What Money Means in Initial Teacher Training

What Money Means in Initial Teacher Training evaluation

What Money Means in Initial Teacher Training /
Evaluation Report /
John Chapman /
September 2013
Prepared for pfeg (Personal Finance Education Group) /

Contents

Executive Summary

Introduction

Key Findings

Recommendations

MAIN REPORT

Introduction

Background

Aims and objectives

Reach

Evaluation Methodology

Purpose

Targets

Methodology

Findings

Working with each other

Building relationships

Developing financial education

The impact on trainees

Embedding and sustaining financial education

APPENDICES

Appendix 1: Lead questions used in interviews

Appendix 2: Trainee teacher baseline questionnaire analysis

Glossary

Acknowledgements

Executive Summary

Introduction

This report presents the findings of an evaluation commissioned by pfeg(Personal Finance Education Group). The evaluation’s objective is to examine the impact of What Money Means in Initial Teacher Training. The project was set up to support training providers in higher education institutions (HEIs) and in teaching schools to assist them in adopting a range of approaches to the provision of financial education in primary schools and thereby help their trainees to integrate such work into classroom practice and school planning. The evaluation is based on a series of open ended interviews conducted with HEI lead contacts, pfeg consultants, project facilitators and the project director and administrator; these interviews took place after support interventions were complete between April and June 2013.

Key Findings

(i)Working with each other

What Money Means in Initial Teacher Traininghas encouraged strong working partnerships between all parties and there has been a welcomed high degree of continuity with the previous phase of the What Money Means project. There is a clear feeling that the project has been successful and has benefitted from careful structuring.

Participating HEIs expressed a high level of satisfaction with outcomes citing the cross curricular nature of the project, pfeg’s flexibility and the consultants’ expertise and willingness to tailor to specific requirements as its particular strengths. There was some unease expressed about the clarity of project aims and with the repetitive nature of paperwork.

Facilitators were praised by both consultants and project management for their skills in prioritisation and their ability to respond positively and quickly to requests for support. The training sessions and support materials they had provided for consultants were also valued.

Time was considered to be the biggest limiting factor for all parties, both in terms of establishing suitable contacts and when carrying out interventions.

The project has significantly raised the profile of the organisation with the participating HEIs.

(ii)Building relationships

Good committed working relationships between consultants and HEI lead contacts were reported in most cases, though not all project objectives were met.

The project facilitators had found lead in time somewhat limited and there was general agreement that more attention needed to be paid to HEI planning cycles.

Targeting the appropriate HEI lead contact at the right level was seen as crucial to the success of the project and its ultimate sustainability. There was also strong support for the notion that peer to peer work between pfeg senior managers and HEI senior leaders might lead to strengthened engagement and firmer commitment.

The involvement of a group of tutors other than the lead contact (in line with project objectives) was often limited and a number of pressures which had contributed to this were identified. Among these were the status of the lead contact, the employment conditions pertaining to tutors, external curriculum and inspection pressures and the current restructuring of HEI courses centring on the increase in the amount of school based work now required to be undertaken.

Prior to the project, very little was being specifically offered towards developing trainee teachers’ expertise or confidence in financial education. Where it did exist, coverage focused mainly on money as a (limited) context through which to enhance numeracy skills. The project was able to make a significant difference to this position.

(iii)Developing financial education

The bespoke nature of the project resulted in a wide variety of interventions, support, processes and outcomes. However, most frequentlythe starting point was a lead lecture(s)/seminar session(s) run by the pfegconsultant for teacher trainees.Thesewere ratedhighly by lead contacts, other tutors (where applicable) and by the trainees themselves.In some cases joint planning and preparation by consultants and tutorshad enhanced the experience.

Other forms of support and intervention taking place encompassed personal, professional and academic dimensions; all of these approaches were subject to significant praise. Interventions were, of necessity, limited by whether the HEI involved was receiving “full” or “light touch” support. They were further influenced by the status of the trainees involved (whether they were undergraduates or post graduates) and the consequent differing amounts of time available.

Resources used and supplied also came in for high levels of approbation. The What Money Means in the Primary Classroom packs and dedicated resource boxes of financial education materials were particularly singled out.Several suggestions for further useful resources emerged. These encompassed extended website provision, video material, resources linked to both literacy and numeracy and board games.

(iv)The impact on trainees

In excess of 3,000 trainee teachers have been engaged via this project; the vast majority have valued the experience in terms of their professional and personal development. Levels of knowledge, confidence and enthusiasm have significantly improved and it is felt that trainees now have a unique area of experience with which to enhance their CVs.

Those trainees aiming to specialise in working with key stage 2 aged children have perhaps more readily embraced financial education than their colleagues aiming to work with a younger age range; here a certain degree of scepticism about age appropriatenesshas been reported.

