

A longitudinal study funded by the DfES(2003 – 2008)

formerly The Effective Provision of Pre-School Education (EPPE) Project (1997 – 2003)

The British Educational Research Association(BERA)

Annual Conference

Institute of Education5th - 8th September 2007Saturday 8th September

BERA SIG: Early Childhood Education and CareSession Number: Parallel 8.04 Symposium 8727

9.00 to 10.30

EPPSE 3-14 Project15 Woburn SquareInstitute of EducationUniversity of London Tel: +44 (0)207 612 621920 Bedford Way Fax: +44 (0)207 612 6230London WC1H 0AL Email: b.taggart@ioe.ac.ukOr visit our website on ………………………………http://www.ioe.ac.uk/projects/eppe

September 2007

1

Contact Details for First Authors

Dr. Yvonne GrabbeMax Planck Institute for Human Development,BerlinTel. 030 - 82 406 345 Fax 030 - 82 406 490 / email grabbe@mpib-berlin.mpg.de

Professor Kathy SylvaDepartment of Educational Studies, University of Oxford00 44 (0)1865 274 008 / email kathy.sylva@edstud.ox.ac.uk

Dr Stephen Hunt Institute of Education, University of London00 44 (0)207 612 6684 / email s.hunt@ioe.ac.uk

Dr Sofka BarreauInstitute of Education, University of London00 44 (0)207 612 6608 / email s.barreau@ioe.ac.uk

2

The EPPE 3-11 Research Team

Principal Investigators

Professor Kathy SylvaDepartment of Educational Studies, University of Oxford00 44 (0)1865 274 008 / email kathy.sylva@edstud.ox.ac.uk

Professor Edward MelhuishInstitute for the Study of Children, Families and Social IssuesBirkbeck University of London00 44 (0) 207 079 0834 / email e.melhuish@bbk.ac.uk

Professor Pam SammonsUniversity of Nottingham 00 44 (0) 0115 951 4434 / email pam.sammons@nottinghham.ac.uk

Professor Iram Siraj-BlatchfordInstitute of Education, University of London00 44 (0)207 612 6218 / email i.siraj-blatchford@ioe.ac.uk

*Brenda TaggartInstitute of Education, University of London00 44 (0)207 612 6219 / email b.taggart@ioe.ac.uk

Research OfficersDr Sofka BarreauInstitute of Education, University of London00 44 (0)207 612 6608 / email s.barreau@ioe.ac.uk

Dr Stephen Hunt Institute of Education, University of London00 44 (0)207 612 6684 / email s.hunt@ioe.ac.uk

Dr Helena JelicicInstitute of Education, University of London00 44 (0)207 612 6608 / email h.jelicic@ioe.ac.uk

Olga CaraInstitute of Education, University of London00 44 (0)207 612 6219 / email o.cara@ioe.ac.uk

Rebecca SmeesInstitute of Education, University of London00 44 (0)207 612 6219 / email r.smees@ioe.ac.uk

Tracking OfficerWesley WelcommeInstitute of Education, University of London00 44 (0)207 612 6684 / email w.welcomme@ioe.ac.uk

*also Research Co-ordinator

3

Contents Page Number

Symposium Overview/ Paper Abstract 1

Part One An introduction to EPPE 2

Part Two Methodology 2

Part Three The EPPE 3-11 Project: The Key Stag 2 Phase 3

Part Four Investigating the continuing effects of pre-school on children’s cognitive outcomes at the end of year 5Abstract 4Findings 5

Part Five The effects of the Home Learning Environment on children’s developmental outcomes at age 7: EPPE resultsAbstract 9Findings 10

Part Six Estimating the Influence of Neighbourhood Environment on Cognitive PerformanceAbstract 20Findings 21

Part Seven Effective Pre-School And Primary Education 3-11 Project (Eppe 3-11) Influences On Children’s Development And Progress In Key Stage 2: Social/Behavioural Outcomes In Year 5Abstract 29Findings 31

Appendix 1 Technical Papers in the Series and Ordering information 40

4

Symposium Overview

Effective Pre-School and Primary Education 3-11 (EPPE 3-11) Project

Overview/rationaleThe Effective Pre-school and Primary Education 3-11 (EPPE 3-11) Project is the largest European longitudinal study of a national sample of young children’s development between the ages of 3 and 11 years. The EPPE 3-11 team has collected a wide range of information on 3,000 children, their parents, home environments and the pre-school and primary settings they attended. The main research questions focus on the impact of pre-schools and a range of other background factors on children’s cognitive and social/behavioural outcomes.

The EPPE 3-11 research demonstrates a mix method approach to longitudinal research with quantitative data on standardized assessments informing the qualitative work on classroom practices and processes. The research uses a range of instruments including standardized assessment data, interviews/questionnaires and observational schedules to build a complex individual ‘portrait’ and ‘learning trajectory’ for each of our 3,000 children. Multilevel modeling, effect sizes and other statistical techniques have been used to assess progress and attainment net of other background factors. Thus the impact of pre-school can be separated out from the influences of school/home factors. The research can answer questions on the long term impact of pre-school and how this articulates with other factors in determining children’s outcomes.

This is a significant symposia given the current interest in early years experiences and what constitutes effective schooling. The research implications of this study are wide ranging. They concern not only the influences on children’s cognitive and social/behavioural development but also demonstrate how research evidence can inform policy at national and Local Authority level, as well as contributing to the debate about effective practices in both early years and Key Stage

The four papers submitted to this symposium continue a long tradition of presenting emergent findings from the research study at BERA and continue the ‘story’ of the research. The three papers focus on:

a) What factors determine cognitive attainment and progress at Year 5 (age 10) b) What is the relationship between the home learning environment and child outcomes?c) Estimating the possible influence of neighborhood factors on attainment at Year 1 (age 6)d) What factors determine social / behavioral outcomes.

The papers in this symposia will be of interest to BERA members who are concerned with early years experiences, the impact of a child’s background on their development, effective schooling and mixed method research.

Principal Investigators: Professor Kathy Sylva University of OxfordProfessor Edward Melhuish Birkbeck, University of LondonProfessor Pam Sammons University of NottinghamProfessor Iram Siraj-Blatchford Institute of Education, University of LondonBrenda Taggart Institute of Education, University of London

1

The Effective Provision of Pre-School Education(EPPE) Project

Part One – An Introduction to EPPE1

This five year longitudinal study assessed the attainment and development of children between the ages of 3 to 7 years. Research began in 1997 and both quantitative and qualitative methods (including multilevel modeling) have been used to explore the effects of pre-school education on children's cognitive attainment and social/behavioural development at entry to school and any continuing effects on such outcomes two years later at the end of Key Stage 1 (age 7).

To investigate the effects of pre-school1 education for 3 and 4 year olds, the EPPE team collected a wide range of information on over 3,000 children, their parents, their home environments and the pre-school settings they attended.

Settings (141) were drawn from a range of providers (local authority day nursery, integrated 2 centres, playgroups, private day nurseries, maintained nursery schools and maintained nursery classes). A sample of ‘home’ children (who had no or minimal pre-school experience) was recruited to the study at entry to school for comparison with the pre-school group. In addition to investigating the effects of pre-school provision on young children’s development, EPPE explores the characteristics of effective practice (and the pedagogy which underpin them) through twelve intensive case studies of settings with positive child outcomes.

In addition to pre-school centre effects, the study investigated the contribution to children’s development of individual and family characteristics such as gender, ethnicity, language, parental education and the educational environment of the home. The research design addresses a variety of research issues (methodological and practical) in investigating the impact of pre-school provision on children’s developmental progress.

EPPE has demonstrated the positive effects of high quality provision on children’s intellectual and social/behavioural developmental

Part Two – EPPE MethodologyEPPE used the following sources of information: standardised child assessments taken over time, child profiles completed by pre-school staff, parental interviews, interviews with pre-school centre staff, quality rating scales and case study observations and interviews. The case studies included detailed documentation of naturalistic observations of staff pedagogy, and systematic structured target child observations of children’s learning. Information was also gathered and analysed using interviews with parents, staff and managers and through intensive and wide ranging documentary analysis and a literature review of pedagogy in the early years.

These sources of data have used in statistical analyses including multilevel modeling to explore the ‘value added’ by pre-school after taking account of a range of child, parent and home background factors to produce rigorous and persuasive data for policy makers and provided practical guidance on quality for practitioners.

EPPE has had a profound effect on both policy and practice in early years through robust research evidence. It has highlighted the importance of pre-school along with other child, family and centre characteristics which lead to positive outcomes for young learners.

1 EPPE Technical Paper One : An Introduction to EPPE, sets the design of EPPE within the context of other research studies on the effectiveness of early education and care.1Pre-school centres in this document means those centres that included 3 and 4 year olds. 2 ‘Integrated’ settings fully combines education and care and is referred to as ‘combined’ centres in EPPE Technical Papers.

2

Part Three – The EPPE 3-11 Project: The Key Stage 2 phase The new project: Effective Pre-School and Primary Education 3-11 (EPPE 3-11, 2003 - 2008) continues to build on the extensive data collected in the original EPPE study, following the children up to the age of 11 at the end of Key Stage 2. The key research questions for this phase of the research are:

1 Do the effects of pre-school continue through to Key Stage 2?2 What are the characteristics of ‘effective’ primary classrooms and schools?3 Who are the resilient and vulnerable children in the EPPE sample?4 What is the contribution of ‘out-of-school’ learning (home, communities, internet) to

children’s development?

The new project adopts an innovative design explores the effectiveness of primary schools using quantitative data derived from analyses of matched data sets across Key Stages. This quantitative data will inform focus school observations which will explore the practices and process at classroom level which may influence children’s cognitive and social/behavioural development. The study combines statistical analyses, observational and interview data.

The research is being conducted in a series of ‘nested’ studies or ‘Tiers’ in over 800 schools. Each ‘Tier’ will help us answer the four research questions as well as building on each other.

Tier 1 – The Tier 1 analyses were designed to enable the EPPE team to have some information about the schools the EPPE children attend. By deriving a series of ‘value added residuals’ scores for every primary school in England for three consecutive years, linked with measures in other administrative databases including links with the Autumn Package classifications and Ofsted ratings (e.g. pedagogical quality), this part of the study enables us to measure the effectiveness of every school in England, in terms of academic outcomes. With this information we are able to contextualise the 800+ EPPE schools EPPE children attend, enabling comparison to be made regarding the effectiveness of all the schools attended by EPPE children in the context of measures for all schools in England.

Tier 2 -The key research question in Tier 2 is: Do the benefits of pre-school last into Key Stage 2?The second tier (full EPPE sample) involves an investigation into the long-term effects of pre-school on children’s attainment, progress, attitudes, behaviour and SEN status. In Tier 2, EPPE 3-11 explores the continued cognitive and social/behavioural development of different groups of pupils between KS1 and KS2. This tier will help answer questions about the extent to which pre-school effects remain apparent during Key Stage 1 and will also provide data on the ‘resilient’ and ‘vulnerable’ children. This tier requires the continual monitoring of the EPPE 3-11 sample.

