2008 effective primary variability

Research Brief
DCSF-RB028
March 2008
ISBN 978 1 84775 122 5
EFFECTIVE PRE-SCHOOL AND PRIMARY EDUCATION 3-11 PROJECT (EPPE 3-11)
THE INFLUENCE OF SCHOOL AND TEACHING QUALITY ON CHILDREN’S
PROGRESS IN PRIMARY SCHOOL
Pam Sammons$
, Kathy Sylva+
, Edward Melhuish#
, Iram Siraj-Blatchford*
, Brenda Taggart*
,
Sofka Barreau*
and Yvonne Grabbe*
$
University of Nottingham, +
University of Oxford, #
Birkbeck, University of London and
*
Institute of Education, University of London
Introduction
The Effective Pre-School and Primary Education 3-11 (EPPE 3-11) project investigates the impact of pre-
school, primary school and the family on a range of outcomes for a national sample of 2500+ young children
in England between the ages of 3 and 11 years. This Research Brief presents analyses drawing on
detailed observations of primary teachers’ classroom practices in a sub-sample of 125 classes attended by
EPPE 3-11 children during the time they were in Year 5 of primary school (age 10 years). It investigates the
relationships between different classroom-level practices and children’s progress in cognitive (Reading and
Maths) and social/behavioural (Self-regulation, Hyperactivity, Pro-social and Anti-social behaviour)
outcomes from Year 1 (age 6) to Year 5 (age 10). The analyses also explore associations between
children’s outcomes and broader measures of overall school characteristics derived from teacher
questionnaires and Ofsted inspection reports.
Key Findings
• Both teachers’ classroom practice and overall school-level factors make a significant difference to
children’s academic and social/behavioural progress during primary school after controlling for the
influence of child, family and home factors and prior attainment.
• Classroom factors, particularly overall Teaching quality and Child positivity (which combines
teacher-child and peer relationships and children’s own self-reliance) and Parental support have an
important influence on children’s progress in Reading between Year 1 and Year 5. School-level
factors were relatively less important for Reading. Progress in Maths, however, is relatively equally
influenced by factors at classroom-level (overall Teaching quality and Quality of pedagogy) and
school-level (Quality of school leadership, School communication with parents, Use of homework
and school standards). This finding is in accord with EPPE 3-11 analyses for the full sample that
indicate stronger school effects for children’s progress in Maths (Sammons et al., 2008b).
• The influence of overall Teaching quality on Maths and Reading outcomes is stronger than the net
influence of some background factors such as gender and family disadvantage (measured by
eligibility for free school meals: FSM), but weaker than the influence of early years Home Learning
Environment (HLE) and mothers’ highest qualification level.
• The influence of primary schools upon children’s social/behavioural development appears to operate
more through school-level characteristics (measures of Anti-academic ethos, Use of homework and
school standards and the extent of recent school Improvement since last inspection) rather than
classroom-level factors. The exception is the Quality of observed pedagogy, which is beneficial
both for reducing pupils’ Hyperactivity, and promoting their Pro-social behaviour and Self-regulation
(e.g. concentration, self-reliance).

