Making a difference to children, young people and families

What now happens differently for children, young people and their families as a result of your actions?
What were the outcomes? This might refer to national indicators for example

There were initial problems in the implementation of the INPP Programme. The primary school selected for the pilot is the first school nationally to implement the programme with children as young as Reception age. Initially, the children found it difficult to perform the very slow, exacting exercises, particularly as they were the very children who found it difficult to concentrate and had the least control over their bodies.

Once the children became familiar with the nature of the exercises, however, they thoroughly enjoyed doing them. Parents commented on their children’s enthusiasm, strengthening the relationship between school and home in co-constructing children’s learning, and practitioners were impressed by the children’s ability to internalise new exercises and by their sustained concentration.

What now happens differently for the services involved?

Changes had to be made to the timetable and to practice. Time and space had to be made available for the daily INPP Programme session. Two trained practitioners had to be released for around 15-20 minutes each day to deliver the programme and to support the children. An appreciation of the importance of movement and a greater understanding of physical development is apparent among the teaching staff.

Which of the changes will you maintain to sustain your achievements and how will you do this?

The INPP Programme is being continued with the children into Year 1 of primary school and is being implemented by trained practitioners.

The INPP Programme has also been rolled out to 12 other North Tyneside primary schools. Two practitioners from each setting have been trained in the programme.

Follow-up support and programme implementation is monitored by the early years consultants.

Knowledge gained in the pilot project has helped to implement the programme in other schools.

If you are not yet sure what difference has been made, what new measures could be introduced, or what could be improved, to allow you to determine the difference made?

Evaluation

How have you evaluated progress against outcome measures?
How have you evaluated the improvement in outcomes for children, young people and/or families?
Do you have any information on the cost of your programme? This would be really useful information for other areas who might wish to implement a similar programme.

Please provide evidence of the learning that has occurred, of how systems have changed as a result of the practice being implemented, and of how outcomes have improved.
We are interested to hear about how you have evaluated the practice and how you have encouraged feedback from children, young people and their families. The results of this feedback and evaluation can include external evaluation reports, internal reviews, children, youth or parent feedback surveys, other surveys/data, anecdotal evidence, budgetary and/or statistical information, and plans/timelines.

What ‘hot tips’ do you have from your experience for others?

We are particularly interested in any barriers you encountered and how you overcame these and in your views regarding the potential for replicability of your practice example.

Evaluation
A review of children’s progress was carried out by the early years consultants. The initial screen was administered in October 2007 and the follow up screen in July 2008 before the children moved to Year 1.

Improved outcomes for children in the INPP group included:
Progress of 214 points in reflex scores (from 326 points in October 2007 to 112 points in July 2008).
Significant reflex improvement in crossing the mid- line 20+ points to 0. The ability to cross the mid-line impacts directly on reading and writing.
Significant improvement in STNR (Symmetric Tonic Neck Reflex), with an improvement of 20+ points in extension and flexion.

In addition, individual case studies demonstrate individual success, for example:
Child A: An autumn born twin boy (on free school meals (fsm) and registered as ‘school action plus’ on the special educational needs (SEN) register), scored 28 points in Test Battery. This reduced to five points after three terms and child A scored 83 points across Foundation Stage Profile (FSP).
Child B: A spring born girl (fsm) made 20 points’ progress in INPP Test Battery and scored 100 points overall in the FSP, becoming one of the highest achievers in the class.
Child C: An August born boy (receiving additional support in nursery), whose initial INPP score of 31 reduced to five, and who became the highest achieving boy in the group (achieving a level 6+ in all assessment strands).

Profile data submitted in July 2008 also showed that only two reception class children in the primary school fell into the lowest performing 20 per cent of children in the local authority.

Of the 12 children who were identified to take part in the INPP Programme, only five of these fell into the lowest performing 20 per cent of the class at the end of the reception year. All 12 children were in the lowest performing two groups academically at the beginning of the school year.

Although less quantifiable, children’s confidence and self-esteem improved significantly. Practitioners commented on their dispositions and attitudes and on improvements in their well being. The early years consultants met with parents who all commented favourably on their children’s participation in the programme. The children enjoyed talking about the exercises, and their improved control over their bodies and ability to perform the exercises (concentration) was noted by all those working with them.


Hot tips:

Support from the headteacher, Foundation Stage Manager and other senior managers, as well as the commitment of trained practitioners, is required for the success of the programme.

Support from children’s parents is also important.

The continued backing of the local authority is a necessity so that funding can be provided to train practitioners. The initial cost of training practitioners to implement the programme was around £1,000 for 40 practitioners.

Committed and trained practitioners who understand the importance of children’s movement skills are essential to programme success.

If possible, establish a support group so that practitioners can share experiences.

It is important to support practitioners in delivering the Test Battery and in the implementation of the programme; this is particularly important during the initial stages of programme introduction.