Tier 3 -The key research question in Tier 3 is: What are the characteristics of effective primary classrooms?This tier explores in more detail the characteristics of primary schooling (including classroom practice and school ethos) that may promote better developmental outcomes. The third tier holds the majority of EPPE children located within 125 schools within the original EPPE local authorities. These are referred to as the ‘focal schools’ and systematic observations have been conducted in these schools. .

During BERA 2007 at the Institute of Education the symposium will cover some of the findings from this project. Other findings will be reported at subsequent BERA conferences.

3

Part 4 – Abstract 1

Investigating the continuing effects of pre-school on children’s cognitive outcomes at the end of year 5

Yvonne Grabbe, Pam Sammons, Kathy Sylva, Edward Melhuish, Iram Siraj-Blatchford, Brenda Taggart and Sofka Barreau

Effective Pre-School and Primary Education 3-11 (EPPE 3-11) (2003-2008) builds on the work of the earlier Efective Provision of Pre-School Education (EPPE) project (1996-2003) which was the first major longitudinal study in Europe to investigate the impact of pre-school provision on a national sample of young children, tracing their development between the ages of 3 and 7 years. EPPE 3-11 follows the same sample of 2500 plus children to age 11 years, the end of Key Stage 2 (KS2). The findings of the first phase of the research explored the impact of pre-school on young children’s cognitive and social behavioural development at entry to primary school and in follow ups to the end of Key Stage 1 (see Sylva et al 2004). The results indicated that both duration of pre-school attendance (in months) and quality of pre-school attended had a positive impact on pre-school children’s progress and development from age 3 to 5 years.

This paper presents results of new analyses that compare the continued effects of pre-school at the end of Year 1 and Year 5 of primary school education and compares these to the earlier findings. It focuses on children’s cognitive attainments which were measured by standardised NFER tests of reading and mathematics. Multilevel models explore the impact of a wide range of child, family and home learning environment characteristics, and Effect Sizes (ES) are used to identify the strength of the net effects of individual predictors on attainment at the two time points and on progress between age 6 and 10 on the various outcomes.

Measures of pre-school quality and effectiveness collected in the first phase of the research have a continued influence on later outcomes after control for the impact of other predictors, though this is stronger for mathematics for reading at the end of Year 5 of primary school education. In addition, independently collected value added measures of primary school academic effectiveness in English and mathematics , derived from multilevel analyses of data for successive cohorts using national assessment data sets for all primary schools in England were tested in the models.

The results indicate that the academic effectiveness of the primary school attended makes a significant contribution to attainment levels and progress, for children in the EPPE3-11 sample. Interesting interactions between pre-school effectiveness and quality and primary school academic effectiveness are also found. Attending a higher quality or more effective pre-school acts as a protective factor for children who go on to attend a less academically effective primary school, whereas for home children (who did not attend pre-school) the academic effectiveness of the primary school attended is of particular importance for later attainment. The quality of the early years home learning environment also remains a strong predictor of better outcomes both during pre-school and throughout primary education and a stronger influence than family SES or income.

References

Sylva, K, Melhuish, E, Sammons, P, Siraj-Blatchford, I, & Tagart, B (2004) The Effective Provision of Pre-School Education Final Report, SSU/FR/2004/01, Nottingham: Department for Education & Skills Publications.

4

Part 4 – Findings Investigating the continuing effects of pre-school on children’s cognitive outcomes at

the end of year 5

Yvonne Grabbe, Pam Sammons, Kathy Sylva, Edward Melhuish, Iram Siraj-Blatchford, Brenda Taggart and Sofka Barreau

1. INTRODUCTION

The presented study is part of the EPPE 3-11 project which is a large-scale longitudinal study funded by the Department for Children Schools and Families in England (formerly DfES) with the aim of investigating what kinds of early childhood provision are most ‘effective’ in promoting young children’s progress and development during their time at pre-school, and to explore whether any pre-school effects continue to influence children after they start primary school. The project is following a sample of around children from the age of 3 years until the end of Key Stage 2 (11 plus years).

The paper largely focuses on children’s attainment at the end of Year 5 and progress from the end of Year 1 to the end of Year 5 in primary school. It explores the influential strength of a wide variety of child, parent and family factors as predictors of attainment, including aspects of the early years HLE provided by parents during the years of pre-school. It also investigates pre-school and primary school influences.

Aims: To explore how child, parent and home characteristics are related to children’s

attainment at age 10

To investigate any continuing impact of pre-school, including variation in children’s outcomes related to different types of pre-school, and for those with no pre-school provision (i.e. the ‘home’ sample).

To explore the impact of measures of pre-school quality and effectiveness on later child outcomes.

To investigate the combined impact of early home learning environment (HLE) and pre-school quality on child outcomes.

To investigate the influence of primary school academic effectiveness on cognitive attainment and progress.

To investigate the combined effect of pre-school experience and primary school academic effectiveness on child outcomes at age 10 years.

2. Methods

This paper is based on multilevel statistical analyses for a sample of 2,556 children for whom cognitive data on Reading or Mathematics attainments was collected at the end of Year 5 (age 10), between 2003 and 2006 (as the EPPE sample were drawn from four age cohorts reflecting their recruitment to the original pre-school phase of the research). Data on cognitive attainment was collected at different time points: the start of primary school, at the end of Year 1, Year 2 and Year 5. Additionally a wide range of further information has been drawn on, including information about child, family and HLE characteristics collected from parental interviews (in pre-school) and questionnaires (in KS1).

The main focus is on the quantitative analysis of children’s cognitive outcomes towards the end of primary school age 10 drawing on the educational effectiveness research tradition in particular to model a range

5

of influences (child, family, home learning environment, pre-school and primary school) on their attainment and progress. The study involves over 2556 children in over 950 primary schools.

The paper presents the results of new analyses that compare the continued effects of pre-school at age 6 and 10. Standardised NFER tests of reading and mathematics are used to provide measures of cognitive attainment. Multilevel statistical models explore the impact of a wide range of child, family and home learning environment characteristics, and Effect Sizes (ES) are used to identify the strength of the net effects of individual predictors on attainment at age 10 and on progress between age 6 and 10. Measures of pre-school quality and effectiveness collected in the first (pre-school) phase of the research are added to the models to investigate possibility of continued influence on later outcomes after control for the impact of other predictors. In addition, independently collected value added measures of primary school academic effectiveness in English and mathematics, derived from multilevel analyses of data for successive cohorts (2002-2004) using national assessment data sets for all primary schools in England were tested in the models to see whether the academic effectiveness of the primary school attended had an influence on the sample children’s later attainments or progress (Melhuish et al 2006).

3. Results on Academic Outcomes at Age 10

3.1 Child, Family and Background influences

This section presents the results of analyses of the relationships between various child, family and early years HLE characteristics and children’s cognitive attainments at the end of Year 5. All the results presented in this section are net results, controlling for any other influences. The results of the analyses point to the continuing importance of such background influences for cognitive attainment at different ages echoing findings for the same sample at younger ages during pre-school and at entry to primary school) and the need for careful control for such factors in any studies of pre-school or primary school effects.The key findings regarding child and background influences indicate that the quality of the early years home learning environment (HLE) are the most important background factors relating to a child’s attainment in reading and mathematics at age 10, followed by low birth weight, need for support with English as an additional language (EAL), early health or developmental problems and socio-economic status. Taken together, child, family and home influences on children’s attainment in reading and mathematics in Year 5 are weaker predictors than they were in Year 1. This is likely to reflect the increased primary school and peer group influence.

3.2 Pre-School and Primary School InfluencesGiven earlier findings, that pre-school experience gave children a better start to school (see Sammons et al., 2002; 2003), an important aim of the Year 5 analyses is to establish whether there is evidence of any continuing pre-school influence at the age of 10 years. By age 10 the children have already spent 5 years in primary school; the study investigated the influence of primary school academic effectiveness, as well as the combined influence of pre- and primary school on young children’s cognitive attainments at the end of Year 5. A further major interest was to explore whether pre-school experience and primary school effectiveness has different influences on different groups of children such as disadvantaged children or children of less qualified parents. Again, effects of pre-school and primary school were investigated net of the effects of any background, child or home variables.

The results of the analyses of pre-school influence are considered in terms of a number of different indicators:

Whether or not a child attended any pre-school setting Duration (in months) of attending a pre-school setting Measures of the quality (from observations by researchers) of the pre-school setting

attended Measures of the effectiveness (in promoting children’s progress from age 3 to 5 years)

of the pre-school setting attended.

6

Duration of pre-schoolJust attending a pre-school or not, and duration of time in pre-school no longer show a significant net effect on later attainment at age 10 in contrast to findings at younger ages for this sample

Pre-School QualityThe results in Year 5 indicate that there are statistically significant differences in attainment in Reading between children in the low quality group and the medium and high quality groups, after control for the influence of child, family and home learning environment factors. The experience of a high (ES = 0.16) or medium (ES = 0.14) quality pre-school provision shows a relatively better but fairly small continuing positive influence on Reading attainment at the end of Year 5 compared to the experience of a low quality pre-school centre. Also children who stayed at home show similar outcomes in Reading (no statistically significant differences) to those children who went to a low quality pre-school. For Mathematics we found a somewhat different pattern. Effects for medium and high quality provision compared to low quality are not quite as strong as for Reading. Again children who stayed at home show no statistically significant differences compared to the low quality pre-school group. Pre-school centre effectivenessIn these analyses pre-school centre effectiveness, in terms of promoting progress in Pre-reading, was tested as a potential predictor for later Reading attainment in Year 5 of primary school education, and pre-school effectiveness, in terms of promoting progress in Early number concepts, was tested as a predictor for later Mathematics skills.

Controlling for child, family and HLE influences, we find that measures of pre-school centre effectiveness still show a positive net impact on children’s subsequent attainment in both Reading and Mathematics in Year 5. Children who had attended a more effective pre-school setting also show significantly better attainment than children who had attended none or only a low effective pre-school setting.

Net effects are notably stronger for Mathematics however. Compared to the ‘home’ group, children who went to high/ very high effective pre-schools have significantly better attainment at the end of Year 5.

Primary school academic effectivenessValue added effectiveness measures for primary schools were calculated, using National assessment data, for successive pupil cohorts (2002-2004) for all primary schools in England linking KS1 and KS2 results, and separate indicators were calculated for the different core curriculum subjects English, Mathematics and Science (Melhuish et al., 2006). Each primary school’s value added effectiveness in English was modelled as a potential predictor for EPPE 3-11 children’s Reading outcomes, in Year 5, and the school’s value added effectiveness in Mathematics as a potential predictor for our child sample’s outcomes in Mathematics. We found that the academic effectiveness of the primary school attended matters for longer term cognitive development. It makes an identifiable and separate contribution to children’s later attainment in reading and mathematics at Year 5, after controlling for child, family and HLE influences.

Combined impact of pre-school experience and primary school effectivenessGiven that both pre-school quality and effectiveness and primary school effectiveness are significantly associated with children’s later cognitive attainments at age 10, their joint effects were investigated. We sought to establish whether going to a high quality or more effective pre-school had a protective effect if a child went on to a less effective primary school, and whether ‘home’ children or those who went to a less effective or low quality pre-school did better later if they went to a more effective primary school.

