Achievement for All: Evaluation Report

Achievement for All (AfA) is a whole-school improvement programme that aims to improve the academic and social outcomes of pupils, developed by the national charity AfA 3As.1 In this trial, the programme primarily aimed to improve Key Stage 2 reading attainment while the trial also examined its impact on KS2 mathematics, pupil attendance, and pupil resilience-related outcomes. The trial cohort comprised all children who began the trial in Years 4 and 5 (ages 8–10). A particular focus was placed on a target group of children selected by each school within these year groups. Schools were advised to select target children whose attainment placed them in the lowest 20%, while they could also include pupils whom they deemed to be vulnerable to underachievement.

The intervention ran for five terms. At the start of the programme, each school designated a member of staff to become an AfA champion. They then met with a trained AfA coach to assess the needs of the school and devised a bespoke action plan. This plan was then used to inform monthly coaching and training sessions delivered by the AfA coach to relevant members of school staff; schools also had access to AfA’s online learning platform, The Bubble. AfA is a flexible programme that is expected to be tailored to the needs of each school. However, the training that each school receives draws from four key areas: ‘leadership for inclusion', ‘teaching and learning’, ‘wider outcomes and opportunities’, and ‘engaging with parents and carers’.

The project was a two-armed randomised controlled trial; 134 schools from across England participated, with 66 schools in the intervention group and 68 schools in the control group. The process evaluation included surveys, informal observations, and interviews, and a particular focus on eight case study schools. This report details the impact that the programme had on the first cohort of pupils who were in Year 5 at the outset of the trial in 2016/2017 and received the programme for five terms. The results from a second cohort, who began the trial in Year 4, will be examined in a future addendum report.

EEF security rating
The findings related to the reading outcomes of all children and the reading outcomes of target children have a very high security rating. This trial was an effectiveness trial, which tested whether the intervention worked under everyday conditions in a large number of schools. The trial was a well-designed, two-armed, randomised controlled trial that was well powered. Relatively few pupils (8%) who started the trial were not included in the final analysis, while the pupils in Achievement for All schools were similar to those in comparison schools in terms of prior attainment.



Key conclusions
1. Children in the Achievement for All schools made two months less progress in reading, on average, compared to children in schools that did not receive the programme. This result has a very high security rating.
2. Target children in the Achievement for All schools (the lowest 20% of attainers or those deemed to be ‘vulnerable to underachievement’ as identified by their school) made two months less progress in reading, on average, compared to target children in schools that did not receive the programme. This result has a very high security rating.
3. All children and children eligible for free school meals (FSM) in the Achievement for All schools made two months less progress in maths, on average, compared to equivalent children in schools that did not receive the programme, while target children made three months less progress in maths, on average, compared to target children in control schools. FSM children in Achievement for All schools also made two months less progress in reading compared to FSM children in schools that did not receive the intervention.
4. The evaluation found that the programme did not improve pupils’ self-esteem, goals and aspirations, perceptions of how supportive their families were, or the attendance of target children. However, children in Achievement for All schools were more likely to report that there was an adult in their school who cared about and supported them.
5. The implementation of Achievement for All was not optimal and varied across schools. However, there was no evidence to suggest that this contributed to the negative findings. Some teachers identified significant resource demands which made implementing Achievement for All challenging