What matters in the classroom
• The observations reveal considerable differences in teachers’ and children’s behaviours and
classroom practices indicating significant variation in the quality of children’s educational
experiences during Year 5. We found that teachers can be classified into different groups in terms
of overall Teaching quality, and that observed Year 5 overall Teaching quality is a significant
predictor of better cognitive progress from Year 1 to Year 5 in both Reading and Maths.
• Quality of pedagogy in Year 5 (richness of instructional method, a positive climate, productive use of
instructional time, the use of evaluative feedback, teacher sensitivity and lack of teacher
detachment) was found to be a significant predictor of progress in Maths, but not in Reading. It was
also important for children’s progress in terms of reducing Hyperactivity, and promoting Pro-social
behaviour and Self-regulation.
• Classroom Attention and control was related to better progress in Maths and better development in
Self-regulation. Child positivity (which involved child-teacher relationships, children’s co-operative
skills and their self-reliance) was related to better progress in Reading.
• High levels of observed classroom Disorganisation in Year 5 (related to teachers’ organisation and
the behavioural climate of the classroom) were predictors of poorer progress in both Reading and
Maths and increased Hyperactivity.
What matters in the school
• Children made better progress in Maths and showed improvements in Self-regulation and Pro-social
behaviour where teachers reported more consistent practice across their school in the setting and
marking of homework and where standards were thought to be high.
• Where teachers reported an Anti-academic ethos in their school, this predicted increased
Hyperactivity and Anti-social behaviour and poorer Pro-social behavioural progress.
• Similarly, where teachers indicated that pupils had greater opportunities to organise activities for
themselves and that pupils’ views were listened to in their school, this predicted increased
Hyperactive and Anti-social behaviour in pupils. However, where this factor was moderate (but not
the greatest) pupils made better progress in Reading and Self-regulation, although the results only
approached statistical significance.
• Where teachers reported the school was active in communication with parents, children made better
academic progress, and showed better Self-regulation. In addition, where teachers reported strong
parental support, children made better progress in Reading and Pro-social behaviour.
Quality matters (Ofsted inspection measures)
• A number of measures of school quality obtained from Ofsted inspection judgements were found to
be significant predictors of children’s progress and development.
• The inspection measure of overall School effectiveness was a strong predictor of better child
progress in Maths and Self-regulation after control for prior development and background factors.
• Judgements of the overall Quality of school leadership also showed a modest but positive
relationship with Maths progress.
• The judgement of overall school Improvement since last inspection also showed a positive
association with children’s Maths progress, and development in Self-regulation, Pro-social and Anti-
social behaviour after control for other factors.
• The percentage of pupils eligible for FSM in a school was also associated with poorer children’s
progress in Maths, and increased Hyperactivity, Self-regulation and Anti-social behaviour (comparing
those in schools below and above the mean on this factor). However the effects are somewhat
weaker than those found for the Ofsted measures of overall school effectiveness and improvement.

The EPPE 3-11 Research: Background
The original EPPE study investigated children’s
intellectual and social/behavioural development
between the ages of 3-7 years (Sylva et al.,
2004) and focussed on pre-school influences.
The EPPE 3-11 study, funded by the Department
for Children, Schools and Families (DCSF) has
followed up the same sample of children to the
end of primary school (age 11 years) and
investigates both pre-school and primary school
influences on children’s attainment, progress and
social/behavioural development. This project has
now been funded to follow the same sample to
the end of Key Stage 3 (age 14). The EPPE
website: www.ioe.ac.uk/projects/eppe gives
further details about the study and the sample.
The EPPE research adopts an educational
effectiveness design using mixed methods
including multilevel modelling for the analyses of
child outcomes and case studies of effective
practice. Earlier reports have documented the
enduring impact of pre-school and the importance
of early family experiences (particularly the Early
years home learning environment [HLE]) on
children’s later attainment and social behavioural
development up to age 10 in primary school
(Sammons et al., 2007a; 2007b; Melhuish et al.,
2008). In addition, during the pre-school phase
the project explored the links between child
outcomes and pre-school setting/classroom
practices and processes through observations.
This identified the features of pre-school
experiences found to be linked with more positive
developmental outcomes for young children up to
age 5 years (see Sylva, 1999; Siraj-Blatchford,
2003; Sylva et al., 2006).
The analysis reported in this Research Brief
investigates the way school and classroom
processes influence the cognitive progress and
social/behavioural development of children
between the ages of 6 and 10 years old (Years 1
to 5) in a sub-sample of 1160 children
(approximately 45% of the total EPPE 3-11 child
sample) in 125 primary schools in England. The
variation in primary teachers’ classroom practice
in these 125 schools has been described in
Sammons et al., 2006. The findings here build on
these earlier analyses, using the same classroom
observational measures. The cognitive outcome
measures were collected using standardised
tests1
of Reading and Maths (not national
assessments) to avoid any possible influence
associated with preparations for national
assessments. The social/behavioural measures
were derived from teacher completed pupil
profiles (covering the four dimensions of
1
NFER tests of Reading and Maths.
Hyperactivity, Self regulation, Anti-social
behaviour and Pro-social behaviour). Children’s
progress was measured over a four year period
and thus is likely to reflect the overall influence of
schools and teachers across several school
years, but the observational data were confined
to Year 5. This strategy enables both school and
class influences on children’s academic and
social/behavioural progress to be explored2
.
The aim is to establish whether particular features
of classroom practices and school processes
help to predict child outcomes after controlling for
a range of background factors (child, family, HLE,
prior attainment). Multilevel modelling and the use
of Effect Sizes (ES) allow such comparisons to be
made3
. The research focuses on measuring
children’s progress and development in cognitive
and social/behavioural outcomes between Year 1
to Year 5.
For further details on the research and analysis
used in this study, see the Research Report
(Sammons 2008a).
What matters in the classroom
It was hypothesised that higher quality classroom
experiences would predict better child outcomes
in Year 5, taking account of children’s prior
attainment and social/behavioural development
and background factors. School effectiveness
research has drawn attention to the importance of
the classroom level in accounting for variations in
pupil outcomes but such research has generally
only tested limited measures of classroom
processes and usually only examined cognitive
outcomes (Teddlie & Reynolds, 2000). The EPPE
research has studied a detailed set of classroom
measures obtained from observations in Year 5
and a number of different indicators of children’s
outcomes and therefore can explore the relative
strength of different features on children’s
progress in a wide range of outcomes.
Overall Teaching Quality
Teachers’ and children’s observed behaviours
were found to differ significantly across the 125
Year 5 classes (Sammons et al., 2006). The
observation instruments identified significant
variations in observed quality indicating that
children’s educational experiences in Year 5
classes differed significantly with some benefiting
from higher quality experiences. The present
2
Ideally observations would have been conducted in all years in KS 2 but
this was not practical so Yr 5 was chosen as representative KS2
experience in a school, and it was also the year when children’s
outcomes were assessed by EPPE.
3
An effect size is a statistical measure that can be used to illustrate the
strength of impact of different factors used to predict variation in
children’s outcomes.

