Wss trial

Therefore we proceed on the basis that in order for an intervention school to be minimally compliant they must have received training. Likewise for a control school, they must receive no training. There is a high chance that some schools recruited to the trial decide to withdraw, and this sample loss might both reduce precision of statistical estimates and introduce bias. Drawing on our experience and that of the developer, we will devise a strategy to limit school level attrition.

Where attrition occurs, we will take steps during analysis to test various assumptions regarding missingness and assess to consequences for bias and precision.

Other sources of missingness can result from misrecording of identifying data for pupils. Where appropriate to do so, an assumption of missing at random will be explored through sensitivity analysis implementing multiple imputation. The full protocol was revised due to changes stemming from school closures in response to the COVID pandemic. Version 2. Collection, verification and preparation of baseline, SDQ and outcome data. As the trial has been assessed to pose a minimal risk to pupils, a formal data monitoring committee is not required.

However, the researchers will undertake review data on an ongoing basis as the trial progresses particularly with regard to SDQ data to monitor for any apparent adverse outcomes.

The developers will oversee the delivery of the WSS Review Process and will take action if necessary to address school staff feeling professionally vulnerable. Schools will monitor for any harms in pupils who have completed the SDQ and will address them as per their established pastoral care processes. The researchers, sponsor and developer will meet regularly bi-weekly during the initial phase to monitor the progress and conduct of the trial.

Protocol amendments will be communicated as and if required by the developer, who will have close working relationships with trial schools. If the data from the main phase are judged to be reliable, then the results of the additional phase of the research, focusing on students in year 8 as of September , will be published in a report in February The evaluation team may publish articles in academic journals once the main reports have been published.

All participants and schools will be fully anonymised in any reporting. In addition, we will produce a short report of findings from the SDQ data for each school in the trial in order to encourage their engagement and achieve a high response rate. Schools will receive these reports at the end of the trial after GCSE examinations.

The proposed trial has undergone a number of minor changes during initial recruitment. The trial timetable was altered on account of disruption to schools caused by the COVID pandemic the majority of English schools were closed between March and September , although pupils received online teaching.

The full online protocol [ 10 ] therefore reflects changes which were necessary to the original plan, and this document includes further minor timeline alterations beyond those in the full online protocol , necessary due to ongoing disruption caused by the pandemic. In addition to the details pertaining to the trial structure and effect size estimation provided in other parts of this document, the research also considers implementation factors: understanding the intervention theory of change, an implementation and process evaluation IPE and a cost evaluation.

Brief details of these are included in this protocol and full accounts can be found in the full online protocol [ 10 ]. It captures core inputs, outputs in terms of what will be produced or happen as a result of the process , short-term outcomes at both the school level and the pupil level and the long-term outcomes. The short-term outcomes are effective mediators of the causal impact on students. These are the changes that are hypothesised to be necessary in order for student experience to improve, for their sense of well-being to increase, and for them to be more engaged in learning.

As a consequence, it is anticipated that absenteeism, as well as fixed-term and permanent exclusions, will be reduced. The model was developed initially by the WSS delivery team nasen and revised following a workshop with the researcher in September The IPE will focus on implementation delivery e. The IPE will be underpinned by the theory of change, investigating implementation dimensions and influential factors.

Particular attention will be paid to the diversity in action plans, the reach and uptake of proposed developments, any adaptations that take place during implementation and costs of delivery fixed and variable. We intend to consider fidelity in depth in selected case study schools. What are the areas of focus that schools prioritise and how are these understood by stakeholders? What are the strengths and challenges of the WSS Review process, e.

How do different stakeholder groups e. How was the WSS Review process delivered and supported in relation to compliance, fidelity, quality, reach, responsiveness and programme differentiation?

What is the reach in terms of the involvement of departments, staff members from senior leaders to teaching assistants , governors and other stakeholders such as parents? What is the responsiveness in terms of how each of the stakeholder groups involved engages with the outcomes of the WSS Review process?