Overall the results indicate that the combined influence of attending a better pre-school and a more academically effective primary school can give a significant boost to children’s later

7

cognitive outcomes at age 10, especially for mathematics. This effect is similar in size to the impact of having a high rather than a low Home Learning Environment or a mother with the highest level of educational qualifications (a degree or above) rather than none.

EXPLORING THE IMPACT OF PRE-SCHOOL ON CHILDREN’S ACADEMIC PROGRESS BETWEEN YEAR 1 AND YEAR 5 Pupils’ progress from Year 1 to Year 5 at primary school was investigated. The standardised NFER Reading and Mathematics assessments taken in Year 1 provide the baseline measures for these analyses of pupil progress over four school years (Year 1 to Year 5). Controlling for all relevant background factors, there were some indications, that children who went to highly effective pre-schools in terms of promoting Pre-reading, subsequently made better progress (between Year 1 and Year 5) in Reading in primary school than children who did not go to pre-school at all. In addition, we found that children who went to highly effective pre-schools in terms of developing Pre-reading, later made significantly better progress in Reading in primary school compared to those who went to very low effective pre-schools.

In contrast to the Reading results, for Mathematics none of the pre-school indicators were found to be a significant predictor of better progress over the primary school period. Taken together it appears that the benefits of pre-school centre experience for Mathematics attainment seem to operate mainly by providing young children with a better start to primary school. Although this benefit is still evident for attainment in Year 5 as described in earlier sections it does not lead to increased academic progress between age 6 and 10 once they start primary school.

4. ImplicationsThe research leads us to conclude that no one factor is the key to raising achievement – it is the combination of experiences over time that seems to matter. Children with a better HLE, who went to a high quality, more effective pre-school setting and who then go on to attend a more academically effective primary school have a combination of ‘protective’ experiences that tend to benefit current and future educational attainment and foster better social behavioural development. The implication of these findings is that policy development should seek to promote strategies to support improvements in the early years HLE especially for vulnerable groups and also work to improve the quality and effectiveness of pre-school provision.

8

Part 5 – Abstract 2 The effects of the Home Learning Environment on children’s developmental outcomes at

age 7: EPPE results

Kathy Sylva, Sofka Barreau, Edward Melhuish, Pam Sammons, Iram Siraj-Blatchford and Brenda Taggart

This paper reports on the effects of the Home Learning Environment at the start of school on educational outcomes at age 7 using a large-scale longitudinal study of 3000+ children in England (Sammons et al., 2004; Sylva, Melhuish, Sammons, Siraj-Blatchford, & Taggart, 2004). Parental questionnaires were used to investigate the effect of Home Learning Environment on a wide range of educational outcomes. The questionnaire covered the use of books and computers in the home, help with homework, and community activities. Multi-level modelling was used to demonstrate the effects of home learning after taking account of key family factors. This presentation will describe Home Learning Environment at age 6 and show its impact at 7. The strongest component of the home-learning environment was 1:1 structured parent-child interactions centred around books or joint play.

Part 5 –Findings 2

The effects of the Home Learning Environment on children’s developmental outcomes at age 7: EPPE results

Kathy Sylva, Sofka Barreau, Edward Melhuish, Pam Sammons, Iram Siraj-Blatchford and Brenda Taggart

Objectives

The aim of this study is to explore the effects of the Home Learning Environment at the start of school on children’s educational outcomes at age 7. The sample was drawn from a large-scale longitudinal study of 3000+ children which was broadly representative of England. It included children from a wide range of social and cultural backgrounds.

Theoretical framework

The context of this paper is the debate about the importance for educational success of children’s experiences at home, particularly their interactions and stimulation. This paper explores the home learning environment of a large and representative sample in England. It considers parental support for learning as well as activities children carry out on their own or with peers. Parental support for children’s cognitive and social-behavioural development often takes place through shared activities such as book reading or games. The core of such activities is thought to be warm participation in social and intellectually stimulating interactions (Rogoff, 2003) with adults showing reciprocity with children, being responsive to them, and providing emotional support, while at the same time providing some structured experiences with encouragement and praise (Meins, 1997, 1998; Hubbs-Tait, Culp, Culp & Miller, 2002; Petrill & Deater Deckard, 2004). Parents in this large-scale study reported on the activities they and their children carried out at home and in the community that might support their children’s development. Thus, the effect of parent child interactions was studied alongside the effects of children’s activities alone or with peers.

Methods

This research study, funded by the British government, collected data from children and their parents in 800 schools across the country. As part of the study, the effects of the home learning environment were investigated alongside the effects of pedagogy in school. Using a multi-level

9

25 nursery classes 590 children

34 playgroups 610 children

31 private day nurseries 520 children

20 nursery schools 520 children

7 integrated centres 190 children

24 local authority day care nurseries

430 children

home 310 children

ReceptionYr 1 Yr 2

Pre-school Provision (3+ yrs)

Key Stage 1600 Schools

Yr 5 Yr 6

Key Stage 2800 Schools

model design (Goldstein, 1995), this paper reports on the effects of children’s home experiences at age 6 on their subsequent cognitive and social behavioural outcomes at age 7. The outcomes include educational as well as social measures. The methods include quantitative and qualitative strategies (Sammons et al., 2005; Siraj-Blatchford, Sammons, Sylva, Melhuish, & Taggart, 2006).Figure 1. Design of EPPE: 6 Local Authorities, 141 pre-schools, 3,000 children

10

SampleFive regions in the U.K were included, strategically chosen to include urban, suburban and rural areas and also areas with social and ethnic diversity. In this analysis the sample included 2442 parents of randomly selected children around the age of 6 from 845 primary schools.

Research questionsAre the different aspects of children’s home learning environment related to:

Maths attainment: measured via national assessment testsReading attainment: measured via national assessment testsSelf-regulation: teacher questionnairePro-social behaviour: teacher questionnaireAnti-social behaviour: teacher questionnaire

Each of the research questions was answered after taking account of child and parent variables.

Data sources

Home Learning EnvironmentThe ‘Home Learning Environment’ questionnaire included 12 items which were rated on a 5-point scale (Melhuish et al., 2001). Each item named particular activities and parents were asked to rate how frequently these activities occurred (0 to 4; 0 = never, 4 = everyday). The 12 items were:

Parent(s) plays with the child using toys/games/puzzles. Parent(s) plays computer games with the child. Parent(s) uses computer with the child educationally. Parent(s) visits library with the child. Parent(s) listens to the child read. Parent(s) reads to the child. Parent(s) does sport/physical activity with child. Parent(s) goes on educational visits with the child. Child plays on computer by his/herself. Child plays ‘make believe’ or pretend games. Child paints/draws/makes models. Child enjoys dance music and movement.

Child outcomesAt age 7 children were assessed on National Assessment Tests (SATS) in reading and mathematics. These were administered in the same week according to standardized instructions and marked on a government marking scheme. Because assessments have different means and standard deviations each year, they were turned into decimalized z-scores for comparison purposes. Three social behavioural measures (self-regulation, pro-social behaviour, and anti-social behaviour) were derived from exploratory factor analysis of a classroom teacher rating scale, adapted from Goodman (1997).

Results

(i) Factor AnalysisIn order to create Home Learning factors consisting of clusters of selected items, the 12 items were analyzed with confirmatory factor analysis. The factors are listed below along with the items they comprise:

11

Home computingChild plays on computer by themselvesParent plays computer games with childParent uses computer with child for ‘education’ purposes

Parent-child ‘enrichment’ outings/activities outside homeParent goes on ‘educational’ visits with child, e.g., science museumParent does sport/physical activities with childParent visits library with child

Parent-child 1:1 structured interactions at homeParent listens to child readParent reads to the childParent plays with the child using toys, games, puzzles

Expressive playChild plays make-believe/pretend gamesChild paints/draws/makes modelsChild enjoys dance, music and movement

This factor solution accounted for 58.4% of the variance, indicating moderate to strong factor structure.

(ii) The relationship between primary school HLE factors and child and family characteristics

After the four HLE factors had been obtained from the factor analysis they were then found to vary by the characteristics of both the child and the family. Particularly noticeable differences were observed between boys and girls genders and the social class of their parents (Figures 2 and 3). Though the enrichment activities and 1:1 interactions were equally enjoyed by boys and girls, this was not the case for home computing and expressive play. Whilst boys were found to engage in greater amounts of home computing, girls engaged in greater amounts of expressive play.

Figure 2. Gender differences in the Home Learning Environment factors.

12

When considering the variation in the HLE across the social classes, although the scores increased with social class, two factors were found to relate more to social states and these were enrichment activities and 1:1 interactions. Interestingly, it was these aspects of the home learning environment that were later found to be strongly related to differing levels of academic attainment in mathematics and reading at age 7.

Figure 3. Social class differences in the Home Learning Environment factors.

(iii) The effect of the primary school HLE factors on developmental outcomes at age 7

In order to investigate the effect of the (age 6) HLE on children’s outcomes at age 7, the derived factors were entered into multi-level models (Goldstein, 1995) predicting five child outcomes:

Maths attainmentReading attainmentSelf-regulationPro-social behaviourAnti-social behaviour

First, child characteristics (e.g., gender) were entered into the multi-level model, followed by parent (e.g. qualifications) and family (e.g., socio-economic status) characteristics. This modelling strategy allowed us to control for the effect of child, parent and family characteristics before estimating the effect of the Home Learning Environment on children’s outcomes.

(a) MATHSOf the four HLE factors, only three were significantly related to children’s outcomes: home computing, 1:1 parent-child interaction, and parent-child ‘enrichment’. The relationship between 1:1 interaction and maths was linear; greater levels of interaction led to higher maths scores. In comparison, the effects of home computing and enrichment were not linear, in other words, doing too little or too much of these with the child was not good for maths attainment. There seem to be optimal levels of home computing and enrichment activities that are at moderate rather than high levels.

13

Figure 4. Home Learning Environment effect sizes on mathematics scores.

(b) READINGThree of the four factors were related to children’s reading attainment: parent-child ‘enrichment’, 1:1 parent-child interaction, and expressive play. The 1:1 interaction is not surprising since two of the three items are about reading at home with the child. A very important difference was identified in the nature of the interactions and the abilities of the child though (Table 1). Children who were less able readers were able to benefit most when their parents listened rather than read to them.

Table 1. Differential importance of reading and listening according to reading ability.