analyses indicate that teachers could be divided
into groups based on observations of their overall
quality of teaching.
The classroom observation data revealed a
number of underlying factors (dimensions) and
these were tested to explore relationships with
children’s progress in a range of outcomes.
Aspects of teaching
A number of classroom processes were identified
from the observational data such as Quality of
pedagogy, Disorganisation, Child positivity,
pupils’ Positive engagement and the extent of
Attention and control, as well as specific features
of practice related to literacy and numeracy
teaching. A measure of overall Teaching quality
derived from these dimensions was constructed
and teachers were grouped in terms of overall
quality of practice. This measure of overall
Teaching quality was a significant and moderately
strong predictor of better Reading (ES=0.35) and
Maths progress (ES=0.37)4
.
It is possible to use effect sizes (ES) to compare
the strength of different factors such as overall
Teaching quality with that of other background
influences on children’s progress for this
subsample of EPPE children. For example, the
influence of overall Teaching quality (Maths ES=
0.35; Reading ES=0.37) is smaller than the
influence of early years Home Learning
Environment (Maths ES=0.37; Reading ES=0.62)
and mothers’ highest qualification level (having a
degree versus no qualifications, Maths ES=0.63;
Reading ES=0.83) and larger than the net
influence of either gender (Maths ES=0.10);
Reading ES=0.05) or eligibility for FSM (Maths not
significant; Reading ES=0.19). Further details of
background effects are shown in the full report.
Quality of pedagogy: This more detailed measure
was part of the overall Teaching quality
assessment and included items such as richness
of instructional method, a positive classroom
climate, productive use of instructional time, the
use of feedback, teacher sensitivity and lack of
teacher detachment. This measure was
significantly related to children’s progress in Maths
(ES=0.27). Overall, this factor describes a
classroom where teachers provide a rich learning
environment where pupils are challenged in their
learning and provided with specific evaluative
feedback on how to improve their work. Reviews
of school and teacher effectiveness research
have suggested that schools vary more in their
4
The strength of predictors can be reported in terms of Effect sizes (ES)
these provide a summary measure of the strength of prediction of an
outcome net of other predictors. An ES of 0.1 is relatively weak, one of
0.35 moderately strong, one of 0.7 strong, for example.
effects on Maths than on Reading (Scheerens and
Bosker, 1997; Muijs and Reynolds, 2005). The
current results are in accord with such
conclusions showing that variations in the Quality
of pedagogy in Year 5 classes are particularly
important in accounting for differences in
children’s Maths progress.
The factor Disorganisation was related to the
observed behavioural climate of the classroom
and results support earlier studies indicating that
fostering a calm and orderly climate is important
for learning and teaching. Previously EPPE
reported moderate associations between the level
of socially disadvantaged pupils in a school and
the extent of Disorganisation observed in Year 5
classes (Sammons et al., 2006). Higher levels of
Disorganisation were significantly associated with
poorer Reading (ES=0.21) and Maths (ES=0.34)
progress and also increased Hyperactivity
(ES=0.37). It may be harder for teachers to
maintain good order in class in schools serving
higher proportions of disadvantaged children.
Also poorer classroom practice may be a
contributory factor in explaining the poorer
outcomes of children in more disadvantaged
communities. Probably both explanations play a
part. Our analyses controlled for a wide range of
background measures, including parents’
qualifications, occupations and income. Other
research (Ross & Hutchings, 2003; Darling-
Hammond, 2002) has suggested that schools in
disadvantaged settings can find it harder to recruit
and retain teachers and tend to be served by less
experienced staff. This may play a part in the
finding of a negative association between higher
quality practice observed in Year 5 classes and
overall level of disadvantage of pupil intake.
In addition the factor Attention and control was
found to be linked to better Maths progress
(ES=0.27) and Self-regulation (ES=0.36) while
Child Positivity, (the nature of child-teacher
relationships, children’s co-operative skills and
their self-reliance) was a predictor of better
Reading progress (ES=0.39).
What matters in the school
In addition to classroom observations, the
teachers of the observed classes completed a
questionnaire. From this questionnaire several
measures were constructed.
Use of homework and school standards
Teachers’ perceptions of the Use of homework
and school standards (including such items as
teachers set homework every week for their
class, most teachers mark and return homework
promptly, and whether the overall standards set
for pupils at the school were perceived to be high
enough) also showed a significant association

