The study had two main aims: to provide a
solid evidence base about the effectiveness of the transition
from the Foundation Stage to Key Stage 1; and to improve
understanding about how best to support children's learning
during this transition. Using a literature review, telephone
interviews and case-study visits, some of the key findings
of this project are:
- Teachers said that they were able to manage the transition,
but felt that some areas remained problematic. The biggest
challenge was posed by the move from a play-based approach
in the Foundation Stage to a more 'structured' curriculum
in Key Stage 1. The introduction of the full literacy
hour and the daily mathematics lesson was identified
as challenging because it was difficult to get young
children to sit still and listen to the teacher.
- School staff thought that children needed certain
skills in order to make a good start in Year 1. These
included being able to care for themselves and to carry
out tasks without adult support, an ability to listen
to the teacher and to sit still.
- While staff thought that most children coped well
with the transition to Year 1, certain children were
identified as more likely to experience problems. These
included children who were younger/less mature, were
less able, had special educational needs or spoke English
as an additional language.
- Interviews with children highlighted the influence
of the curriculum and pedagogy on children's enjoyment
of learning. Children valued their experiences in Reception
and regretted the loss of opportunities to learn through
play. Some were worried by the workload expected in
Year 1, found writing difficult and were bored by the
requirement to sit and listen to the teacher. On the
other hand, children enjoyed the status of being more
grown up, and some welcomed the learning challenges
presented in Year 1.
- Parents wanted more information about transition.
They wanted to know what would be expected of their
children, so they could help them prepare for Year 1.
They would have liked to meet their child's new teacher
before the beginning of Year 1.
- The case-study schools had adopted a variety of strategies
aimed at smoothing transition. These tended to focus
on three areas: induction of children into Year 1; continuity
of practice between Reception and Year 1; and communication
between staff, parents and children.
- Staff said that they would welcome training about
the transition to Key Stage 1, especially for those
working in Year 1.
The report concludes with several recommendations,
which include:
- Schools staff should view transition as a process
rather than an event
- Staff should communicate with parents and children
about transition to Year 1 before the end of the Foundation
Stage including visits wherever possible. Schools should
provide guidance for parents on how they can prepare
for and support their children's learning in Year 1
and take into account the concerns of working parents
and those who have EAL
- Policy-makers should provide advice to teachers on
how to continue elements of the Foundation Stage curriculum
and pedagogical approach into Year 1
- There is a need for further research to broaden the
evidence base on effective transition practices.
Sanders, D., White, G., Burge, B., Sharp,
C., Eames, A., McCune, R. & Grayson, H. (2005).
A study of the transition from the Foundation Stage
to Key Stage 1. Nottingham: DfES Publications.
During the spring term visits, inspectors
observed 70 teaching sessions across all the areas of learning.
In the autumn term, they observed 44 lessons in all the
National Curriculum subjects except history: just over half
of these were English or mathematics. As part of all visits,
discussions were held with headteachers, teachers and teaching
assistants. Discussions were also held with parents and
pupils, and pupils' work was scrutinised.
This survey focuses on two aspects of transition:
. the extent to which pupils make appropriate
progress from Year R to Year 1. Such progress includes developments
in their social skills, in their attitudes towards school
and learning, in their knowledge and in their learning
. the management of transition, including planning for curricular
continuity, assessment and recording, communication with
parents and the induction of pupils.
The main findings of this report include:
- The introduction of the Foundation Stage as a separate
stage of learning has raised teachers' awareness of
the need to plan for and manage the transition of pupils
from Year R to Year 1.
- Primary schools generally supported the transition
from the Foundation Stage in Year R to Key Stage 1 in
Year 1 effectively and most teachers and teaching assistants
were very aware of the concerns felt by pupils and parents.
At its best, the management of transition from Year
R to Year 1 is part of a broader whole-school approach
to achieving good curricular continuity and progression
in pupils' learning.
- Nationally, insufficient consideration has been given
to the relationship between the areas of learning in
the Foundation Stage and the subjects of the National
Curriculum in Year 1. The subject-based approach of
the National Curriculum has been interpreted sensitively
by many Year 1 teachers. However, constraints of timetabling
and the need to make sure that pupils make good progress
towards the standards expected in the national end of
Key Stage 1 tests sometimes lead to abrupt transitions
to more formal approaches in Year 1.
- The two national strategies have been effective in
providing schools with guidance to support progression
and continuity in English and mathematics. Schools give
less attention, however, to curricular continuity in
the foundation subjects. In some Year 1 classes, the
curriculum emphasises the NLNS at the expense of regular
attention to other subjects. The result is an imbalance
in the Year 1 curriculum, with insufficient time given
to improving standards through other creative and expressive
areas.
- Teaching assistants frequently play an important role
in the successful transition of pupils from Year R to
Year 1. They contribute to assessment, support pupils
with special educational needs, provide insights into
the needs of individuals and maintain established routines
where they change classes with the pupils.