Anecdotal feedback about work carried out in classrooms during training placements has been positive; there is little in the way of hard evidence, though.

As trainees move into qualified teacher status (QTS) they will face a number of challenges which could well militate against further development of personal finance work at primary level.

(v)Embedding and sustaining financial education

Although there is evidence that the process of embedding personal finance education into HEI curricula is taking place, it is currently inconsistent and it is unlikely that interventions and initiatives will universally be replicated or sustained. However, there are pockets of extremely good work being done which will serve as models of good practice.

While a number of HEIs have plans to directly replicate consultant input, a number still do not feel confident that they would be able to do this. The most frequent request made by lead contacts was that pfegshouldreturn in the future and carry out similar work with further groups of trainees; some HEIs have said that they would be willing to pay for such a service.

Internal changes to the structure of some HEIs and the fact that trainees will be spending less time in their HEIs than heretofore mean that curriculum time will be at a premium.

There is increasing pressure for HEIs to deliver to trainees against a variety of agendas. These include the current changes to the curriculum, ensuring that OFSTED standards are met and the increased emphasis on developing working relationships with partner schools.

Recommendations

While it is acknowledged that the current project has reachedits conclusion, these recommendations are offered by way of suggestions should pfeg undertake a similar project in the future.

• Through this project pfeg have acquired a firmer understanding of the ways in which HEIs operate. They should use such knowledge and extend it by engagement through research work and structured academic debate to further strengthen their position
• Supporting paperwork should be reviewed to ensure repetition is minimised
• When running such a bespoke programme pfeg should continue to build on the involved institution’s own planning and delivery cycle in order to strengthen relationships
• pfeg seeksto develop effective relationships with senior members of HEI staff.To maximise impact and outcomes, resources should continue to be directed at such staff throughout the process
• Writing up and making available some clearly delineated models of good practice based on current and actual experience would be useful for all parties. (It is recognised that these will appear as part of the final output of the programme in due course)
• Where such a choice is available, HEIs would benefit from an improved understanding of the pros and cons of following either an undergraduate or post graduate approach
• Further thought should be given as to how evidence may be gathered from trainees delivering financial education during school placements
• Consideration should be given to how trainees moving into qualified teacher status (QTS) can be tracked so that there is more qualitative and quantitative evidence about their engagement with financial education to draw upon; this can then feedback into programmes and will help to promote sustainability
• The identified internal and external factors with potential to militateagainst sustainability should be examined and strategies drawn up to address them should they recur
• In order to promote sustainability, further consideration should be given to a model predicated on direct and costed interventions

It’s probably been the most successful initiative we have ever engaged in. I’d say (to other HEIS) get involved without hesitation (HEI)

Introduction

Background

What Money Means is a six and a half year project (January 2007 to September 2013) established bypfeg (Personal Finance Education Group) and supported by HSBC. The project aims to increase curriculum provision for financial education in primary schools, increase the confidence and competence of those teaching it, and facilitate the involvement of HSBC employees in supporting their local schools by adding value in the classroom where personal finance education is being taught. This has been achieved by working in partnership with teachers and local authority teams to integrate personal finance education across the curriculum, and by spreading good practice among the teaching community. The evaluation report for the first main phase of the project (covering the first five years) showed that What Money Means had significantly improved personal finance education in England’s primary schools and left a legacy that teachers could continue to build upon in the future.

In the final year of the initial phase of the projectpfeg also directly supported 695 trainee teachers in two Higher Education Institutions (HEIs) which in turn impacted on an estimated 1,800 pupils through trainee school placements. This pilot work demonstrated that working with teachers in training had the potential to enhance the sustainability of the whole programme, by encouraging trainees to become early adopters of personal finance education and thus make a strong impact in a broader range of schools. As a result HSBC agreed to fund further work within primary initial teacher training (ITT) to create a step change in this area as well. This second phase of the project, running from January 2012 to September 2013, was called What Money Means in Initial Teacher Training.

This phase of WMM has been the most valuable; you are dealing with people who are more open minded as to what teachers are going to be (pfeg consultant)

Aims and objectives

What Money Means in Initial Teacher Training set out todevelop and deliver a range of approaches to personal finance education. In particular it aimed to support training providers in higher education institutions and in teaching schools to adopt and adapt these approaches and thereby help their trainees to integrate them into good classroom practice and sound educational planning.