with better progress in Maths with the most
positive impact for the medium versus low group
(ES=0.27). Higher scores here were also
associated with improvements in Self-regulation
(ES=0.32) and Pro-social behaviour (ES=0.33).
Pupil agency and voice
The factor based on teachers’ perceptions of
Pupil agency and voice (such as pupils organise
activities for themselves and whether pupils’
views are listened to and taken seriously) was
associated with better Reading progress (where
medium amounts showed the most positive effect,
ES=0.26) and with Self-regulation (ES=0.27,
where higher amounts were best).
It was hypothesised that children would show
positive social behaviour in schools where their
views are listened to and accommodated,
however, the findings suggest otherwise.
Contrary to expectations, EPPE children’s
Hyperactive and Anti-social behaviour was
significantly increased in schools where teachers
reported High levels of Pupils’ agency and voice
(ES=0.30 and ES=0.38 respectively). These
schools may be responding to poor pupil
behaviour by giving more emphasis to pupils’ voice
so Pupils’ agency and voice may be seen as a
constructive response by schools seeking to
counter negative behaviour. Alternatively, some
moderate amount of involvement and autonomy
may be optimum, and beyond a certain point,
children at this age may not respond well to high
levels of autonomy because such strategies may
adversely affect the disciplinary climate. Further
study of Pupil Agency and voice is needed to
explore these associations and their impact in
more depth.
Anti-academic ethos
Where teachers reported an Anti-academic ethos
amongst pupils in their school, children in the
sample also showed poorer progress in Reading
(ES=0.31) and Maths (ES=0.37), increased
Hyperactivity (ES=0.36) and Anti-social behaviour
(ES=0.31) and poorer Pro-social behavioural
(ES=0.38) development.
Parental communication and support
Two aspects of the home-school relationship
(School communication with parents and Parental
support for their child’s learning) were significant
predictors of better child outcomes.
Teachers’ perceptions of the school’s
communication with parents was the stronger of
these two predictors (Reading ES=0.38, Maths
ES=0.34) with children making better progress in
schools where teachers reported good
communication (such as parents being regularly
informed about their child’s
progress/achievements and the school being
good at communicating its expectations of pupils
to parents). This factor also predicted better
developmental progress for Self-regulation
(ES=0.27).
Teachers’ judgements of overall level of parental
support for children’s learning also showed a
positive relationship with pupils’ progress in
Reading (ES=0.28) and their Pro-social
development (ES=0.38).
Quality matters (Ofsted inspection
measures)
In addition to investigating the impact of observed
classroom processes, further analyses explored
the predictive power of more global indicators of
school quality, based on Ofsted inspectors’
judgements. Several classroom process factors
derived from the classroom observations were
positively related to Ofsted measures of overall
school effectiveness, improvement and
leadership. The observed measure of overall
Teaching quality was found to be higher in
schools independently identified by inspectors as
showing better quality in overall judgements of
effectiveness, improvement and leadership
(Sammons et al., 2006).
School effectiveness
School effectiveness as judged by Ofsted was
found to be a strong predictor of better outcomes
for children after control for prior attainment or
prior social behaviour and other background
factors. Attending a school judged by Ofsted as
more effective made a significant difference to
Maths progress (ES=0.41) and for Self-regulation
(ES=0.39). The results for Reading also indicated
that children made more progress in schools
judged to be more effective by Ofsted (ES=0.30)
All other progress measures show effects that
were in a similar direction but were not statistically
significant.
Improvement since last inspection
The Improvement since last inspection indicator
also showed a very similar pattern to findings on
overall school effectiveness with schools that had
shown most improvement being significantly
associated with better progress for our sample in
Maths (ES=0.35), Self-regulation (ES=0.49), Pro-
social behaviour (ES=0.43) and improvements in
terms of reduced Anti-social behaviour (ES=0.31).
Leadership
The findings for the Ofsted School Leadership
indicator also showed a significant positive
relationship with better progress in Maths
(ES=0.32), and similar benefits for reduced
Hyperactivity (ES= -0.22) and Anti-social
behaviour (ES= -0.23), but these latter two results
only approached statistical significance.

