Research School Network: Blinded by the Headlines: Does school CPD on Disadvantaged miss the mark? Do staff know enough about the research on the impacts of disadvantage and poverty on cognition and learning?

Consider these recent headlines on Pupil Premium and Disadvantage:

They are all are supported by statistical data and paint a stark picture of the reality facing school leaders and teachers. A very worrying, apt and growing challenge facing all schools. These and similar messages (a lack of access to devices, a desk for homework, sharing bedrooms with siblings, less parental engagement with learning) are used regularly in PD sessions to both inform school staff, and provide that ​‘sit-up-and-notice’ moment, as a rallying cry for teachers to collectively drive change for the better for disadvantaged provision (should they even need one).

We don’t dispute that they help to build teacher knowledge about the range of challenges faced. But if used in this capacity to frame CPD with a disadvantaged focus, to what extent are we reinforcing the very things PP literature advises us to avoid doing: reinforcing stereotypes, repeating the deficit discourse, taking a labelling before needs approach, and/​or the homogenous grouping of disadvantaged students?

Such sensationalised headlines also often contain a disparity between the:

• ‘What’ (societal narrative, deficit focus, and things teachers struggle to or cannot address e.g. average household income)
• ‘So What’ (things we can control/​influence in school, where to focus efforts, pragmatic actions for class teachers)

PP & Disadvantage: Focusing on Cognitive Functions over Headlines.

Now consider this scenario:

A very possible scenario that could play out in many classrooms on a daily basis.

What if our PD focussed on developing deep and rich teacher knowledge and understanding of why may some Disadvantaged pupils may not learn as effectively and efficiently as non-disadvantaged pupils? What if we diluted the use of reinforcing headlines and amplified the research that shows inequalities in cognitive functioning and the impact acute and chronic stressors and poverty can have on development, cognition, impulsivity and self-regulation? Would it result in lessons that are more carefully planned with learning needs in mind? With greater tolerance, empathy and support for learners to access content in lessons?

Research into the impacts of stressors and poverty on neuro-science informs, fascinates, and can make us view lessons and learning differently and why some children present as they do in our classrooms. Through a lens of needs and not labels and what we as teachers can do better to support more a higher quality of teaching and learning. The research includes: 

A topic also expertly written about by Becky Allen in this piece here. where she explains, ​‘Neuroscience of socio-economic status is a new but rapidly growing field and SES-related disparities have already been consistently observed for working memory, inhibitory control, cognitive flexibility and attention.’ (Allen, 2018)

Marc Rowland often encourages teachers and leaders to focus on ​‘What’s within our gift’. The factors that are within our sphere of influence. The 5 or 6 lessons a day where we can really make a difference. How we can support the learner to get become better at what they can do, rather the deficit discourse or range of factors that are often societal and often generational factors that are out of our immediate control.

Let’s return to the same scenario with a teacher that through in-house PD understands the research in greater depth and the implications of this for the lens he views both behaviour and his planning through.

Of course, the understanding of deficit is important here to analyse the complexities of the learning behaviours displayed, and we recognise that there isn’t a guaranteed recipe for making all pupils behaviour all of the time, but the reflections in this instance then return to consider ​‘What’s within Mr Austin’s gift?’ 

His gift is within his teaching, tolerance and empathetic approach to supporting the learning needs. Mr Austin knows that there is no silver bullet for bursting the Disadvantaged bubble and that consistent high-quality teaching is the answer, so he turns to a range of scaffolds, teaching methods and frameworks that he can skilfully integrate into his lesson to attempt to encourage better learning behaviours over time from James. 

To see a short set of slides that apply to this art lesson scenario and an example of how Mr Austin can respond to his knowledge of the research on poverty and cognition,click here

They could include:

• EEF’s ​‘five a day’ tool for supporting students with SEND (explicit instruction and scaffolding approaches)
• The scaffolding framework contained in the EEF’s TA guidance to support TAs’ interactions with pupils
• The Frayer-model to support the development of a language rich curriculum over time (p23 of the SEND Guidance Report)

Sean Harris also writes about Five strategies to counter the impact of disadvantage in his SecEd article here.

Do staff focus enough on the research on the impacts of disadvantage and poverty on learning?

The CCF, ECF, NPQs and through schools’ own design and delivery of PD focus on upskilled the knowledge and understanding of staff on a range of aspects of Cognitive Science and how to support children to learn best. In many schools, PD will also focus heavily on the challenges and barriers children and families face, along with the contextual landscapes of Disadvantage in their settings.

But when delivering PD, focussing on Cognitive Science research and effective strategies and binding this tightly with the messages of the inequalities in cognitive functioning the poverty and disadvantage can have and why such cognitive science strategies need implementing for some disadvantaged learners, is a particular lens that some schools overlook.

It may just strengthen the rationale and motivation for refining and enhancing planning and pedagogy and lead to more tolerant and empathetic approaches to lessons for some teachers because that is the exact thing that is in their gift. And for some children, it may just make the difference that they need.

Nathan Morland, Director of the Staffordshire Research School and John Taylor Teaching School Hub 

References

Allen, B. (2018) The pupil premium is not working (part III): Can within-classroom inequalities ever be closed? – Becky Allen (rebeccaallen.co.uk)

Harris, S. (2022) Poverty on the brain: Five strategies to counter the impact of disadvantage, SecEd. https://www.sec-ed.co.uk/best-practice/poverty-on-the-brain-five-strategies-to-counter-the-impact-of-disadvantage-in-the-classroom-cognitive-function-pupil-premium-pedagogy/

Jensen, E. (2009). Teaching with Poverty in Mind: What Being Poor Does to Kids’ Brains and What Schools Can Do about It. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Rowland, M. (2022) Addressing educational disadvantage: from strategy to the classroom. Unity Research School. https://researchschool.org.uk/…