Research School Network: Implementing enrichment in STEM subjects A reflection on some recent work with the Ogden Trust and their STEM enrichment offer to schools.

Enrichment is one of those thorny issues – you would struggle to find a school leader who outwardly would be unsupportive of it, and yet, in times of fiscal restrictions and staff workload concerns, the reality of delivering it is often far more complex.

This year at Durrington Research School, we have been working closely with the Ogden Trust, a charity focussed on strengthening the teaching and learning of physics in schools. As part of this work, we have been supporting the trust’s School Engagement Team as they look to deliver part of the trust’s strategic objective to ​“increase access to purposeful enrichment opportunities showcasing physics pathways for young people”, with a particular focus on doing so in priority areas of high disadvantage.

Unsurprisingly, there is a considerable body of literature exploring how extra-curricular activities can affect student attainment, as well as sense of belonging and behavioural outcomes. Yet there has been a decline in young people’s access to enrichment in schools over the past decade, with children from disadvantaged backgrounds being particularly adversely affected (Beyond the Classroom – Centre for Young Lives). When discussing this with the Ogden Trust, we looked specifically at extra-curricular activities within the STEM field, with research suggesting that engaging young people in science-related activities and events as early as primary school can influence secondary school students’ knowledge, understanding, interest, and motivation towards science. As STEM subjects are traditionally perceived as difficult, students rarely pursue post-compulsory study unless they have had previous success, either in the classroom or beyond it. There is some evidence to suggest that out-of-school science activities at primary level can go on to influence young people’s post-16 choices and career aspirations (McDonald et al., 2023).

However, the Sutton Trust has reported that over 50% of schools are making cuts to spending on trips and outings, and a further 27% are making cuts to other extra-curricular activities. Furthermore, content-rich curriculums, outcome pressures, reducing staffing levels, staff workload and capacity, and logistical challenges – such as schools lacking the administrative support to work with outside providers – all mean that enrichment activities are at risk of becoming a luxury that schools cannot facilitate. In addition, there is an underlying risk that, with rising costs of extra-curricular activities, the ability of students from disadvantaged backgrounds to access these becomes even more limited than for their peers, serving to widen the gap. The juxtaposition is that, for disadvantaged students, enrichment can be transformative – providing exposure to careers, skills, and experiences their circumstances may not otherwise offer.

When working with the Ogden Trust, our discussion subsequently revolved around how we ensure that the enrichment opportunities provided are appropriate, highly effective, accessible to all, and supported by leadership even in the face of the challenges discussed above. Such thinking is perhaps more relevant to enrichment in STEM subjects than in more traditionally enrichment-rich subjects such as the arts and PE.

Quite quickly, we concluded that enrichment planning should be treated like any other form of implementation – following the sequence of exploration, planning, delivery, and sustaining. We therefore looked at how we could adapt the exploration tool included in the implementation guidance report to support school leaders to reflect on their enrichment provision and what they hoped to gain from offering new opportunities. We stripped the initial discussion around STEM enrichment back to the core intent of the provision – what do we want it to achieve, and what gaps in experience or knowledge is it attempting to address? Below is our adapted exploration tool which is being used by the Trust to inform their own framework for discussions with schools about their physics enrichment provision.

One of the key foci of our discussion was to secure leadership buy-in by demonstrating the value of any enrichment in relation to pupil need (specifically those from disadvantaged backgrounds) and school priorities. We also wanted to ensure that schools assessed the fit of any enrichment to their setting, rather than jumping on the bandwagon simply because it seems to have been popular elsewhere. In much the same way as with any in-class intervention, we want to encourage discussion around the question: ​“Is this enrichment right for our students now?”

We know that, beyond cost, the administrative and time commitments required to run enrichment are also a significant burden. Therefore, we also wanted to facilitate discussions around the feasibility of running an enrichment offer; for example, considering how pre-existing enrichment time could be repurposed more effectively and the need to plan to mitigate barriers.

I would stress that this is still a work in progress and will continue to be refined. It is also not where the planning of enrichment should end. As with any strategy, there need to be plans in place to ensure enrichment is sustained so that uptake, engagement, and impact do not rollercoaster their way through the curriculum. There needs to be an intentional decision to consider enrichment through the lens of disadvantage, by making it accessible (e.g. cost) but also something that disadvantaged students can see themselves being part of.

The Ogden Trust and I strongly believe that actively looking to over-represent your disadvantaged cohort in enrichment should be the norm, and that tracking participation (particularly of disadvantaged students) should be embedded into practice to ensure their engagement does not slip.

According to the Education Policy Institute (2024), ​“the odds of progressing to level 3 STEM study post-16 are 44% lower for disadvantaged students compared to their more affluent peers”. While enrichment is not the silver bullet to closing this gap, it may be a piece of the puzzle.

This work on enrichment follows on from the Trust’s involvement in our Working Through Others initiative and we are coming to the end of our second year of collaborative work together. We plan to write more on our learnings from working with a mid-tier organisation like Ogden – so watch this space!

References:

• Beyond the classroom – Centre for Young Lives (2025) The role of enrichment in tackling the school absence crisis 
• Education Policy Institute (2024) – Progression at age 16 of young people from underrepresented backgrounds towards careers in STEM 
• McDonald, Stephanie & Beer, Samantha & Cragg, Lucy. (2023). The impact of out-of-school science activities for primary school children on science knowledge, interest and later academic choices: an evaluation study. Research for All. 
• Sutton Trust (2023) – Headteachers report sharp increase in cuts to teaching assistants, school trips, support staff and sports