- Effective communication with parents is a key element
in pupils' successful transition from Year R to Year
1.
- Many Year R teachers were keeping far too many records
and assessments which were not relevant to their successors
in Year 1; where these records were for their own use,
as in a mixed Year R/Year 1 class, their value was even
less clear. Schools were not doing enough to make sure
that their assessments and recording were of direct
value.
Ofsted (2004). Transition from the Reception
Year to Year 1: An evaluation by HMI. HMI 2221. London:
Ofsted.
Download the full report (pdf) from www.ofsted.gov.uk
This study explored the experiences of a group
of 27 children during their first year in primary school.
Two aspects of school transfer were explored in this study:
(1) the perspectives of the children, their teachers and
parents on the first year at primary school; and (2) changes
in the out-of-home care arrangements made for children who
had previously had both education and care needs met through
varying forms of all-day provision.
Most children in this sample had a smooth
transfer to primary school. Some children did experience
difficulties. However, there was no clear relationship between
the nature of children's pre-school experiences and the
ease with which they transferred. It was also found that
parents tended to ascribe problems with settling into the
new school to difficulties separating from parents or a
dislike of the school experience. On the other hand, teachers
were more likely to ascribe problems to a lack of confidence
or maturity on the part of the child or to problems with
the child's behaviour. It should be noted that most of these
problems were temporary, and that by the end of their first
year at school all of the children were considered by their
teachers to have settled in school.
Stephen, C. & Cope, P. (2003). Moving
to primary 1: An exploratory study of the experience of
transition from pre-school to primary. Edinburgh: Scottish
Executive, Education Department, Insight 3.
Download this report (pdf) from: www.scotland.gov.uk
This research investigated the factors that
affect pupils' progress between the ages of 7 and 14. It
starts by considering the primary side of the transfer divide,
moves on to the transfer to secondary school, and then explores
some areas where schools intervene when progress stalls
during Key Stage 3. This broad view allows for a fuller
picture of pupils' progress to be build and to redress the
imbalance in earlier research that focused on transfer between
schools rather than transitions between years within the
same school.
Practice in over a dozen LEAs and more than
50 schools is described and analysed; more than 300 primary
schools were also represented in the databases used to track
pupil progress during Key Stage 2, whilst a further 50 primary
head contributed were interviewed about transition issues.
Most schools discussed individual pupil progress at staff
meetings, few used the data for framing sustained action.
The most common concerns were the performances of boys and
SEN pupils and the existence of dips. Heads also acknowledged
the existence of a "push" during Year 6, which
centred around two strategies: regular use of "practice
tests" and the provision of "booster classes".
76% of heads expressed generally negative views about testing
but were nevertheless proactive in terms of intervention;
only 14% of heads adopted a stance that was both positive
and proactive.
This research also analysed pupils' progress
in reading and maths between the Key Stages 1 and 2, employing
data on optional tests collected by the NFER for QCA, which
tracked individual pupil's progress across Years 2, 3, 4,
5, and 6. Pupils progress across KS2 was first grouped into
one of four progress routes for both reading and maths.
Around 40% of pupils made roughly equal-sized steps from
year to year in reading and a slightly higher proportion
in maths. Around 25% of the pupils in reading and a third
in maths made "variable" progress. Some pupils
dipped every year, not just in Year 3 as previous evidence
had suggested.
The analysis also investigated whether the
"route" taken affected pupils' performance. In
reading, pupils who were on the "equal-sized"
steps route made most progress but their advantages was
modest - about three months more than pupils on the "decreasing"
steps route.
Pupils attending "more effective"
primary schools throughout KS2 made as much as half a level
more progress (roughly a year) compared to their counterparts
at less effective schools. However, when schools were classified
in terms of their pupils' routes, there was hardly any difference
between them in their pupils' level of progress.
The policy implications on the primary side
of transfer are, amongst others:
- Greater emphasis on targets that reward schools for
all levels of pupil progress and not just the Level
4 hurdle.
- Encourage schools to redistribute their efforts away
from Y6 push towards earlier interventions in Y3 and
4
- Support to develop and expand the menu of evaluated
interventions that schools use as part of their teaching
and learning objectives.
Galton, M., Gray, J. & Ruddock, J. (2003).
Transfer and transitions in the middle years of schooling
(7-14): Continuities and discontinuities in learning. London:
DfES. Report RR443.
