Health benefits

To quantify the potential value of any health benefits of ECaR, we use estimates of the value of a Quality-Adjusted Life Year (QALY) provided by the Department of Health (2010) alongside estimates of the QALY benefit of an additional year of education taken from Groot and Maassen van den Brink (2006). These are combined with our own estimates of the additional years of education caused by ECaR.

We therefore define for each child in the administrative data cohort their additional years of education beyond 16 (up to age 18). This is measured on the basis of (i) ILR participation records for 2007/08 and 2008/09, and (ii) whether the Level 3 threshold had been achieved by age 18.

The additional years of education are then related back to KS1 attainment (or the entire history of attainment, under the full depreciation scenario) in a statistical model. Given that our attainment data continues up until age 18, the measure of additional years of schooling can only take the value 0, 1 or 2. We estimate the model of additional years of schooling, pooling both genders together, and retain the estimated effects of KS1 Reading and KS1 Writing.

These estimates are combined with the impact of ECaR on KS1 Reading and Writing, to estimate the predicted increase in years of education casued by ECaR, under both depreciation scenarios. The estimated increase in years of education is then combined with a QALY value of an additional year in school. Finally, this is combined with a monetary value per QALY, which according to the Department of Health (2010), is £60,000 (£63,000 in 2010/11 prices).

Multiplying this by the expected QALY benefit caused by ECaR gives an annual monetary value of the improved health resulting from ECaR. We then compute the discounted sum of this amount across the lifetime, using HM Treasury’s Green Book (2003) guidance on discounting future benefits.

2.6.5 Crime benefits

To estimate the value of reductions in crime caused by ECaR, we refer to Machin et al. (2010), who estimate the social costs and benefits of reducing the proportion of youths with no qualifications by 1%. In their analysis of the social benefits, they calculate the number of fewer property crimes18 _{that would result from the increase in qualification levels, and}

multiply it by the estimated cost per property crime (taken from Dubourg et al., 2005) to arrive at the social benefit.19

The crime rate information is taken from the latest available British Crime Survey. To calculate the predicted fall in the propensity as a result of ECaR, we estimate models for the probability of obtaining some qualifications (defined as Level 2 vocational or academic, or above) instead of none. As usual, this is conducted under both depreciation scenarios. The effects of KS1 Reading and Writing on this outcome are combined with the estimated impacts of ECaR on KS1 Reading and Writing, to obtain the predicted increase in the proportion with some qualifications, as a result of ECaR. Using the results in Machin et al. (2010), the implied fall in property crime offences is calculated. To assign a value to these reductions in crime, we use the same cost of property crime as in Machin et al. (2010).

18 _{They focus on property crimes arguing that these constitute the majority of crimes, and that other}

crimes are more difficult to assign a cost to.

19 _{They subsequently subtract from this the funding cost of a 1% increase in post-16 education, in}

Table 2.4 summarises the various empirical strategies.

Table 2.4 Empirical strategy for measurement of expected lifetime benefits

through each route

Route through which benefits occur

Earnings Health Crime

Definition of age-18 attainment Various

qualification levels (see text) Years of additional education (between ages 16 and 18) Possession of some formal qualifications Information source on lifetime

benefits DfE estimates of lifetime returns to each qualification level Academic estimates of QALY benefit per additional year of education, plus Department of Health valuations of that QALY

Academic estimates of value of property crime reduction caused by obtaining formal qualifications

2.6.6 Break-even depreciation rate

Given the wide range of values under different depreciation scenarios, a rough break-even depreciation rate is calculated. In particular, we calculate what the effect achieving the expected level at KS1 Reading and Writing would have to have on the probability of achieving final measures of attainment, in order for the lifetime benefits (via earnings) to match the costs. In this case, the estimated long-term cost is used as the benchmark.

As the calculation of the lifetime benefits is quite a large process with many steps and parameters, a trial-and-error process is adopted rather than solving the calculation for the desired depreciation rate. We therefore guess different values of the effect of KS1 Reading and Writing on age-18 attainment, and calculate the total lifetime earnings benefits that result. This process is carried out iteratively, stopping when the average lifetime earnings benefits are approximately equal to the long-term cost of ECaR per participant.

3 Implementing ECaR at Local

Authority level

Key Findings

• Taking part in ECaR was motivated by the expected impacts of the programme and its ability to contribute to or meet existing strategic priorities within Local Authorities. This reflects the Institute Of Education guidance on when ECaR is likely to be most effective.

• Funding was not seen as sufficient by Local Authorities. This may reflect a misunderstanding of the funding that was provided, but it also illustrates the challenges faced by Local Authorities in topping-up core funding for the programme in the current economic climate.

• Support and guidance from the Institute of Education and National Strategies was positively received by Local Authorities. Criticism was restricted to the quality of technical advice for setting-up the Reading Recovery Centre and a lack of co- ordination between IOE and NS to avoid duplication of content in sessions.

• The Teacher Leader training programme presented challenges in terms of workload and the mental shift required to re-engage in theory-based learning. Teacher Leaders did, however, acknowledge the value of the critical reflection that this approach instilled. The findings from quantitative and qualitative strands suggest that Teacher Leaders felt well equipped to fulfil the core aspects of their role.

• The Teacher Leader role was significantly time-pressured. A particular challenge was maintaining their Reading Recovery practice. This and other elements of the role consistently suffered as Teacher Leaders prioritised what they saw as core functions, such as advocating and providing Reading Recovery training.

• Consortia working proved beneficial for all parties in terms of sharing practice and building on existing relationships. Disadvantages of consortia, however, such as the burden of co-ordination, fell disproportionately on the lead Local Authority.

• Implementation of ECAR was most effective when the programme aligned with the wider Local Authority strategy and other interventions, where Teacher Leaders were supported by managers to fulfil training requirements and maintain professional development, and where consortia shared co-ordination and administrative tasks.

This chapter describes the implementation and delivery of ECaR by Local Authorities (LAs), identifying key barriers and facilitators. The chapter draws on data from the surveys of ECaR Managers and Teacher Leaders (TLs) within LAs20 _{and depth interviews with ECaR}

managers and TLs. Table 3.1 below lays out the timeline for implementations activities that it is recommended LAs follow and indicates the sections of this chapter where findings on each of these elements are discussed.

Table 3.1 National Strategies timeline for implementation

Time Activities Relevant sections

Year 1 – January Build ECaR into strategic planning, recruit TL 3.1, 3.2.1, 3.2.2 Year 2 - September TL begins first year of training 3.2.3

Year 2 –

September/October

Develop criteria for prioritising schools

Identify location for Reading Recovery Centre 3.2.4, 3.2.5 Year 2 – March Finalise school selection

Ensure RRC ready for September opening 3.2.4, 3.2.5 Year 2 – June Management activities, briefing head teachers, aligning

strategy and resources with other programmes 3.3 Year 3 – September Reading Recovery Teachers (RRTs) begin their training 3.4 Year 3 – Autumn TLs trained in other ECaR layered interventions 3.2.3 Year 4 – Autumn ECaR delivered in full in schools - RRTs fully trained in RR and

other interventions See Chapter 4