Aspire to STEM – trial

STEM Learning
Project info

Independent Evaluator

RAND logo
RAND
A whole-school approach to improving attainment and teacher retention in STEM-related subjects
Schools: 200 Grant: £0*
Key Stage: 2, 4 Duration: 1 year(s) 10 month(s) Type of Trial: Efficacy level evidence
Completed July 2020

The project

A whole-school approach to professional development which aimed to improve pupil attainment and teacher retention in subjects related to STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering, and Maths).

Schools receive bespoke professional development and STEM enrichment activities such as careers education support, online resources and visits by STEM professionals.

The programme was developed by STEM Learning and targeted to primary and secondary schools with the greatest need (rated​‘Requires Improvement’ or​‘Inadequate’ by Ofsted and located in Opportunity Areas) and delivered through local ​‘clusters’ of five schools each.

Outcome/​Group
ImpactThe size of the difference between pupils in this trial and other pupils
SecurityHow confident are we in this result?
Progression to STEM A level
-
Months' progress
(Effect size 0.23)
N/A
STEM teacher turnover
-
Months' progress
Effect size 0
N/A
STEM teacher wastage
-
Months' progress
(Effect size 0.02)
N/A

EEF summary

This evaluation adds to EEF’s portfolio of science and mathematics projects.

Aspire to STEM uses approaches that research evidence suggests are likely to impact pupil attainment: improving leadership and sustained, collaborative professional development.

It is also a different type of programme than we have funded in these areas previously, as it works across multiple phases, year groups, and departments.

Programme delivery was fully funded by the Department for Education as part of the Teaching and Learning Innovation Fund (TLIF), a 3‑year initiative in England to support high-quality professional development for teachers and school leaders. The EEF funded the evaluation of the programme.

Due to Covid-19, the intended student attainment outcomes for this evaluation (Key Stage 2 and 4 attainment in mathematics and STEM subjects) could not be collected.

The evaluation found that attending an Aspire to STEM secondary school slightly increased the likelihood of Key Stage 4 pupils progressing to taking a STEM subject at A level two years later, by 1.42 percentage points. This is equivalent to 1 in 70 additional year 11 pupils taking up a STEM A level.

There was no difference in science teacher turnover between secondary schools which received Aspire to STEM and those that did not. This suggests that bespoke Continuing Professional Development provision does not influence science teacher retention.

Participating schools recognised the importance of partnership working but struggled to fulfil the programme’s early-stage partnership milestones, including conducting the needs analysis and action planning. These implementation challenges may have limited the programme’s potential impact on retention.

There are no plans for further evaluation of Aspire to STEM.

Were the schools in the trial similar to my school?

Project type: Efficacy level evidenceKey Stage: Key Stage 2, Key Stage 4Subject: Maths
  • There were 207 schools (92 primary and 115 secondary) involved in the trial
  • The intervention was open to schools located in areas identified as having weakest educational performance and least capacity to improve. These areas included Opportunity Areas, and Category 5 or 6 Achieving Excellence Areas (AEAs) in England.
  • To be eligible for TLIF (which Aspire to STEM was funded through), schools in these areas must have been rated ​‘requires improvement’ or ​‘inadequate’ in their most recent Ofsted inspection. Schools rated as ​‘good’ schools could join the programme on DfE approval of the rationale.

Could I implement this in my school?

Delivered by: TeachersParticipant group: Whole School Intervention length: 1 year(s)
  • The programme did not require specific resources to be provided by schools other than staff time for attending Continuing Professional Development (CPD).
  • While engagement in CPD was comparatively high, teachers reported substantial barriers to sustained participation, including time and workload pressures.

How much will it cost?

  • The evaluators did not have school-level enrolment or expenditure information, so no headline cost estimate is available. An indicative cost based on cohort data was around £4,805 per school, or £7 per pupil
  • Since the programme was funded through the Department for Education Teaching and Learning Fund, it is not commercially available and has not been delivered outside this trial.

Downloads