Download the full report (pdf) at www.dfes.gov.uk
The summary (word doc) of one section of the
research that focuses on heads' perceptions and pupil progress,
called the Primary Side of the Transfer Divide, can be downloaded
from www.dfes.gov.uk
The Government's continuing priority focus
on transfer and transition means that many schools are trying
to address issues highlighted in the report. This longitudinal
study shows that despite evidence of a commitment to improve
pupils' experience of transition and transfer, and efforts
to do so, in many cases progress over a long timescale has
been relatively restricted. The Research Team's interest
in the effects of transfer started with a survey, some 20
years ago, called the ORACLE (Observation, Research and
Classroom Learning Evaluation) project. By replicating the
original study, the researchers have been able to chart
changes in practice over this time period. The later research
(1995-1998), published in 2002, highlights where:
- there have been changes for the better over that time
period
- there are still outstanding problems
- national initiatives have had an impact for better
and worse on the transition process.
The original study signalled a need to respond to deterioration
in pupils' attitudes to learning and a hiatus in progress
as they transferred to secondary schools. The authors note
that current concerns about the effect of transfer are similar
to earlier ones but the context has changed significantly,
for example, with the introduction of the national curriculum.
The researchers' findings suggest that pupils in the more
recent study adjusted to their new social and academic conditions
better than similar pupils did 20 years ago but that there
remain concerns about pupils' attitudes, motivation and
attainment, particularly with more able boys, at this critical
stage in their career.
Hargreaves, L. & Galton, M. (2002). Transfer
from the primary classroom - 20 years on. London: General
Teaching Council for England.
This report, produced in response to the progression
element of the government's Key Stage 3 National Strategy,
is based on evidence gathered from inspections that focused
on: the management of the transfer programme and pupils'
induction into Year 7, the transfer of assessment data,
curriculum continuity, the quality of teaching and support
provided to pupils for their learning in Year 6 and Year
7.
This report found that the pastoral aspects
worked well for the Year 7 pupils interviewed. However,
the 32 primary and 16 secondary schools visited were making
limited progress with the curricular aspects of transfer,
with few signs of continuity or preparation for the changes
in teaching and learning. The progress of schools towards
the demanding targets at key stage 3 for 2004 is likely
to be restricted, Ofsted says, while these weaknesses in
continuity and progressions between key stages 2 and 3 remain.
Reasons for optimism are the new transition units for English
and maths, the catch-up programme in Year 7, specific funding
for secondary schools to improve transfer arrangements and
national developments on the transfer of data.
OFSTED (2002). Changing schools-effectiveness
of transfer arrangements at age 11: An evaluation by OFSTED
2001. London: Ofsted.
Download the report from www.ofsted.gov.uk
This report outlines the literature and effective
practice on the effects on pupils' progress of two related
experiences: the move from one school to another (transfer)
and the move from one year group to the next within a school
(transition). This research was particularly concerned with
pupils' progress at Key Stage 2 and with the 'dip' post
Key Stage 2, where much of the existing research has been
focused. It also took account of the smaller but growing
body of evidence post Key Stage 1.
Key points emerging from the study
- Most of the research and activities have focused on
the personal and social effects of transfer on pupils.
Only a few studies have considered the impact of these
changes on pupils' academic progress
- Despite evidence that transfer is a less stressful
experience for pupils than 20 years ago, many schools
are still putting their energy and money into efforts
smoothing the transfer process rather than ensuring
that pupils' commitment to learning is sustained and
their progress enhanced.
- Many pupils experience a 'hiatus' in progress after
transfer. The report estimates that up to two out of
every five pupils fail to make expected progress during
the year immediately following the change of schools.
- There is a marked increase in liaison between feeder
and transfer schools, but not all schools are giving
attention to understanding differences in teaching approaches
in the different phases.
- For some schools the task of managing the transfer
process effectively is made more difficult because parental
choice no longer means there is a recognised catchment
area. Instead, many secondary schools are dealing with
large numbers of 'feeder' schools
- Schools that have adopted more innovative approaches
to transfer, most are concentrating on extended induction
programmes in which pupils are prepared for learning
in their now school or new year group.
The report also highlights the following:
- Dips in performance are also evident in Year 8 and
in Years 3 and 4
- The decline in progress is often accompanied by a
loss of enjoyment of school and a fall in motivation
- Pupils in secondary schools frequently see the years
between national key stage tests and public examinations
as somehow less important. Instead, they become preoccupied
with friendships and gain a reputation for 'messing
around'.
- Some groups of pupils are more at risk than others
of losing ground at these critical moments in their
school careers.
Recommendations regarding transfer include:
- Transfer-related activities such as improving the
communication of key stage test results, holding summer
schools for pupils at risk, or setting up joint primary-secondary
projects in the terms before transfer at important,
but they will not in themselves overcome the problems
of transfer.
- There is a need for research. Similarly, it is important
for policy makers to have some understanding of the
relative impact of the different initiatives. The evaluation
could focus on the impact of the strategies on the progress
of pupils identified in to be most at risk.
Galton, M., Gray, J. & Ruddock, J. (1999).
The impact of school transitions and transfers on pupil
progress and attainment. London: DfES.
Download this report at
www.dfes.gov.uk/research
[word doc]
80px.gif)