Measures of social disadvantage (Free
school meals - FSM)
The level of disadvantage of the school’s pupil
intake (% of pupils eligible for FSM) was related to
children’s cognitive and social/behavioural
progress (for Maths, Hyperactivity, Self-regulation
and Anti-social behaviour). A higher level of
social disadvantage was a predictor of poorer
progress. These analyses controlled for all other
significant child, family and HLE characteristics
including the individual child’s family income
(measured in Year 1 at age 6) and eligibility for
FSM. However, the effects are somewhat
weaker and less significant (ES range 0.23-0.29)
than those found for the Ofsted measures of
school effectiveness and improvement (ES range
0.27-0.49). Nonetheless, these findings support
other research on the influence of school
composition and indicate that the challenges in
raising attainment are greater for schools in areas
of higher disadvantage.
Elsewhere we have shown that only one of the
classroom observation measures was associated
with level of disadvantage (Sammons et al., 2006).
Classroom Disorganisation was weakly
negatively associated with overall social
disadvantage of pupil intake to a school (% pupils
eligible for FSM, Correlation r= -0.36).
Conclusions and Implications
Reviews of school and teacher effectiveness
research have pointed to the importance of a
range of school and classroom features that
promote better educational outcomes for students,
see Teddlie & Reynolds (2000), Scheerens &
Bosker (1997) and Sammons (2007c). These
include a positive school culture, good leadership,
creating a positive learning environment, high
expectations and good quality teaching.
The analyses of classroom observations show
that it is possible to group teachers in Year 5
primary classes in terms of their overall Teaching
quality across a range of observed classroom
behaviour and practices. Overall Teaching quality
was a significant predictor of better cognitive
progress for children across the period Years 1 to
5, and this is particularly evident in comparing the
High and Low groups. In other words, children in
schools where Year 5 overall Teaching quality
was observed to be High do significantly better in
both Reading and Maths progress than those
attending schools where Year 5 overall Teaching
quality was observed to be Low. However,
overall Teaching quality was not associated with
social/behavioural progress. It appears that the
overall quality of teaching as measured by the
observation instruments has a greater influence
on children’s academic progress, than on other
social/behavioural outcomes.
With regard to other school measures, children
who attended more effective and improved
schools, as measured by earlier Ofsted
judgements made during regular school
inspections, showed longer term benefits on a
range of social/behavioural outcomes as well as
academic outcomes. The judgement of school
leadership also showed a significant though
weaker positive influence. This supports the
conclusions of school effectiveness research that
schools matter. Even when the powerful
influences of child, family and home are controlled,
going to a ‘better’ primary school exerts a positive
net influence on children’s academic progress and
also on social/behavioural outcomes.
In addition, the results indicate that teachers’
perceptions of a number of features of their
schools (such as communication with parents,
parental support, consistent emphasis on
homework, pupil agency and voice, and anti-
academic ethos) are also significant predictors of
children’s academic progress and
social/behavioural progress from Year 1 to Year
5.
The findings confirm that there are significant
variations in the overall observed quality of
teaching in Year 5 classes and such variations
are important predictors of children’s progress in
Reading and Maths. Specific features of
teachers’ practice and children’s responses are
also predictors of better social/behavioural
outcomes. In addition, some aspects of
organisation such as the school’s emphasis on
communication with parents and homework, and
level of parental support also show a significant
impact in promoting better progress. In
combination with the findings on teacher quality,
the results point to important features of schools
and classroom processes that help to explain
differences in children’s outcomes and thus
provide evidence on successful practice.
Taken together these results demonstrate those
aspects of teachers’ classroom practice and
overall features of schools, including inspection
judgements of school quality that have predictive
validity in terms of better child outcomes at age 10.
They support conclusions from previous school
and teacher effectiveness studies that point to
important variations between teachers and
schools in their effects on pupils’ progress and
social/behavioural development. The quality of
classroom teaching and the overall quality of the
school both matter, while contextual influences
and communication with parents are also
significant. We conclude that initiatives that place
a stronger emphasis on promoting the overall