14

0.000.00Often

-0.100.04Occasionally

-0.050.03RarelyY1 Reading level: above 1SD of the mean

0.000.00Often

-0.020.00Occasionally

-0.160.08RarelyY1 Reading level: Within 1SD above the mean

0.000.00Often

-0.010.10Occasionally

-0.280.13RarelyY1 Reading level: Within 1SD below the mean

0.000.00Often

0.100.04Occasionally

-0.430.15RarelyY1 Reading level: below 1SD of the mean

Listening to the child readingEffect sizes

Reading to childEffect sizesFrequency

Reading Level

0.000.00Often

-0.100.04Occasionally

-0.050.03RarelyY1 Reading level: above 1SD of the mean

0.000.00Often

-0.020.00Occasionally

-0.160.08RarelyY1 Reading level: Within 1SD above the mean

0.000.00Often

-0.010.10Occasionally

-0.280.13RarelyY1 Reading level: Within 1SD below the mean

0.000.00Often

0.100.04Occasionally

-0.430.15RarelyY1 Reading level: below 1SD of the mean

Listening to the child readingEffect sizes

Reading to childEffect sizesFrequency

Reading Level

Also unsurprising is the enrichment relationship since all the ‘outings’ centred around child development. Finally, the beneficial contribution of the child’s expressive play to subsequent reading will not surprise parents or theorists of play. Note that the effect of expressive play appears to have a ceiling effect. Moderate amounts of play are beneficial for reading but high amounts do not add additional benefit. However, high amounts of expressive play are different from computing where ‘too much’ computing was related to worse outcomes compared to moderate amounts. Thus ‘too much’ expressive play is not related to lower reading scores.

Figure 5. Home Learning Environment effect sizes on reading scores.

15

(c) SELF REGULATIONThree of the four factors were related to self regulation: home computing, expressive play, and 1:1 parent-child interaction. The pattern for home computing was similar to that of maths in which moderate amounts were related to increased self regulation. Again, 1:1 child-parent interaction was related to better self regulation and the effects were linear, i.e., the more 1:1, the better for the child. Unlike the effect identified with reading where a ceiling effect was identified, with self regulation, the more expressive play the higher the self regulation.

Figure 6. Home Learning Environment effect sizes on self regulation.

16

(d) PRO-SOCIAL BEHAVIOUROnly two factors predicted pro-social behaviour and these were 1:1 parent-child interaction and expressive play. Linear relationships were identified such that the more parent child 1:1 and the more expressive play, the better. With reference to 1:1 interactions, recall that the items in this factor include reading to the child, listening to the child read, and joint play with toys/games/puzzles - all activities rich in language. The two reading items depict activities potentially rich in narrative structures involving people in social contexts. The positive contribution of this factor to pro-social behaviour may rest on language within a 1:1 context.

Figure 7. Home Learning Environment effect sizes on pro-social behaviour.

(e) ANTI-SOCIAL BEHAVIORNone of the HLE factors predicted this outcome.

Educational importance of the study

Several conclusions can be drawn. First, home learning has a significant impact near the beginning of primary school and parental interactions continue to be the most important, along with children’s independent play. However, home activities such as computing and enrichment activities outside the home do not have a simple linear relationship with attainment. For example, too much or too little computing is not beneficial for mathematical development. Similarly high levels of expressive play are not more beneficial than moderate levels in terms of reading attainment. One of the most striking findings is the contribution of 1:1 parent-child interaction to four of the five major outcomes (with anti-social behaviour the only exception). Note that the positive contribution of 1:1 parent-child interaction is linear in every case; ‘you cannot have too much of a good thing’. This finding supports the theories of Rogoff and others on the vital contribution of ‘shared activities’ to children’s learning. However, large-scale questionnaires such as the one used here cannot collect detailed information on reciprocity or warmth. (Though qualitative research was conducted with this sample and will be reported later.) However, large-scale studies such as this are a vital complement to finer-grained research.

The Primary School Home Learning Environment makes a major contribution to children’s educational outcomes at age 7. Moreover the nature of beneficial home activities depends on the child’s age. The relationships between home activities and child development are not linear

17

in every case. Thus a full understanding of developmental outcomes requires complex statistical models using data from both home and school.

Acknowledgements

The EPPE and EPPE 3-11 projects are longitudinal studies funded by the Department for Children, Schools and Families. This research would not be possible without the support and co-operation of the six Local Authorities (LAs) and the many pre-school centres, primary schools, children and parents participating in the research. The team would also like to thank the many research staff, both at the Institute of Education, the Department for Children, Schools and Families and elsewhere who have contributed to this work.

18

References

Hubbs-Tait, L., Culp, A.M., Culp, R.E. and Miller, C.E. (2002). Relation of maternal cognitive stimulation, emotional support, and intrusive behaviour during Head Start to children’s kindergarten cognitive abilities. Child Development, 73(2), 110-131.

Goldstein, H. (1995). Multilevel Statistical Models. (2nd ed.). London: Arnold.

Goodman, R. (1997). The Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 38, 581-586.

Melhuish, E., Sylva, K., Sammons, P., Siraj-Blatchford, I. & Taggart, B. (2001). Technical Paper 7, Social Behavioural and Cognitive Development at 3-4 years in relation to family background. DfEE/London Institute of Education.

Meins, E. (1997). Security of attachment and maternal tutoring strategies: interaction within the zone of proximal development. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 15, 129-144.

Meins, E. (1998). The effects of security of attachment and maternal attribution of meaning on children’s linguistic acquisitional style. Infant Behaviour and Development, 21(2), 237-252.

Petrill, S.A. and Deater Deckard, K. (2004). Task orientation, parental warmth and SES account for a significant proportion of the shared environmental variance in general cognitive ability in early childhood: evidence from a twin study. Developmental Science, 7(1), 25-32.

Rogoff, B. (2003). The Cultural Nature of Human Development. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

Sammons, P., Siraj-Blatchford, I., Sylva, K., Melhuish, E., Taggart, B., & Elliot, K. (2005) Investigating the Effects of Pre-school Provision: Using Mixed methods in the EPPE Research. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 8(3), 207-224.

Sammons, P., Sylva, K., Melhuish, E., Siraj-Blatchford, I., Taggart, B., Elliot, K., et al. (2004). EPPE Technical Paper 11: The Continuing Effects of Pre-school Education at age 7 years. London: Institute of Education.

Siraj-Blatchford, I., Sammons, P., Sylva, K., Melhuish, E., & Taggart, B. (2006). Educational Research and Evidence-based Policy: The Mixed Method Approach of the EPPE project. Evaluation and Research in Education, 19 (2), 63-82.

Sylva, K., Melhuish, E., Sammons, P., Siraj-Blatchford, I., & Taggart, B. (2004). Effective Provision of Pre-school Education: Final Report. London: Institute of Education.

19

Part 6– Abstract 3

Estimating the Influence of Neighbourhood Environment on Cognitive Performance

Hunt, S. A. Melhuish, E. Sammons, P. Silva, K. Siraj-Blatchford, I. Taggard, B.

This research concerns identifying and estimating any predictive power children’s

neighbourhood environment exerts on their cognitive performance. Data from the US National

Longitudinal Study of Youth indicated more affluent neighbourhoods are associated with better

child IQ scores over and above effects of family SES and parent education - particularly in the

case of European American Children (Chase-Lansdale, Gordon, Brooks-Gunn, & Klebanov,

1997).

The current research controlled for both child and family level variables previously identified as

important predictors of cognitive performance, such as gender, English as an additional

language and family social advantage. Additionally, it incorporated particular neighbourhood

measures, specifically, parents’ subjective estimates of their neighbourhood’s quality, in terms

of perceived social cohesion and safety, and the 2004 Multiple Deprivation Index (IMD) the

scores of which were assigned to each child on the basis of their pre-school home address.

Following this Home Leaning Environment (HLE) was introduced as an explanatory variable.

These measures were used to predict 6 year old (Year 2) children’s attainment in math’s (N =

2613) and reading (N = 2620).

The analysis replicated previous findings concerning the child and family predictors, such as the

greater the degree of family social advantage the better the child’s cognitive performance.

Additionally, it indicated the parents’ subjective estimates had little explanatory power, when

HLE was included in the analysis. However, even when controlling for HLE, the IMD did exert

some independent influence in terms of math’s attainment, specifically the greater the level of

neighbourhood deprivation the poorer the performance.

ReferencesChase-Lansdale, P.L., Gordon, R.A., Brooks-Gunn, J., & Klebanov, P.K.  (1997) Neighborhood and family influences on the intellectual and behavioral competence of pre-school and early school age children.  In J. Brooks-Gunn, J. Duncan, & J.L. Aber (Eds.) Neighbourhood Poverty: Vol 1: Context and consequences for children (pp 79-118) New York: Russell Sage Foundation.

20

Estimating the Influence of Neighbourhood Environment on Cognitive Performance

Hunt, S. A. Melhuish, E. Sammons, P. Silva, K. Siraj-Blatchford, I. Taggard, B.

The aim of this research is to establish the influence of neighbourhood effects on cognitive performance and assess whether any such effects can be accounted for in terms of the Home Learning Environment.

These contextual influences have been found to have independent effects on both behaviour and attainment. Data from the US National Longitudinal Study of Youth indicated more affluent neighbourhoods are associated with better child IQ scores over and above effects of family socio-economic status and parent education - particularly in the case of European American Children (Chase-Lansdale, Gordon, Brooks-Gunn, and Klebanov 1997).

There are several different theoretical accounts, concentrating on different aspects of neighbourhoods, of how any such influence might be realised.

Stress theory (Earls and Buka, 2000), concentrates on the possible damaging consequences of exposure to social, physiological, and psychological hazards.

Organization theory, (Sampson and Groves, 1989) identifies the importance of neighbours, in terms such as role models and consensus in values in the neighbourhood; where by greater social cohesion amongst parents in terms of both frequency of contact and shared values are more likely to pick out problem behaviour amongst children and to delimit it.

Institutional theory places importance rather than on social cohesion rather on the resources available in the neighbourhood: parks, libraries, children’s programs: these tend to be concentrated in more affluent neighbourhoods; further, the degree to which parents take advantage of these resources is to some extent dependent on thee perceived safety of the neighbourhood.

Epidemic or contagion theories, concentrate on peer influences to spread problem behaviour, and possible decline in academic attainment.

Developmental research concerning the influence of ‘neighbourhood’ effects has tended to concentrate on adolescents (e. g. Leventhal & Brooks-Gunn, 2004). However, the Committee on Integrating the Science of Early Childhood Development (2004) suggest interaction between preschool children and their relatives, neighbours, religious communities, child care and health systems suggest that neighbourhood influences may begin long before adolescence. However, it has been argued that ‘neighbourhood’ effects on individuals’ development may be more apparent than real. The non-random distribution of families to neighbourhoods may also lead to the attribution of influence to the neighbourhood when it in fact resides in unmeasured differences in the children’s parents neighbourhoods (McCulloch and Joshi, 2001; Duncan, Connell, and Klebanov, 1997; Tiendia, 1991). This has particular force with respect to younger children whose exposure to extra-family influences is likely to be attenuated to the point where such influence is minimised if not impeded altogether.

This point informs the present research: neighbourhood factors are introduced along with basic demographic factors to explain 6 year old children’s scores in both maths and reading; however, the analysis also includes a measure of the children’s ‘home learning environment’ (HLE) (Sylva et al., 2004) which are not typically recorded not subsequently present in analysis concerning

21

children’s cognitive attainment. It is hypothesised that the HLE will better account for children’s cognitive attainment than neighbourhood influences which it will effectively replace.