What is the programme differentiation in relation to how the outcomes of the WSS Review process differ from prior SEND and inclusion practices in the intervention schools? The cost of programme delivery will be estimated using the principles set out by the EEF. The primary question to be addressed is: what is the per pupil cost of the intervention? Data collection for this estimation take place alongside that of the IPE and the estimate will be subject to sensitivity analysis in order to address heterogeneity between schools and uncertainty about the value of resources.

Key methods of gathering this information will therefore be the surveys of SENDCos baseline and at follow-up in and , telephone interviews with SENDCos, and face-to-face interviews with key stakeholder groups.

In addition, financial documents pertaining to the intervention will be sought where appropriate e. Protocol version 2. Revised protocol [ 10 ] accounting for changes stemming from school closures in response to COVID pandemic timelines further subject to minor amendments in this document. Trial recruitment ended 1st February We would like to acknowledge the work of nasen WSS project staff in recruiting schools for the trial under difficult circumstances due to the pandemic, and the continued support for this trial from colleagues at the Education Endowment Foundation.

Mike sadly passed away in November All authors read and approved the final manuscript of this document. The EEF had no direct role in the design of this study, although they were consulted throughout the design stage. During execution, their role will be limited to helping to advertise the study to aid recruitment. They will have no role in the analyses or interpretation of the data. Ethical approval is currently in place until 28th February The approach to tackling this problem will depend on the characteristics of the resulting distributions.

For example, if a small number of pupils record high marks causing the distribution of marks to be left skewed then the marks might be log transformed, and sensitivity analysis performed with the log transformed measure as the dependent variable.

Finally, we do not anticipate floor effects in the data, but if these are encountered sensitivity analysis can be conducted using a maximum likelihood Tobit regression model. Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. National Center for Biotechnology Information , U. Journal List Trials v.

Published online May Author information Article notes Copyright and License information Disclaimer. Andrew Smith, Email: ku. Corresponding author. Received Dec 18; Accepted Apr The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material.

If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. Abstract Background The trial will study the effects of the Whole School SEND Review on secondary school pupils in English mainstream education, to understand the impact of the intervention on academic attainment, wellbeing, and school attendance.

Methods We recruited English secondary schools approx. Revised protocol accounting for changes stemming from school closures in response to Covid pandemic timelines further subject to minor amendments in this document. Open in a separate window.

An evaluation of the initial DfE contract for WSS delivery 9 noted evidence of promise in terms of the impact at the school level, for example: The process enabled schools to build on what they were already doing well for pupils. Subject leaders became more aware of SEND practice and curriculum differentiation.

SEND operational practices were changed in some schools. The use of peer-to-peer mentoring was valued by all participants. Schools with the following criteria were eligible for recruitment to the study sample, such that the school: Is a mainstream secondary school. Must not have previously commissioned a WSS Review. Within each eligible school the following pupils meet the inclusion criteria for this trial: All pupils in years 8 and 9 on Tuesday 1st September Who will take informed consent?

Table 1 Primary and secondary outcomes. Secondary outcomes Secondary outcomes are grouped into three categories: a further attainment outcomes, b attendance and exclusions outcomes and c wellbeing outcomes. Further attainment outcomes The underlying intervention theory provides an account of how the WSS Review is expected to raise general attainment, specifically for SEND pupils but also among the wider student body. Attendance and exclusions outcomes The WSS Review aims to bring about a change in school culture, promoting an inclusive and supportive environment as well as addressing specifically the needs of children with SEND in the classroom.

Wellbeing outcomes As discussed above, it is anticipated and consistent with the intervention theory of change, that pupil wellbeing will improve as a result of exposure to the WSS Review.

Baseline measures Baseline measures will be used for adjusted analyses of trial data for both primary and secondary outcomes. Wellbeing outcomes An SDQ will be administered to each enumerated pupil at baseline in Years 8 and 9 in May , prior to randomisation.

SEND-related need Current class for English at September The analysis discussed below provides for the estimation of effects through a an unadjusted analysis, b an analysis adjusted for the inclusion of a baseline measure on the dependent variable as a covariate at the pupil level only and c full adjusted specification which includes a baseline measure of the dependent variable entered as a covariate at the pupil and school levels as well as further covariates for month of birth, sex and FSM.