quality of teaching and creating a more orderly
classroom climate are likely to improve educational
outcomes for all children and may be particularly
important for schools with higher proportions of
disadvantaged children (because these schools
are more likely to have higher levels of classroom
disorder).
After taking account of other influences it is clear
that the quality of classroom teaching matters, and
the overall school characteristics also matter.
Children in the EPPE sample who had the benefit
of attending a primary school independently
judged by Ofsted to be more ‘effective and
improved’ showed both better academic progress
and social/ behavioural development. The findings
also provide some independent confirmation that
inspection judgements of effectiveness and
improvement provide useful indicators of
differences in school quality that have a
measurable impact on a range of pupil outcomes.
Both the quality of teaching and the overall
effectiveness of the school are found to be
significant predictors of better cognitive progress
and social/behavioural development. Given that
many studies (including EPPE 3-11) have
demonstrated links between pupil disadvantage
(such as low SES and family income) and
significantly poorer educational outcomes,
enhancing the quality of teaching and the overall
effectiveness of the school are likely to be
particularly important for disadvantaged groups of
pupils. A major research review by Scheerens &
Bosker (1997) concluded that school effects are
larger for ethnic minority and disadvantaged
groups (our sample size does not allow detailed
analysis of school effects for specific sub-groups
here) and is supported by findings for all primary
schools in England (Melhuish et al., 2006).
Therefore improving the quality of teaching and
overall effectiveness of the school is likely to be
necessary to promote better long term educational
outcomes for disadvantaged groups of pupils in
particular. This conclusion is also supported by
recent Ofsted findings of schools in
disadvantaged areas (Ofsted, 2007).5
TheEPPE
3-11 findings support the view that quality of
classroom practices and overall quality of schools
and their leadership make an important difference
to children’s academic and social/behavioural
progress. The results suggest the need to reduce
the variation in the quality found between class
practices and school processes in order to raise
overall standards and promote greater equity.
This longitudinal study is the first of its kind in
England (educational effectiveness) to provide
recent and robust evidence on the role of
classroom influences such as teaching quality and
5
See Ofsted Annual Report 2006/2007 (para. 282-284, p. 69 -70).
school processes in shaping primary children’s
progress and development (on a wide range of
outcomes) during Key Stage 2. Confidence in
findings is enhanced by the extent of controls for
the impact of other background factors in the
models used.
Methodology
The EPPE 3-11 study is the first large-scale
longitudinal study to combine a wide range of data
that explore the relationship between detailed
measures of child, family and home learning
environment (HLE) and children’s progress (in
both cognitive and social/behavioural outcomes)
and to link this detailed information to what
teachers do in the classroom and measures from
inspection judgements (Ofsted). This has enabled
the exploration of the predictive power of different
measures in accounting for variation in children’s
progress across a wide range of outcomes, both
academic and social behaviour.
This report describes the results of quantitative
analyses based on a sub-sample of 1160 EPPE 3-
11 children across Years 1 to 5 of primary
education (age 6 to 10 years), representing
approximately 45% of the total EPPE child sample.
The research builds on the earlier analyses of
children’s Reading and Maths attainments and
social/behavioural outcomes in Year 5 for the full
EPPE 3-11 sample (see Sammons, 2007a; 2007b),
by investigating relationships between children’s
outcomes and measures of classroom processes,
collected through observation of Year 5 classes in
125 focal schools chosen from the wider EPPE 3-
11 data set. The focus on progress and
development across four successive years is
likely to enhance the chances of identifying school
influences as well as those relating to teachers’
classroom practices.
Two instruments were used for classroom
observations: the Classroom Observation System
for Fifth Grade (COS-5, NICHD/Pianta 2001) and
The Instructional Environment Observation Scale
(IEO, Stipek, 1999). For detailed descriptions of
these instruments see Sammons et al., (2006).
Observations were conducted in Year 5 to avoid
any influence associated with end of Key Stage 2
National assessments (this reduces the likelihood
that any teaching to the test might affect results).
Field work was carried out during spring and
summer terms of 2004 and 2005. In addition
teachers were asked to complete a questionnaire
with a 94% response rate.
Multilevel models were used to test the predictive
power of different measures of classroom
processes and overall quality of teaching. It
should be noted, that the models of children’s
progress control for prior attainment (or prior