2. MethodRespondentsThe current research utilises Early Pre and Primacy Education (EPPE) project database. EPPE 3-11 is a large-scale longitudinal study designed to determine what kinds of early childhood provision are most ‘effective’ in promoting young children’s progress and development during their time at pre-school, and to determine whether any pre-school effects continue to influence children after they start primary school. It features a total sample of 3172 children recruited, in four waves, at the age of 3, approximately. The children’s academic performance was then tracked from age 5 (entry to Reception) to age 7 - the end of Key Stage 1 of primary school. Along with these data a detailed account of the child and family background was also collected, such as birth weight, free school meal entitlement, ethnicity, and parental qualifications.

MeasurementTest MeasuresIn the present research the cognitive performance is specifically 6 year olds (Year 1) cognitive attainment measured by standardised tests in maths and reading.

Year 1 Maths: NFER – Nelson Maths 6: 2613 individuals; 1342 boys and 1271 girls at 747 different schools.Year 1 Reading: NFER – Nelson Primary Reading Test Level 1: 2620 individuals; 1347 boys and 1273 girls, at 751 different schools.

Child, family and Home Leaning Environment VariablesTable 1 presents the demographic & HLE variables featured in the present research.

Table I. Variables influencing child’s cognitive performance. Child Family Child – Family

(Home Learning Environment: HLE)

Ethnicity Single Social Advantage Variable, incorporating measures of:

Home learning Index from Initial Parent Interview (PQ I)

Birth weight Socio-Economic Status of Family

English as Additional Language

Family Income

Free School Meal Entitlement

Mother’s Qualifications

Health Problems 1

Gender 2

Developmental Problems 2

Number of Siblings 2

1 Analysis of maths scores only; 2 Analysis of reading scores only

The socio-economic advantage construct was produced by creating an index initially with nine categories in ascending degree of advantage to which all the respondents could be assigned, based on a combination of the scores for income mother’s qualification and family SES. Lowest scores on all three resulted in assignment to the lowest socio-economic advantage category etc. The nine categories were then reduced to four: low, medium to low medium to high and high advantage.

22

The Home Learning Environment was recorded during extended interviews with the EPPE children’s parents on entry to the study at approximately 3 - 4 years old.

Neighbourhood MeasuresThe Neighbourhood measures were derived from Parent’s interview conducted when the child was approximately 4 years old.

The Neighbourhood Environment scores were derived from four questions, asked of EPPE children’s parents when the children were age approximately 6 years old, concerning the judged frequency of: violence or crime involving people; violence or crime involving property; general nuisance; and sense of safety when walking alone after dark. Taken together the three items’ Cronbach’s alpha = .75.

The Neighbourhood Social Cohesion scores were likewise derived from three questions concerning the judged frequency of: Neighbours doing favours for each other; Share information on schools or children’s activities; Visit each other’s housesTaken together the three items’ Cronbach’s alpha = .84.

The IMD 2004 (The English Indices of Deprivation 2004: Summary (revised), 2007) is a nation-wide index combining weighted measures or levels of: crime; barriers to housing; living environment; education & skills training; health deprivation & disability; employment and income. The greater the IMD score the greater the level of deprivation. The index is divided into local authority and Super Output areas (SOA), where SAO’s are defined as areas smaller than wards, frequently nested in wards, and of broadly consistent population size. The IMD scores were associated with each EPPE child on the basis of their pre-school home address.

For the purposed of analysis the 2004 Multiple Deprivation Index (IMD) scores were assigned to each child on the basis of their pre-school home address (postcode).

In the case of each measure a separate group was created identifying those with missing data and incorporated in the analysis.

3. ResultsDescriptive analyses were conducted to determine the mean level of IMD & Neighbourhood perceptions by social advantage: Table II presents the means and standard deviations for these three measures for those in the EPPE sample including any pupil with either a maths or reading score at age 6 in terms of degree of social advantage.

Table II: IMD and Neighbourhood Perceptions Scores by Social Advantage

Social Advantage

IMD Neighbourhood:

Environment

Neighbourhood:Social Cohesion

n mean sd mean sd mean sdLeast Advantage 544 38.02 18.28 2.01 .63 1.62 0.67Low to Medium Advantage 575 29.47 18.31 2.12 .64 1.73 0.69

Medium to Greatest Advantage

491 21.62 16.57 2.28 .61 1.8 0.69

Greatest Advantage 456 20.71 14.97 2.17 .57 2.04 0.69 23

The results in Table II indicate a consistent association between IMD scores and degree of social advantage: the greatest IMD scores, indicating the greatest degree of deprivation, are associated with lowest social advantage group, and the lowest IMD scores, with the greatest social advantage group. A similar pattern of results obtains for the neighbourhood perceptions measures; with the scores indicating least social cohesion and poorest environment associated with the least advantaged group, and the greatest with the greatest advantage group, with the exception of the greatest Environment measure which was associated with the Medium to greatest advantage group.

Table III: IMD and Neighbourhood Perceptions Scores by HLE Index scores, Maths Sample

Home Learning Index

IMD Neighbourhood: Environment

Neighbourhood: Social Cohesion

n mean sd mean sd mean sd0-13 182 40.49 18.73 2.12 .63 1.5 .6414-19 455 33.66 18.87 2.11 .66 1.7 .6820-24 511 29.24 18.46 2.12 .61 1.73 .6825-32 727 25.66 17.28 2.17 .61 1.84 .6933-45 290 23.32 17.15 2.18 .60 1.95 .71

The results in Table III likewise indicate a consistent association between IMD scores and HLE scores: the greatest IMD scores, indicating the greatest degree of deprivation, are associated with lowest scores in the HLE index, and the lowest IMD scores with the highest scores in the HLE index. A similar pattern of results obtains for the neighbourhood perceptions measures; with the scores indicating least social cohesion and poorest environment associated with the lowest HLE Index scores, least advantaged group, and the greatest with the highest HLE Index scores.

The analysis indicated that the child and family predictors, such as the greater the degree of family social advantage the better the child’s cognitive performance for both Maths and reading. Additionally, it indicated the parents’ subjective estimates had little explanatory power: when HLE was included in the analysis, in the case of Maths, it eliminated the significant effects of neighbourhood social cohesion; in the case of reading neither this nor any of the neighbourhood variables ever achieved significance, even prior to the inclusion of the HLE index. However, even when controlling for HLE, in the case of the Maths scores, the IMD did exert some independent influence terms of math’s attainment, specifically the greater the level of neighbourhood deprivation the poorer the performance. The effect sizes for the neighbourhood variables which obtained significant explanatory levels are indicated in Figure 1.

Figure 1. Effect Sizes for Neighbourhood Measures and HLE for Maths scores

24

0.100.13

0.08

0.13

0.40

0.00

0.05

0.10

0.15

0.20

0.25

0.30

0.35

0.40

0.45

Soc C

ohes

ion IMD

Soc C

ohes

ion IMD

HLE

Soc CohesionIMDSoc CohesionIMDHLE

Neighbourhood Measures:Neighbourhood & HLE Measures

25

4. DiscussionThis research indicated that the influence of neighbourhood factors, are, if identifiable, modest for 6 year olds on cognitive attainment, which is consistent with previous research (Klabanov et al., 1997).

Furthermore, the inclusion of the HLE index effectively replaced perceptual estimates of neighbourhood factors where these were significant to begin with. There is then evidence to support the claim that the HLE index provides an account of cognitively orientated parental – child activity that systematically varies with some neighbourhood measures but hitherto has gone largely unrecorded, but which can, to some extent, be detected or approximated in neighbourhood measures. Hence for children of age six the supposed effect of neighbourhood is more to do with their parent’s activities than their wider environment. The HLE index offers a means of more accurately accounting for influences on children’s academic attainment than the often more nebulous neighbourhood effects.

The findings though indicated a robust if minor influence of neighbourhood measured in terms of the IMD, which indicated the greater the deprivation of a neighbourhood the poorer the child’s performance, at least in maths, which was independent of parental social advantage.

Institution theory offer a means of accounting for the influence of the factors featured in the IMD. The IMD captures factors that delimit the accessibility of local resources and opportunity to utilise them, in terms of their likely proximity and individuals’ disposition to utilise them, in a manner that is not just reducible to social advantage. Visits to libraries, for example, are a feature of the HLE index and their frequency is to some extent depended on their local availability and sense of safety to actually make the visit in the first place. In this respect the IMD better captures ‘neighbourhood safety’ than the perpetual measure featured in the present research.

It is important to qualify the forgoing. It is highly likely that as children become older the influence of neighbourhood, as measured in terms of the IMD in particular, is likely to increase. Peer influence, the focus of epidemic /contagion theories, will typically be exert an increasing influence on children as they grow up and parental control declines.

26

References

Chase-Lansdale, P.L. Gordon, R. Brooks-Gunn, J. and Klebanov, P.K. (1997) Neighbourhood and family influences on the intellectual and behavioural competence of preschool and early school-age children. Pp 79-119 in Neighborhood Poverty. Volume 1: Context and Consequences for Children. J. Brooks-Gunn, G.J. Duncan, and J.L. Aber, eds. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.

Committee on Integrating the Science of Early Childhood Development (2004) Neighborhood and Community. . Pp 328 – 336 in From Neurons to Neighborhoods: The Science of Early Childhood Development (sixth edition). J. P. Shonkoff and D. A. Phillips, eds. Washington D.C. National Academy Press.

Duncan, G.J. Connell, J. R. and Klebanov, P. (1997) Conceptual and methodological issues in estimating causal effects of neighborhoods and family conditions on individual development. Pp 219 – 250 in Neighborhood Poverty. Volume 1: Context and Consequences for Children. J. Brooks-Gunn, G.J. Duncan, and J.L. Aber, eds. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.

Earls, F. and Buka, S. (2000) Measurement of community characteristics. Pp 309-326 in Handbook of Early Childhood Intervention. S.J. Meisels and J.P. Shonkoff, eds. Massachusetts: Cambridge University Press.

Leventhal, T. & Brooks-Gunn, J. (2000) The neighborhoods they live in: The effects of neighbourhood residence on child and adolescent outcomes. Psychological bulletin, 126, 309 – 337.

McCulloch, A. and Joshi, H. E. (2001) Neighbourhood and family influences on the cognitive ability of children in the British National Child Development Study. Social Science and Medicine, 50, 579-591.

Sampson, R. J. and Groves, W. B. (1989) Community structure and crime: Testing social disorganisation theory. American Journal of Sociology, 94, 774-802.

Sylva, K., Melhuish, E., Sammons, P., Siraj-Blatchford, I., & Taggart, B. (2004). Effective Provision of Pre-school Education: Final Report. London: Institute of Education.

Tiendia, M. (1991) Poor people and poor places: Deciphering neighbourhood effects on poverty outcomes. Pp 244 – 267 in Macro-micro linkages in sociology. J. Huber, ed. Thousand Oaks California: Sage.