Table 2 Sample size calculations calculated using PowerUp! The randomisation process is the same for each region: The authors will assign each recruited school a random number drawn from a uniform distribution in STATA v16 a random number seed will be set and stored so that it can be retrieved at a later date.

Schools will be ordered by the uniform random number on an ascending basis. Outcome data In order to obtain attainment data, schools in the trial will be approached by FFT and asked for the marks and grades obtained by individual students at GCSE and provided to the school by exam boards.

Baseline data FFT will also collect baseline data from Aspire and non-Aspire schools as the basis for adjusted analyses of trial data for both primary and secondary outcomes. This includes the following: Raw test scores in Reading and Mathematics at KS2 for each enumerated pupil in Years 8 and 9 at September Primary analysis Focusing first on the primary analysis, statistical estimates of the effect of exposure on marks at GCSE English will be obtained from a hierarchical linear model the estimator , in which pupils are clustered within schools.

Model 2 : As above, with KS2 Reading raw score as a covariate expressed as a departure from the school mean for each pupil at the pupil level, and as a school average departure from the overall mean at the school level Model 3 : As model 2, with additional covariates representing sex, month of birth, unauthorised absences in the year prior to randomisation and FSM variables.

Secondary analysis The secondary analysis will involve estimation of effects on a range of outcomes discussed previously for the full year-group cohort samples years 8 and 9 and for SEND pupils only years 8 and 9. Table 3 Secondary analysis—model specifications—full cohort samples years 8 and 9 cohorts as at September Methods for additional analyses e.

Research team protocol authors Study planning Responsible for maintenance of trial master file baseline, SDQ and outcome data Quantitative data verification Randomisation Quantitative data analysis IPE data collection and analysis. Developers nasen Recruitment of schools and ongoing school liaison Implementation of WSS Review process, including initial training. Plans for communicating important protocol amendments to relevant parties e. Discussion The proposed trial has undergone a number of minor changes during initial recruitment.

Implementation and process evaluation The IPE will focus on implementation delivery e. Table 5 Overview of IPE methods. Cost evaluation The cost of programme delivery will be estimated using the principles set out by the EEF.

Trial status Protocol version 2. Acknowledgements We would like to acknowledge the work of nasen WSS project staff in recruiting schools for the trial under difficult circumstances due to the pandemic, and the continued support for this trial from colleagues at the Education Endowment Foundation.

References 1. Accessed 1 Dec Department for Education. Special educational needs in England. Timpson review of school exclusion. London: Department for Education; Read More. While convicted on five of the six charges, Smollett was acquitted on one count of felony disorderly conduct.

The next phases of the case will address Smollett's potential punishment as well as his opportunity to appeal. Sentencing awaits. Cook County Judge James Linn will have discretion in imposing a concurrent or consecutive sentence for each of the five counts at a later date.

CNN legal analyst and criminal defense attorney Joey Jackson said the judge could give Smollett probation yet Smollett "exposed himself to jail time" when he testified in court. The jury did not buy what he was selling. That's not lost upon a judge. You came into the courtroom and fabricated.

Jackson told CNN's Don Lemon on Thursday that he believes Smollett will face time in prison because he doubled-down on the lie during testimony, required police to use resources during their investigation, and because the hoax itself could undermine victims of actual hate crimes.

That's troubling and you have to punish that," Jackson said. Actor Jussie Smollett center returns to the Leighton Criminal Courthouse on Thursday in Chicago, and was found guilty on five of six counts. Defense says they will appeal. Nenye Uche, Smollett's attorney, said he "respectfully disagrees" with the jury's verdict and that the case will be won on appeal.

We don't believe it was done today but we're very confident that he will be cleared and he will be found to be innocent. Uche said Smollett was disappointed but that he was hopeful to get a "fair result" in appellate court. EEF are the trial funders. WSS brings together schools, organisations and individuals who are committed to ensuring that every child and young person with SEND can maximise their potential.

As a partner we are project managing and delivering the trial. A great, modern university, in a great global city, here to make an impact on Manchester, our nation and beyond. Manchester Met is the independent evaluator for the trial. Why take part? Privacy notice.