social behaviour) measured in Year 1, as well as
a wide range of child, family and HLE influences.
The progress and developmental gains are thus
measured over a four year period in primary
school. The outcomes studied include Reading
and Maths (measured by NFER standardised
tests) and four social/behavioural measures
derived from teachers’ ratings of individual
children (Hyperactivity, Self-regulation, Anti-social
behaviour and Pro-social behaviour).
In addition global measures of overall Teaching
quality were derived and tested to establish
whether there were meaningful groupings of
classes on the basis of overall quality.
It was hypothesised that children would make
more cognitive progress and show more positive
social/behavioural development in schools that
had been rated more favourably on Ofsted
indicators of quality in previous inspection reports,
taking into account other influences. Ofsted
measures were tested in the multilevel models of
children’s outcomes in Year 5 and the results
supported the hypothesis.
References
Darling-Hammond, L. (2002), Access to quality
teaching: An analysis of inequality in California’s
public schools: Santa Clara Law Review.
Melhuish, E., Romaniuk, H., Sammons, P., Sylva,
K., Siraj-Blatchford, I. & Taggart. (2001)
The Effective Pre-school, Primary and Education
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
Melhuish, E., Sylva, K., Sammons, P., Siraj-
Blatchford, I., Taggart, B. and Phan, M. (2008),
'Effects of the Home Learning Environment and
pre-school center experience upon literacy and
numeracy development in early primary school.'
Journal of Social Issues, 64, 157-188.
Muijs, D. and Reynolds, D. (2005), Effective
Teaching. London: Sage.
NICHD. (2001), 'Fifth Grade School Observation
Procedures Manual.' NICHD Study of Early Child
Care and Youth Development: NICHD Study of
Early Child Care and Youth Development.
Developed by R. Pianta.
Ofsted. (2007), The Annual Report of Her
Majesty’s Chief Inspector of Education,
Children’s Services and Skills 2006/07. London:
The Stationery Office.
Ross, A. and Hutchings, M. (2003), Attracting,
Developing and Retaining Effective Teachers in
the United Kingdom and Northern Ireland: OECD
Country Background Report: Institute of Policy
Studies in Education, London Metropolitan
University.
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. and Barreau, S. (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:
DfES Publications.
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. Report No.
RR828. Nottingham: DfES Publications.
Sammons P (2007c) School Effectiveness and
Equity: Making connections. CfBT Education
Trust. Reading.
www.cfbt/evidenceforeducation.com
Blatchford, I., Taggart, B., Barreau, S. and Grabbe,
Y. (2008), The Influence of School and Teaching
Quality on Children’s Progress in Primary
School. Report No. DCSF-RR028. Nottingham:
DfES Publications.
Scheerens, J. and Bosker, R. (1997), The
Foundations of Educational Effectiveness.
Oxford: Pergamon.
Siraj-Blatchford, I., Sylva, K., Taggart, B.,
Sammons, P., Melhuish, E. C. and Elliot, K. (2003),
The Effective Provision of Pre-School Education
(EPPE) Project: Technical Paper 10 - Intensive
Case Studies of Practice across the Foundation
Stage. London: DfES / Institute of Education,
University of London.
Stipek, D. (1999), Instructional Environment
Observation Scale. University of California:
MacArthur Pathways through Middle Childhood
Network.