27

Part Seven – Abstract 4EFFECTIVE PRE-SCHOOL AND PRIMARY EDUCATION 3-11 PROJECT (EPPE 3-11) INFLUENCES ON CHILDREN’S DEVELOPMENT AND PROGRESS IN KEY STAGE 2: SOCIAL/BEHAVIOURAL OUTCOMES IN YEAR 5

Pam Sammons, Kathy Sylva, Edward Melhuish, Iram Siraj-Blatchford, Brenda Taggart,Sofka Barreau*and Yvonne Grabbe

This paper aims to assess the continuing effects of pre-school on social/behavioural outcomes at the end of year 5. In addition to the effect of pre-school attendance, measures of pre-school quality and effectiveness are also examined, as well as the impact of primary school academic effectiveness.

Social/behavioural development was assessed by teachers using an extended version of the Goodman (1997) Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire. Data reduction techniques were used to identify the underlying dimensions of social behaviour. In this paper we focus on two aspects of social behaviour – ‘‘Hyperactivity’’ and ‘‘Self regulation’’. Multilevel models were applied to investigate the relationship between these constructs and various child, family and home learning environment (HLE) characteristics. Measures of pre-school quality and effectiveness collected during the first phase of the study, and independent measures of primary school academic effectiveness were included in the analysis to assess the impact of pre and primary school when other background measures are controlled. Effect sizes were calculated to quantify the relative strength of the net impact of individual predictors on hyperactivity and self regulation at the end of year 5.

The findings generally indicated continuing pre-school effects on social/behavioural outcomes. However, it was differences in the quality and effectiveness of pre-school that contributed to better outcomes in the longer term rather than just attending or not attending a pre-school setting. Thus, children who had attended a high quality pre-school show significantly better social/behavioural development (increased ‘Self regulation’ and reduced ‘Hyperactivity’) five years later. In contrast, those children who attended low quality pre-school no longer showed benefits and poor quality pre-school was associated with poorer social behaviour.

Primary school academic effectiveness also showed a significant impact on social behaviour when analysed in combination with pre-school quality. For home children the effectiveness of the primary school attended helps to promote better social/behavioural outcomes. By contrast, attending high quality pre-school acts as a protective factor for children who go on to attend a less academically effective primary school.

Policy development should seek to promote strategies to improve the quality and effectiveness of pre-school provision, since poor quality provision does not offer long term benefits in improved child outcomes. The finding that social behaviour is boosted by academically effective primaries has important implications for the achievement of the Every Child Matters agenda, because it shows that the promotion of better academic outcomes is not at variance with the development of better social/behavioural development.

References

Goodman, R. (1997), 'The Strengths & Difficulties Questionnaire: A Research Note'. Journal of

Child Psychology & Psychiatry, 38, 581-586.

28

Sylva, K, Melhuish, E, Sammons, P, Siraj-Blatchford, I, & Tagart, B (2004) The Effective

Provision of Pre-School Education Final Report, SSU/FR/2004/01, Nottingham: Department for

Education & Skills Publications.

Part Seven –Findings 4EFFECTIVE PRE-SCHOOL AND PRIMARY EDUCATION 3-11 PROJECT (EPPE 3-11) INFLUENCES ON CHILDREN’S DEVELOPMENT AND PROGRESS IN KEY STAGE 2: SOCIAL/BEHAVIOURAL OUTCOMES IN YEAR 5

Pam Sammons, Kathy Sylva, Edward Melhuish, Iram Siraj-Blatchford, Brenda Taggart,Sofka Barreau*and Yvonne Grabbe

The EPPE 3-11 Research: BackgroundThe original EPPE study investigated children’s intellectual and social/behavioural development between the ages of 3-7 years (Sylva et al., 2004). The EPPE 3-11 extension follows up the sample to the end of primary school (age 11 years). The EPPE website: www.ioe.ac.uk/projects/eppe gives further details about the study and the sample.

This Research Brief reports on a range of analyses related to the social/behavioural development of children in the EPPE 3-11 sample. The focus is on exploring the factors that predict children’s later adjustment in four main dimensions of social/behavioural development: ‘Hyperactivity’, ‘Self-regulation’, ‘Pro-social’ behaviour and ‘Anti-social’ behaviour.

In addition to exploring the influence of background characteristics and any continuing pre-school effects, the study investigates the influence of primary school on children’s outcomes at age 10, and the way primary school and pre-school influences jointly affect children’s social/behavioural development.

For further details on the research and analyses used in this study see the full Research Report, (Sammons et al., 2007a). Another series of reports (Sammons et al., 2007b) are available which provide equivalent information about Reading and Mathematics attainment for the same child sample at age 10 in Year 5 (seewww.ioe.ac.uk/projects/eppe for details).

General MethodologyThe EPPE 3-11 project contains a series of three ‘nested’ studies or ‘tiers’ which help answer specific research questions (www.ioe.ac.uk/projects/eppe).

Tier 1 answers the research question about the effectiveness of the 800+ primary schools the EPPE 3-11 children attended. It used statistical data (matched KS1 and KS2 National assessment results) for successive pupil cohorts derived from every primary school in the country (over three consecutive years 2002-2004) for English and Mathematics to provide value added estimates of the academic effectiveness of each school. Further information on Tier 1 can be found in Melhuish et al., (2006).

Tier 2, on which this research brief is based, involved the collection of information on academic and social/behavioural development for every child in the sample in Spring term of Year 5, during 2003-2006. The sample of 2520 pupils originated from 141 pre-school centres covering 6 types of provision (nursery classes, nursery schools, integrated settings, playgroups, private day nurseries and local authority day nurseries) and included a group of ‘Home’ pupils who had not attended pre-school.

29

The full report (Sammons et al., 2007a on which this research brief is based can be found on the EPPE and DCSF websites.Tier 3 explored classroom practice in a sample of 125 Year 5 classes through two different but complementary classroom observations. This addresses the question of what constitutes good classroom practice in Year 5 (see Sammons et al., 2006).

Analysis StrategyThe findings reported here are based on analyses of data about children’s social/ behavioural development, and relationships with a range of child, family and home learning environment (HLE) characteristics and the characteristics of the pre-schools and schools attended.

Social/behavioural development was assessed by class teachers using an extended version of the Goodman (1997) Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire. This Research Brief reports on four dimensions of social/behavioural development: ‘Hyperactivity’, ‘Self-regulation’, ‘Pro-social’ behaviour and ‘Anti-social’ behaviour. The ‘Child Profiles’ were administered in the summer term in which the children were in Year 5, during 2003-2006.

Pre-school quality was measured using an internationally recognised observation instrument. ECERS-R focuses on aspects of emotional and social care and ECERS-E on aspects of the pre-school curriculum.

Effectiveness indicators for individual pre-school settings were calculated using value added models of children’s progress during the pre-school period (age 3 to 5). Separate pre-school indicators were calculated for the four different social/behavioural dimensions at pre-school: ‘Independence and concentration’, ‘Co-operation and conformity’ ‘Peer sociability’ and ‘Anti-social’ behaviour.

Additional value added measures of overall primary school academic effectiveness have been derived from independent statistical analyses of National data sets conducted for all primary schools in England based on successive (2002-2004) pupil cohorts (Melhuish et al., 2006) as part of this study. These have been incorporated to provide indicators of the academic effectiveness of the primary school attended by each child in the EPPE 3-11 sample to complement the measures on pre-school settings.

Statistical analyses (using multilevel models) investigated the influence of different child, family and HLE background factors on children’s social/behavioural development at the end of Year 5. These analyses (and all findings presented here) identify the unique (net) contribution of particular factors to variations in children’s outcomes, while other background influences are controlled for. For example, the impact of family socio-economic status (SES) is established while taking into account the influence of mother’s qualification levels, low income, ethnic group, age, gender and HLE, etc. This is important because the research shows that much of the apparent difference in social/behavioural development associated with certain characteristics, for example, ethnic group membership, is attributable to the impact of other socio-economic and demographic factors. It also means that analyses of any continuing pre-school effects and primary school influences on children’s outcomes in Year 5 as well as their joint effects, include appropriate control for the influence of such background factors.

Similar analyses were conducted when the children were in Year 1 (age 6) enabling comparisons to be made with the latest results in Year 5. We investigated the development or progress made by different pupil groups during Key Stage 2 (KS2), and sought to establish the changing impact of individual background factors on social/behavioural development as children move through primary school.

The FindingsChild, family and early HLE factors remain important influences on children’s social/ behavioural development at age 10, especially for ‘Hyperactivity’ and ‘Self-regulation’. The factors with

30

strongest effects across the set of four social/behavioural outcomes are gender, health and behavioural problems reported by parents at entry to the study, need for EAL support and Early years HLE (see Table 1 for details on Effect sizes).

‘Hyperactivity’The highest levels of children’s ‘Hyperactivity’ were associated with the following background characteristics: gender (higher for boys), health and behavioural problems reported by parents at entry to the study, mothers with lower qualifications and income. Increased ‘Hyperactivity’ was also associated with children of single/separated mothers, children still in need of EAL support in Year 5, those eligible for FSM and Black Caribbean children1. Increased levels of ‘Hyperactivity’ were associated with children who were reported by parents as having more ‘Enrichment outings’ (which includes sports) in KS1, and those who were infrequently engaged in ‘Expressive play’ in KS1.

Whilst eligibility for FSM is a significant predictor of increased ‘Hyperactivity’, it is not as strong as some other background factors and is relatively small in comparison with family income or maternal qualifications.

Reduced ‘Hyperactivity’ was associated with children whose mothers were not working and those of Bangladeshi, Pakistani, or Indian ethnic origins.

‘Self-regulation’‘Self-regulation’ is a measure of pupil’s autonomy, confidence and self-sufficiency related to behaviour in learning, rather than in a social context.

Higher levels of ‘Self-regulation’ were associated with children that had high Early years HLE scores, father’s qualifications and family income. Lower levels of ‘Self-regulation’ were associated with needing EAL support, developmental problems reported by parents at entry to the study and low birth weight. Gender (poorer outcomes for boys), found to be the strongest predictor for ‘Hyperactivity’, ‘Pro-social’ and ‘Anti-social’ behaviour, had a weaker impact on ‘Self-regulation’.

Higher ‘Self-regulation’ was also associated with higher attainment suggesting that ‘Self-regulation’ is an outcome with a strong cognitive aspect. Higher levels of ‘Self-regulation’ seem to foster the development of Reading skills, however it is possible that children whose Reading attainment is boosted at a younger age develop more autonomy and confidence in their learning, making improvements in both Reading and ‘Self- regulation’ mutually reinforcing.

‘Anti-social’ behaviourTeachers’ ratings indicated somewhat increased levels of ‘Anti-social’ behaviour for boys, Black African children, those eligible for FSM, those with absent fathers, those reported by parents at entry to the study as having behavioural problems, and those who had low levels of ‘One-to-one interaction’ with their parents during KS1. Reduced ‘Anti-social’ behaviour, by contrast, was associated with high maternal qualifications and with moderate levels of engagement in ‘Expressive play’ during KS1, rather than either high or low levels.

Eligibility for Free School Meals (FSM) was the strongest net family predictor of ‘Anti-social’ behaviour. Its impact on ‘Anti-social’ behaviour was also the strongest relative to its impact on the other social/behavioural dimensions.