The project sought to:

• gain commitment from key personnel at HEIs, so that they became champions for personal finance education within courses of initial teacher training education
• harness trainees’ excitement and enthusiasm for teaching and direct it towards personal finance education
• encourage more schools to commit to embedding personal finance education into the curriculum as trainees went on their school placements and influenced existing teachers
• produce materials for an e learning resource[1]

The project aimed to:

• work with 7 to 15 HEIs (universities/teaching schools[2])
• support up to 60 course conveners and course tutors
• give lectures/seminars to approximately 3,600 trainee teachers
• liaise with up to 600 teacher tutors in schools
• impact on 18,000 pupils via trainee teachers on school placements

Reach

Through the course of the project a total of 18 HEIs have been engaged and subsequently benefitted from pfeg consultant support. These are shown in Table 1 below.

HEI / LOCATION
Bath Spa University / Bath
Edgehill University / Lancaster and Shrewsbury
Exeter University / Exeter
Hull University / Hull
Manchester Met University / Manchester
Newman University College / Birmingham
Old Ford Teaching School / London
Oxford Brookes University / Oxford
The University of St Mark & St John / Plymouth
Reading University / Reading
Roehampton University / London
Southampton University / Southampton
St Mary’s University College / Twickenham
The Institute of Education / London
University of Cumbria at Tower Hamlets / London
University of East London / London
Winchester University / Winchester
Worcester University / Worcester

Table 1

From this support the following key impact numbers have been calculated

Reach / Target / Total
No. of HEIs / 7 - 15 / 18
No. of course conveners and tutors / 60 / 130
No. of trainee teachers / No initial target set / 3,098
No. of partnership schools / No initial target set / 1,488
No. of pupils (in partnership schools) / 18,000 / 23,000+ (estimated)

Table 2

Evaluation Methodology

Purpose

The purpose of the project evaluation is to explore how the What Money Means in Initial Teacher Training offer to HEIs has impacted on the ability of course tutors to bring financial education into the ITT curriculum. The evaluation has looked at how the materials and the consultant support pfeg offeredhave impacted on teacher training. To achieve this, the evaluation considered the implementation processes that were undertaken in each HEI to teach financial education to trainee teachers, and how this enabled them to confidently work with financial concepts once in the classroom.

Targets

The evaluation process sought to engage with a total of ten HEIs of which three would be those involved in “light touch” support[3] and one of which would be a teaching school. In addition the views of all participating consultants and the project management team (including the project facilitators) would be sought.

Methodology

A series of qualitative interviews was carried out between April and June 2013 with:

a)lead contact tutors responsible for the development of financial education at the following HEIs

HEI / INTERVIEW
Bath Spa University / Face to face
Edgehill University / Skype
Hull University / Face to face
Newman University College / Face to face
Old Ford Teaching School / Face to face
Oxford Brookes University / Written submission
The University of St Mark & St John / Skype
Reading University / Face to face
The Institute of Education / Face to face
University of Cumbria at Tower Hamlets / Face to face
Winchester University / Face to face

Table 3

b) the eight participating consultants (four via telephone and four via Skype)

c) the project management team (via a telephone conference call with the two facilitators and in a face to face meeting with the project director and project administrator)

Each interview was restricted to no longer than an hour and took the form of asemi-structured discussion ranging across the following key areas:

1.Working with others

2.Building relationships

3.Developing financial education

4.The impact on trainees

5.Embedding and sustaining financial education

A list of the lead questions employed appears as Appendix 1.

All interviewees were also asked to think about the big picture and nominate key successes, main challenges, what they would do differently if starting again and to reflect on the perceived benefits to HEIs, trainee teachers and partner primary schools.

Through these interviews the evaluation sought to:

• understandhow lead contact tutors had found the experience of working with pfeg through the project offer
• how the consultants had found the process of HEI engagement
• explore how faithfully course tutors had delivered financial education to trainee teachers
• examine the impact the project had made on HEI tutors, trainee teachers, partner primary schools and school pupils

Quite an eye opener! I think primary teachers have a responsibility to cover this, to fill in gaps and deal with misconceptions (Trainee teacher)

Findings

Working with each other

What Money Means in Initial Teacher Traininghas been predicated on strong working partnerships between all parties. The projecthas been managed centrally through the pfegnational office, administered by freelance facilitators and delivered by freelance pfegconsultants directly supporting HEIs. There has been continuity of management, facilitation and, to a large extent, consultancy personnel with the earlier phase of What Money Means thus ensuring a high degree of consistency, familiarity with the overall arc of both phases of the project and ongoing expertise in the area of primary education. This latter aspect was particularly welcomed by the HEIs who found distinct advantages in working with an organisation and consultants who understood the structure of primary education and how financial education could be situated within that context. It was, however, noted that pfegmight benefit from a greater level of understanding about how HEIs operate and should seek to engage them further through the medium of academic debate.

The HEIs expressed a high level of satisfaction with the progress and outcomes of the project. Particular praise was given to the cross curricular nature of the interventions, the flexibility of pfeg in meeting individual timescales and needs and the willingness and ability of consultants to tailor resources and materials to specific requirements.