Transcript Slide 1

The impact of Sure Start on
school performance
Justine Schneider, University of Durham,
with Alan Ramsay and Shelagh Lowerson, Education, Durham
County Council on behalf of
Durham University Centre for Applied Social Research
Sure Start Research Team
Aims of the analysis
• To investigate whether Sure Start made
any difference when a child started school.
• To do this, we had to allow for differences
in:
– Age
– Gender
– Social backgrounds
Methods
• We compared Sure Start ‘graduates’ to
their classmates who did not use the local
programme, but were eligible to do so.
• We controlled for age, gender and social
background (IMD) using multiple linear
regression analysis.
• In this way we explored the impact of Sure
Start use on Flying Start summary scores.
IMD scores (high = more disadvantaged)
70
***
60
***
50
40
User
30
Control
20
10
0
Area 1
Area 2
Area 3
Area 4
All
areas
Flying Start scales
Significance level of correlation between score and IMD
Speaking and listening
Writing
Reading
Language and literacy subject total
Using and applying
Number
Mathematics subject total
Independence
Relationships
Personal & social development total
Statutory assessment total
Non-statutory assessment total
***
***
**
**
***
**
**
*
an
d
l is
La
ng
ua
ge
te
ni
ng
W
ri t
in
an
g
R
d
ea
lite
di
U
ng
r
ac
si
ng
y
an s u.
..
d
M
a
at
pp
he
ly
in
m
g
at
N
ic
u
s
m
su
be
bj
r
e
ct
In
de
t
Pe
p e ota
rs
nd l
on
R
en
el
al
an atio c e
d
ns
so
hi
ps
ci
al
de
v.
..
Sp
ea
ki
ng
Flying Start scores 1
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
Area 1
User
Control
*
an
d
l is
te
ni
ng
W
ri t
La
ing
ng
ua
Re
ge
ad
in
a
nd
Us
g
in
l
i
te
g
r..
an
.
d
ap
ply
M
in
at
g
he
N
um
m
at
be
ic s
r
su
bj
In
ec
de
...
pe
nd
en
R
Pe
el
ce
at
rs
ion
on
sh
al
ip
an
s
d
so
ci a
...
Sp
ea
ki n
g
Flying Start scores 2
Area 2
16
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
*
**
User
Control
*
** **
**
Four areas compared (1)
Statutory assessment totals
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
*
Sure Start
Control
1
2
3
4
Four areas compared (2)
Non-statutory assessment totals
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
*
Sure Start
Control
1
2
3
4
Implications
• We found that we also had to look at the
differences associated with coming from
certain areas/programmes.
Sure Start inputs
Number of families
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
0
1-10
11-20 21-30
31-40
41-50 51-60
61-70 71-80
Number of attendances
81-90 91-100
Sure Start targets
• ised – Improving social and emotional
development
• ih – improving health
• ial – improving ability to learn
• sfc – strengthening families and
communities
Child’s attendance
ised ih
Ante-natal clinic
X
Bookstart
sfc
X
X
Christmas party
Parent & toddler group
ial
X
X
Mother’s attendance
ised ih
Smoking cessation
Post-natal visits
ial
X
X
Computer literacy
Toy library
sfc
X
X
Sure Start inputs for 125 families
Target of activities
Child
Mother
Mean
Sum
Improving social & emotional development
2.95
366
Improving health
3.11
386
Improving ability to learn
7.56
938
Strengthening families and communities
1.16
144
Improving social & emotional development
1.64
203
Improving health
4.52
561
Improving ability to learn
1.24
154
Strengthening families and communities
2.22
275
Findings 1
• Age, gender, the index of social
disadvantage for the ward in which the
child lives and the Sure Start area from
which they come all affected the summary
scores on Flying Start assessments.
Findings 2
• Children from some areas did worse at
school, which could be due to selection
into programmes of children with special
needs.
• Thus, comparisons of average outcomes
for intervention versus control groups
across the four areas are not valid;
progress over time at the level of the
individual would be a better measure.
Findings 3
• Controlling for age, gender, area and IMD,
mothers’ participation in education and
community activities through Sure Start
predicted higher ‘statutory’ scores for their
children (language and literature,
numeracy and personal and social
development).
Findings 4
• Again controlling for key variables,
children’s use of Sure Start’s creative
and social facilities was associated with
higher ‘non-statutory’ scores (knowledge
and understanding of the world, physical
and creative development).
Caveats
• Teachers rate Flying Start, which could
introduce some bias.
• Robust measurement of inputs relies on
programmes using the database.
• Missing cases make the results less
reliable.
Conclusion
• These findings lend support to a positive
impact from Sure Start.
Acknowledgements
• The researchers wish to thank the
programme staff who supplied data for
these analyses.
• The analyses would not have been
possible without the assistance of DCC
Education Performance review section.