Since 2011, we’ve published findings from over a hundred independent evaluations of programmes and approaches that aim to raise attainment of children and young people. New evidence is published both by us and other organisations all the time, while more and more programmes are making claims to be well-evidenced.
In this context of information overload, it can be hard for school and setting leaders to judge the relative quality and evidence base of different programmes.
To help, we’ve re-launched Promising Programmes, a resource that showcases programmes we’ve tested that show promise for raising attainment, as well as how to access them.
What makes a programme promising?
All of the programmes on this list have demonstrated the potential to cost-effectively improve attainment for children and young people when independently and robustly evaluated through at least one randomised controlled trial.
For a programme to be included as an EEF Promising Programme, it needs to satisfy the following criteria:
- Impact. The programme must have secured at least one month’s additional progress for the children and young people that took part, compared a comparison group of pupils (the ‘control group’). The wider evaluation findings must also paint a consistent story of positive impact. We look separately at the impact on pupils receiving free school meals, although these findings are often less secure due to the smaller size of this group.
- Cost. This positive impact needs to be delivered cost effectively. We review the cost of the programme from the EEF evaluation in relation to impact seen, and only include programmes that show low cost in relation to impact. [1]
- Implementation. The programme must have been well received and implemented, with schools and settings able to deliver the programme as intended.
- Strength of evidence. Our evaluation of the programme needs to have achieved an EEF security rating of at least three‘padlocks’ out of five, meaning it has moderate or high security. We also look at the sample of schools and settings in the evaluation to make sure results are generalisable to a wider population of schools and settings.
Finally, we consider if a programme is available for schools or settings to take up. Some of our Promising Programmes may be undergoing further evaluation through effectiveness trials, or we might be working with a partner to make sure that the programme can be made available at greater scale in the future. We want to ensure that schools and settings are able to take up programmes on this list and so have prioritised programmes that are currently available to schools and settings.
Is there a difference between programmes with efficacy and effectiveness level evidence?
All Promising Programmes have rigorous evidence from at least one randomised controlled trial, marking them among the best evidenced approaches in England.
However, in general, we have higher confidence in programmes with effectiveness level evidence, because that means we have tested the programmes at scale, in a wider variety of schools or settings. Within the list, we have indicated where programmes have effectiveness level evidence, and for many of the programmes that have efficacy level evidence, we are in the process of generating further evidence at effectiveness level.
How will the list change over time?
We generate new evidence all the time. This means we’ll be adding programmes to the Promising Programmes list, as further results become available, and as programmes are made more widely available to schools and settings to implement.
But this also means that we might come across further evidence, for example from the results of a subsequent effectiveness trial, that means we may remove programmes from the list. This goes back to the heart of the EEF principle of reporting without fear or favour, and striving to achieve the very best understanding of what works to achieve outcomes for socio-economically disadvantaged children, at scale.
What should schools and settings be aware of if choosing to implement these programmes?
While the evidence generated gives a firm basis that the programme is likely to be effective in a variety of contexts, there is no guarantee that the positive attainment impact will be repeated in your school. Good implementation and fidelity to the programme is critical in ensuring similar impacts are found. The programmes often contain strong implementation support, but school and setting leaders need to carefully consider whether you are ready to implement the approach with fidelity.
In our summaries of these programmes, we’ve pulled out critical detail from the evaluation on how the programme was implemented, the precise commitment involved and the factors that drove success, to support school and setting leaders with their decisions.
There’s more help for senior leaders on how to prepare for and embed a new approach successfully in our guidance on effective implementation.
Promising Programmes is one tool
We hope that Promising Programmes will be a helpful resource for schools and settings, but there are a couple of points to note.
First, there isn’t a programme on the list to support school and setting leaders with every priority. There are substantial gaps, like improving secondary literacy and post-16. Our research funding will help us fill those gaps over time as we make a concerted effort to generate evidence in specific areas.
When you’re considering how to embed evidence into your school or setting, you might also consider evidence based approaches, such as the findings from the EEF’s Teaching and Learning Toolkit, Early Years Evidence Store, or our guidance on best practices in education.
As with all evidence, your professional judgment and knowledge of your context will inform how transferable these approaches and programmes are to your setting.
[1] For school programmes, our threshold is less than £310 per pupil for each additional month’s progress. For early years programmes, it’s less than £155 per child for each additional month’s progress.