Sylva, K., Siraj-Blatchford, I., Melhuish, E. C.,
Sammons, P., Taggart, B., Evans, E., Dobson, A.,
Jeavons, M., Lewis, K., Morahan, M. and Sadler,
S. (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. C., Sammons, P., Siraj-
Blatchford, I. and Taggart, B. (2004), The Effective
Provision of Pre-School Education (EPPE)
Project: Final Report. London: DfES/ Institute of
Education, University of London.
Sylva, K., Siraj-Blatchford, I., Taggart, B.,
Sammons, P., Melhuish, E., Elliot, K. and Totsika, V.
(2006), 'Capturing Quality in Early Childhood
Through Environmental Rating Scales'. Early
Childhood Research Quarterly 21 (1), 76-92.
Teddlie, C. and Reynolds, D. (2000), The
International Handbook of School Effectiveness
Research. London: Routledge/Falmer.
Additional Information
Copies of the full report (DCSF-RR028) - priced
£4.95 - are available by writing to DCSF
Publications, PO Box 5050, Sherwood Park,
Annesley, Nottingham NG15 0DJ.
Cheques should be made payable to “DCSF
Priced Publications”.
Copies of this Research Brief (DCSF-RB028) are
available free of charge from the above address
(tel: 0845 60 222 60). Research Briefs and
Research Reports can also be accessed at
www.dcsf.gov.uk/research/
Further information about this research can be
obtained from Jessica Dunn, W606, DCSF,
Moorfoot, Sheffield S1 4PQ.
Email: jessica.dunn@dcsf.gsi.gov.uk
The views expressed in this report are the
authors’ and do not necessarily reflect those of
the Department for Children, Schools and
Families.

Summary table of relationships between different class and school predictors and children’s
progress in Cognitive and social/behavioural outcomes (Year 1 – Year 5)
Reading Maths Hyperactivity Self-regulation Pro-social Anti-social
COS-5 (Pianta)
Overall teaching quality 0.37 0.35
Quality of pedagogy 0.27 0.28 0.17
0.27
Low-Med gp
Disorganisation 0.21 0.34 0.37
Child Positivity 0.39
Positive engagement 0.33
Low-Med gp
Attention and control 0.27 0.28
IEO (Stipek)
Literacy
Global indicator
Pedagogy 0.23 0.45
Subject development
Learning linkages
Numeracy
Global indicator
Pedagogy 0.23 0.28
Subject development 0.32
Med gp
0.28
Learning linkages
Teacher perceptions
School communication with
parents
0.38 0.34 0.27
Parental support of their
child’s learning
0.28 0.38
Use of homework and
school standards
0.27
Medium grp
0.32 0.33
Pupils’ agency and voice
0.26
Med-high grp
0.30 0.27 0.38
Anti-academic ethos 0.31 0.37 0.36 0.38 0.31
Ofsted judgements
School effectiveness 0.30 0.41 0.27 0.39 0.37 0.35
Improvements since last
inspection
0.31 0.35 0.34 0.49 0.43 0.31
Quality of assessment 0.28
Leadership 0.32 0.22 0.23
Attendance
% of pupils eligible for FSM 0.23 0.25 0.25 0.29
Reference group: High
Effect sizes represent differences between the lowest and highest scoring groups unless otherwise stated.
*p<0.05 appears in BOLD, others are approaching significance. blank cells indicate non significance

2008 effective primary variability

More Related Content

What's hot

Viewers also liked

Similar to 2008 effective primary variability

Recently uploaded

2008 effective primary variability