‘Pro-social’ behaviourGender was the strongest predictor of ‘Pro-social’ behaviour, with girls having more positive scores, followed by family income, ‘Expressive play’ during KS1, maternal qualifications and

1 Several ethnic groups are small in size and therefore their results should be treated with caution. They are reported here because they are in line with other research.

31

eligibility for FSM. Eligibility for FSM was a weaker predictor suggesting that this measure of disadvantage has a lesser role to play in ‘Pro-social’ behaviour than in ‘Anti-social’ behaviour.

Children who used computers infrequently at home during KS1 also show increased ‘Pro-social’ behaviour.

Estimating changes in social/behavioural development (progress) over timeAnalyses were undertaken to explore whether background characteristics were also associated with differential progress or change in social behaviour between Year 1 and Year 5. These analyses included the relevant social/behavioural outcomes collected at Year 1 in addition to the background factors presented above.

‘Hyperactivity’Girls, children of Indian, Pakistani, or Bangladeshi ethnic origins, children who have highly qualified mothers (‘18 academic’+) and families with medium income show the greatest reductions in hyperactive behaviour over time. Children reported by parents at entry to the study as having behavioural problems and those with single/separated mothers, however, made less progress in this area between Year 1 and Year 5.

‘Self-regulation’Children with highly educated fathers, those from medium income families, and those with the highest Early years HLE scores showed most progress in this domain. Children with lower Early years HLE, those with one developmental problem during pre-school and those still needing EAL support at age 10 did not show as much progress in ‘Self-regulation’ between Year 1 and Year 5.

‘Anti-social’ behaviourIncreases in ‘Anti-social’ behaviour (i.e. poorer progress) were associated with boys, eligibility for FSM, children whose mothers had vocational level qualifications and whose fathers were absent. Moderate levels of ‘Expressive play’ in KS1 were associated with reductions in ‘Anti-social’ behaviour by age 10.

‘Pro-social’ behaviourGender is the strongest indicator of progress in ‘Pro-social’ behaviour followed by family income and maternal qualifications. Girls, children from middle income families, those with mothers with higher qualifications and those reported to make moderate use of computers at home in KS1 showed better progress in ‘Pro-social’ behaviour. Children reported by parents at entry to the study as having behavioural problems and children who engaged infrequently in ‘Expressive play’ during KS1 showed poorer progress in ‘Pro-social’ behaviour during KS2.

Pre-school quality and effectiveness and primary school effectivenessContinuing pre-school influencesAs children move through primary school, we would expect pre-school influences to lose some of their potency, or to be masked by the effects of primary schools attended. Nevertheless, significant pre-school effects are still evident in children’s social behaviour five years into primary education.

Simply attending pre-school still makes a difference to children’s ‘Pro-social’ behaviour at the end of Year 5. In addition, those who started pre-school before the age of 3, show more ‘Pro-social’ behaviour at age 10. However, for other dimensions of social behaviour, the effect of simply attending a pre-school has washed out. The results however, show that the quality and effectiveness of the pre-school attended still made a significant difference to longer term developmental outcomes.

32

Pre-school effectiveness in promoting children’s earlier social behaviour before they started primary school is still a significant predictor of later ‘Self-regulation’ (see Figure 1) and ‘Pro-social’ behaviour at age 10. However, there were no significant differences between those who did not attend pre-school (the ‘Home’ group) and those who had attended low effective pre-schools. For ‘Hyperactivity’ only pre-schools that were found to be more effective in reducing ‘Anti-social’ behaviour before children joined primary school continued to show positive effects in Year 5, while the ‘Home’ group showed slightly better scores for this outcome than those from medium or low effective pre-schools.

Pre-school quality is associated with later social behaviour, but different aspects of quality were found to be associated with different aspects of behaviour. The measure of quality associated with the academic aspects of pre-school education (ECERS-E see Sylva, 1999) was particularly associated with increased ‘Self-regulation’, while the measure of pre-school quality associated with the caring and emotional/relationship, (ECERS-R see Harms et al, 1998) was associated with reduced ‘Hyperactivity’ and increased ‘Pro-social’ behaviour.

A minority of children who attended low quality pre-school (14%) no longer show benefits and low quality pre-school is also associated with poorer ‘Self-regulation’ and increased ‘Hyperactivity’. Quality and effectiveness of pre-school thus seem to be important for sustaining better longer term overall development.

Good Early years HLE is still a significant predictor of better ‘Self-regulation’ at age 10. Analyses investigated the combined effect of the Early years HLE and pre-school quality to explore the interplay between these two predictors and the relative contribution each makes to ‘Self-regulation’. For this analysis the Early years HLE index was grouped into low, medium and high.

The greatest boost in ‘Self-regulation’ comes from the combined effect of medium or high pre-school quality and high Early years HLE. High Early years HLE alone is not enough - children who have high Early years HLE scores and attend low quality pre-schools have poorer ‘Self-regulation’ than children with medium Early years HLE scores who had attended high quality pre-school. Similarly, high quality pre-schools improve ‘Self-regulation’ but it is not enough by itself. Self-regulating behaviour in children who go to high quality pre-schools is still affected by the Early years HLE. ‘Home’ children with high Early years HLE scores are doing well relative to ‘Home’ children with low and medium Early years HLE scores, but they are not doing as well as similar children who had also attended medium and high quality pre-school. Children who attended poor quality pre-schools had poorer social behavioural outcomes for each Early years HLE level than those from medium or high quality pre-schools.

Earlier EPPE reports (Sammons et al., 2003; Melhuish et al., 2001) have shown that an early start to centre-based child care before the age of 2 was associated with higher scores on ‘Anti-social’ behaviour at ages 3, 5 and 6. However, by age 10 there was no relationship between an early start in child care and higher rates of ‘Anti-social’ behaviour. The slightly increased risk of ‘Anti-social’ behaviour identified previously in children with an early start in group child care was no longer evident by age 10. By contrast the benefits of pre-school attendance including a longer duration (start under 3) still show for ‘Pro-social’ behaviour at age 10.

Primary school academic effectivenessThe ‘academic effectiveness’ of primary schools was calculated using value added analyses of National Assessment data for all primary schools in England linking individual pupils’ KS1 and KS2 results for successive cohorts from 2002-2004; separate indicators were calculated for English, Mathematics and Science outcomes (see Melhuish et al., 2006). Higher primary school academic effectiveness is a significant predictor of lower ‘Anti-social’ behaviour development. However, it is not a significant predictor of the other aspects of social behaviour. It makes an identifiable and separate contribution to children’s ‘Anti-social’ behaviour at Year 5, after controlling for child, family and HLE influences. This suggests that school organisation

33

and classroom processes that are associated with better academic results may positively influence some aspects of the behavioural climate of the school.

The associations between school academic effectiveness and ‘Anti-social’ behaviour may also be bi-directional. Raised levels of ‘Anti-social’ behaviour are likely to impede teaching and result in lower academic effectiveness. Creating an orderly and positive behavioural climate, taking account of differences in intake, is a key characteristic of more effective schools (Teddlie & Reynolds, 2000) and improvement in behaviour climate is associated with improvements in academic results. Causal connections cannot be drawn but the results in Year 5 indicate that going to a more academically effective school shows positive benefits in reducing children’s ‘Anti-social’ behaviour.

The combined influence of pre-school quality and primary school effectivenessThe combined effects of pre-school quality and primary school academic effectiveness are strongly associated with better ‘Self-regulation’ and ‘Pro-social’ behaviour. When pre-school quality and primary school academic effectiveness are combined, the impact on behaviour is stronger compared with other predictors suggesting that pre- and primary school effects are additive and important (see Table 2 for details).

Children who attended low quality pre-school followed by a low academic effectiveness primary school show the poorest ‘Self-regulation’ and ‘Pro-social’ behaviour. The protective effects of pre-school quality are most clearly evident for children in medium effective primary schools, which represents the majority of children.

High quality pre-school also offers some protection against the adverse influence of attending a low academically effective primary school in reducing ‘Hyperactive’ behaviour. The effects of pre-school quality on ‘Hyperactivity’, however, may be hidden in high academic effectiveness primary schools because both quality and effectiveness are having positive effects. ‘Home’ children who attended high academic effective primary schools showed the best outcomes for reduced ‘Hyperactivity’ and ‘Anti-social’ behaviour scores. By contrast, ‘Home’ children who went to low academically effective primary schools showed increased ‘Anti-social’ behaviour scores compared to all other groups including those who went to a low quality pre-school and a low academically effective primary. These results are similar to findings on cognitive attainment at age 10 (see Sammons et al., 2007b).

When we examine primary school academic effectiveness in relation to social/behavioural development the relationship between negative social behaviour and level of academic effectiveness appears to be reciprocal. The patterns associated with the ‘Home’ group suggest that pre-schools may have an important role to play in promoting later ‘Self-regulation’ and ‘Pro-social’ behaviour. On the other hand, differences between schools after prior (Year 1) developmental level is taken into account indicate that some primary schools have quite a significant impact on changes in children’s positive social behaviour from age 6 to age 10. This is especially so for ‘Self-regulation’. We also find moderate links between ‘Self-regulation’ and cognitive attainment in children in both KS1 and KS2; this also suggests that associations may be reciprical. Further analyses are required to explore such links.

34

ImplicationsIn line with findings for cognitive outcomes at age 10 (Sammons et al., 2007b) these findings support the conclusion that good (i.e. high quality and effective) pre-school still matters for children’s social/behavioural development outcomes in the longer term. Therefore, improving access to high quality, effective pre-school is likely to offer substantial benefits for children by improving both later social adjustment and cognitive development in primary schools. These influences have the potential to help raise overall educational standards and promote social inclusion.

The academic effectiveness of primary school is also a significant influence, particularly in combination with pre-school quality. Those children who went on to attend a more academically effective primary school show significantly better outcomes at age 10 than those who attended less academically effective schools. Academically effective primary schools are associated with reduced ‘Anti-social’ behaviour and better Reading and Mathematics attainment and progress, which is especially important for ‘Home’ children (whose academic outcomes tend to be poorer). There is no evidence of any negative impact of primary school academic effectiveness on social/behavioural development, and this is important because some claim that a focus by primary schools on promoting pupils’ academic progress may lead to poorer outcomes in other aspects of development. The EPPE evidence at age 10 does not support such claims. We also suggest that there may be reciprocal effects between primary school academic effectiveness and reduced ‘Anti-social’ behaviour, as has been suggested in other studies in the school effectiveness and improvement tradition.

The EPPE research provides new evidence concerning the combined effects of pre-school and primary school in shaping children’s later development. Raising the effectiveness and quality of both can help to improve children’s all round development. However, no one factor should be seen as the key to enhancing outcomes in the longer term, it is the combination of experiences over time that matters. The child who has a better Early years HLE, high quality, effective pre-schooling and goes on to attend a more academically effective primary school has a combination of ‘protective’ experiences that are likely to benefit social/behavioural development as well as cognitive attainment.

Policies that promote improvements in the Early years HLE, especially for vulnerable groups, and also work to improve the quality and effectiveness of pre-school provision have the potential to enhance children’s outcomes in the longer term. Pre-schools are well placed to identify children with a poor HLE and work with parents to improve this. Improving poorer quality pre-schools needs to be given a high priority, since poor quality provision does not appear to offer long term benefits in improved child outcomes.

The finding that both children’s social/behavioural development and Reading and Maths attainment can be boosted by attending an academically more effective primary school also has important messages for the Every Child Matters agenda, because promoting better academic outcomes is not at odds with fostering better social/behavioural development. Further attention to supporting the improvement of less academically effective primary schools is important given the variation in practices in Year 5 classrooms that we have previously identified (see Sammons et al., 2006).

As with cognitive outcomes, the social behavioural findings again suggest that, in order to help reduce the achievement gap for multiply disadvantaged groups, improving their Early years HLE, pre-school and primary school experiences will be needed in concert, since improvements to any one in isolation would be unlikely to boost outcomes sufficiently to help close the attainment or social behavioural ‘gap’ on its own.

35

Children who are behind their peers in cognitive or social/behavioural profiles at the start of primary school are likely to benefit from targeted interventions to ameliorate the risk of a widening of the attainment gap and adverse social/behavioural development during KS2. This has implications for policies and practices on baseline assessment and SEN identification and the development of well founded, evidence based interventions to support the most vulnerable children when they first start school, particularly if they have not attended pre-school or have had only poor quality or disruptive pre-school experiences.

For further information about EPPE 3-11 contact: Brenda Taggart, Room 416, The Institute of Education, University of London, 20, Bedford Way, London WC1H OAL. Enquiries to b.taggart@ioe.ac.uk EPPE website: www.ioe.ac.uk/projects/eppe

36

ReferencesGoodman, R. (1997), 'The Strengths & Difficulties Questionnaire: A Research Note'. Journal of Child Psychology & Psychiatry, 38 581-586

Harms, T., Clifford, R. M. and Cryer, D. (1998), Early Childhood Environmental Rating Scale, Revised Edition (ECERS-R). New York: Teachers College Press

Melhuish, E. C., Sylva, K., Sammons, P., Siraj-Blatchford, I. and Taggart, B. (2001), The Effective Provision of Pre-School Education (EPPE) Project: Technical Paper 7 - Social/Behavioural and Cognitive Development at 3-4 Years in Relation to Family Background. London: DfEE / Institute of Education, University of London Melhuish, E., Romaniuk, H., Sammons, P., Sylva, K., Siraj-Blatchford, I. and Taggart, B. (2006), Effective Pre-school and Primary Education 3-11 Project (EPPE 3-11): The Effectiveness of Primary Schools in England in Key Stage 2 for 2002, 2003 and 2004. Full Report. London: Institute of Education, University of London.http://www.ioe.ac.uk/schools/ecpe/eppe/eppe3-11/eppe3-11pubs.htm

Sammons, P., Sylva, K., Melhuish, E. C., Siraj-Blatchford, I., Taggart, B. and Elliot, K. (2003), The Effective Provision of Pre-School Education (EPPE) Project: Technical Paper 8b - Measuring the Impact of Pre-School on Children's Social/Behavioural Development over the Pre-School Period. London: DfES/ Institute of Education, University of London.

Sammons, P., Taggart, B., Siraj-Blatchford, I., Sylva, K., Melhuish, E., Barreau, S. and Manni, L. (2006), Effective Pre-school and Primary Education 3-11 (EPPE 3-11) Summary Report: Variations in Teacher and Pupil Behaviours in Year 5 Classes. Research Report No. 817. Nottingham: DfES Publications.

Sammons, P., Sylva, K., Melhuish, E., Siraj-Blatchford, I., Taggart, B., Barreau, S. and Grabbe, Y. (2007a) Effective Pre-school and Primary Education 3-11 Project (EPPE 3-11): Influences on Children’s Development and Progress in Key Stage 2: Social/ Behavioural Outcomes in Year 5. Research Report No. DCSF-RR007. Nottingham: DCSF publications.

Sammons, P., Sylva, K., Melhuish, E., Siraj-Blatchford, I., Taggart, B., Grabbe, Y. and Barreau, S. (2007b), Effective Pre-school and Primary Education 3-11 Project (EPPE 3-11) Summary Report: Influences on Children’s Attainment and Progress in Key Stage 2: Cognitive Outcomes in Year 5. Research Report No. RR828, Nottingham: DfES Publications.

Sylva, K., Siraj-Blatchford, I., Melhuish, E. C., Sammons, P & Taggart, B. (1999), The Effective Provision of Pre-School Education (EPPE) Project: Technical Paper 6 - Characteristics of the Centres in the EPPE Sample: Observation Profiles. London: DfEE / Institute of Education, University of London.

Sylva, K., Melhuish, E., Sammons, P., Siraj-Blatchford, I. and Taggart, B. (2004), The Effective Provision of Pre-School Education (EPPE) Project: Technical Paper 12 - The final report. London: DfES / Institute of Education, University of London.

Teddlie, C. and Reynolds, D. (2000), The International Handbook of School Effectiveness Research. London: Routledge Falmer.

37

Table 1 A summary of child family and home learning environment influences on social behaviour

Reference group in brackets‘Hyperactivity’ ‘Self-

regulation’ ‘Pro-social’ ‘Anti-social’

Child Factors Effect sizes Gender (girls) 0.68 -0.19 -0.63 0.32Birth weight (very low) -0.22Siblings (singletons) -0.11Ethnicity (white UK) 0.35 0.39Developmental problems (none) -0.25Behavioural problems (none) 0.51 -0.21 0.22Health problems (none) 0.56Need of EAL support 0.26 -0.53

Family factorsMother’s qualifications (none) -0.36 0.21 0.19 -0.16Father’s Qualifications (none) 0.30Father absent 0.09 0.15Marital Status (married) 0.23Maternal employment (employed) -0.15Family earned income (none) -0.33 0.25 0.24FSM 0.18 -0.17 -0.15 0.23

Home Learning EnvironmentEarly years HLE (low) 0.49Home computing (high) 0.22Enrichment outings (high) -0.25One to one interactions (high) 0.18Expressive play (high) 0.20 -0.24 -0.17

Only the largest effect sizes are reported for each factor Blank cells indicate no statistically significant effect

Table 2 The combined impact of pre-school quality and primary school effectiveness on social/behavioural outcomes*

Primary school Pre-schooln

‘Hyperactivity’ ‘Self-regulation’ ‘Pro-social’ ‘Anti-social’

Effect sizes

Low Effectiveness

‘Home’ 44 -0.05 0.33 0.14 0.56Low quality 38 0 0 0 0Medium quality 210 -0.20 0.34 0.17 0.22High quality 87 -0.36 0.49 0.21 0

Medium Effectiveness

‘Home’ 126 -0.34 0.24 0.10 0.08Low quality 244 -0.14 0.37 0.27 0.06Medium quality 842 -0.24 0.44 0.35 0.12High quality 330 -0.27 0.46 0.45 0.07

High Effectiveness

‘Home’ 12 -0.65 0.10 0.35 -0.37Low quality 20 -0.20 0.12 0.28 0.13Medium quality 167 -0.20 0.57 0.37 0High quality 46 -0.22 0.20 0.09 0.02

*Reference group: Low pre-school quality – Low primary school effectiveness

38

Appendix 1 - The Effective Provision of Pre-School (EPPE) Project – Technical Papers in the Series Technical Paper 1 - An Introduction to the Effective Provision of Pre-school Education(EPPE) Project ISBN: 085473 591 7 Published: Autumn 1999 Price £8.50

Technical Paper 2 - Characteristics of the Effective Provision of Pre-School Education (EPPE) Project sample at entry to the study ISBN: 085473 592 5 Published: Autumn 1999 Price £4.00

Technical Paper 3 - Contextualising EPPE: Interviews with Local Authority co-ordinators and centre managers ISBN: 085473 593 3 Published: Autumn 1999 Price £3.50

Technical Paper 4 - Parent, family and child characteristics in relation to type of pre-school and socio-economic differences. ISBN: 085473 594 1 Published: Autumn 1999 Price £4.00

Technical Paper 5 – Characteristics of the Centre in the EPPE Study: (Interviews)ISBN: 085473 595 X Published: Autumn 2000 Price £5.00

Technical Paper 6 - Characteristics of the Centres in the EPPE Sample: Observational Profiles ISBN: 085473 596 8 Published: Autumn 1999 Price £8.50Technical Paper 6A - Characteristics of Pre-School EnvironmentsISBN: 085473 597 6 Published: Autumn 1999 Price £8.50

Technical Paper 7 - Social/behavioural and cognitive development at 3-4 years in relation to family background ISBN: 085473 598 4 Published: Spring 2001 Price £5.00

Technical Paper 8a – Measuring the Impact of Pre-School on Children’s Cognitive Progress over thePre-School Period. ISBN: 085473 599 2 Published: Autumn 2002 Price £8.50

Technical Paper 8b – Measuring the Impact of Pre-School on Children’s Social/behavioural Developmentover the Pre-School Period. ISBN: 085473 683 2 Published Spring 2003 Price £8.50

Technical Paper 9 - Report on age 6 assessmentISBN: 085473 600 X Published Autumn 2004 Price £5.50

Technical Paper 10 - Intensive study of selected centresISBN: 085473 601 8 Published Autumn 2003 Price £11.00

Technical Paper 11 - Report on the continuing effects of pre-school education at age 7ISBN: 085473 602 6 Published Autumn 2004 Price £5.50

Technical Paper 12 - The final report ISBN: 085473 603 4 Published Autumn 2004 Price £5.50

Related PublicationsThe Early Childhood Environment Rating Scale: Revised Edition (1998). Harms, Clifford and CryerISBN: 08077 3751 8 Available from Teachers College Press. Columbia University. 1234 Amsterdam Avenue. New York. NY10027Assessing Quality in the Early Years, Early Childhood Environment Rating Scale Extension (ECERS-E):Four Curricular Subscales (2003) Sylva, Siraj-Blatchford and Taggart (2002) Trentham Books

Early Years Transition and Special Educational Needs (EYTSEN) Technical Paper 1: Special Educational Needs across the Pre-school Period. EYTSEN Technical Paper 2: Special Educational Needs in the Early Primary Years: Primary school entry up to the end of Year One.EYTSEN Technical Paper 3: Special Educational Needs: The Parents’ Perspective

Ordering information – For EPPE PublicationsThe Bookshop at the Institute of Education. 20, Bedford Way. London WC1H OAL. Tele: 00 44 (0) 207 612 6050 Fax: 0207 612 6407 e-mail: ioe@johnsmith.co.uk, website: www.johnsmith.co.uk/ioe or The EPPE Office. The University of London, Institute of Education. 20 Bedford Way, London. WC1H OAL. U.K.Telephone 00 44 (0) 207 612 6219 / Fax. 00 44 (0) 207 612 6230 / e-mail b.taggart@ioe.ac.uk Please Note : Prices will vary according to size of publication and quantities ordered.

39