Applying to the EEF for funding: What are we looking for Applying to the EEF for funding: What are we looking for? Eleanor Stringer and Matthew Van Poortvliet, Heads of Programmes | EEF Webinar: 12 March 2019 info@eefoundation.org.uk www.educationendowmentfoundation.org.uk Putting evidence to work: social mobility and the EEF’s scale up strategy   The focus of the Education Endowment Foundation’s first five years has been on generating new evidence, and it has so far funded over 140 different research projects in over 8,500 English schools. The EEF’s focus for the next five years will be on sharing these findings with practitioners and supporting them to apply research evidence to improve outcomes for students. In this talk, James Turner (EEF Deputy CEO) and Peter Henderson (EEF Programme Manager) will introduce the EEF’s scale up strategy, including the EEF’s: work in the Opportunity Areas; Research School Network; and support for the Strategic School Improvement Fund and Teaching and Leadership Innovation Fund.

Aim of today Outline our approach to funding Provide some examples Discuss our key criteria Point out key questions on form Answer your questions

Aim of EEF general funding rounds We use our funding to: Generate useful evidence for schools, as well as early years and post-16 settings Reach disadvantaged schools and children and young people aged 3-18 Identify promising projects that can be scaled up It is not our aim to: Provide core funding to deliver ongoing services Fund developmental research Please note: EEF funding rounds are very competitive – usually a large number apply, and we are able only to select a handful and work intensively with those.

Some basic eligibility criteria Delivery must take place in English schools/settings Project must be in state schools/colleges (a couple of exceptions: PVIs allowed for early years, training providers for post-16) Approach must be focused on 3-16 year olds, or on English/Maths resits for 16-18 year-olds Applicant must recognise the importance of the independent evaluation and be open to altering their project plan (e.g. changing proposed scale) Applicants must be a legally constituted body (not individuals) private voluntary and independent

What do EEF grants typically look like? Our average grant is £440,000. This varies from £50k for small pilots to over £1m for large scale trials. The average size of a project that we fund is around 100 schools/settings. This varies from pilots in handfuls of schools, to nearly half projects with more than 90 schools. This only includes first grants – when we find promising results, we then test them at large scale (often ~200 schools). Over 80% of our first grants are evaluated as Randomised Controlled Trials. 100 is for the last few years – we've been changing as we go on 

Using Randomised Controlled Trials Causal claims require randomised trials Schools/settings are recruited into the project, then randomised. Results are collected for all randomised settings

Example successful application: Thinking Doing Talking Science Initially funded by AstraZeneca Science Teaching Trust Focused on primary science whole class teaching Promising findings from a small, matched controlled study led by the developers Clear programme with associated training and content Applicant had track record of delivery to schools, and infrastructure to expand. What did we find? EEF funded study in 41 schools (half the schools took part, half were the control group). Independent evaluation, led by University of York, looking at impact on science and attitudes, and research into perceptions of delivery. Results: positive impact on science and attitudes. EEF funded a further trial to test it at scale.

Example successful application: The Good Behaviour Game Focused on whole-class behaviour and pupil resilience. Promising international evidence, included in several databases of effective programmes. Not delivered at scale in England, but a pilot had been delivered. Original programme from US, clearly manualised and carefully designed. Applicant had experience of delivering large projects. What did we find? EEF funded pilot and study in 77 schools (half the schools took part, half were the control group). Independent evaluation led by University of Manchester, looking at impact on reading and behaviour Results: no evidence of impact on outcomes. Evidence that teachers struggled to deliver the strictly manualised programme EEF published report

Is it a clear and scalable intervention? Our key criteria Is there any evidence that it is likely to raise attainment? Is it a clear and scalable intervention? Would it help generate useful evidence to help disadvantaged children and young people?

What are we looking for? Key criteria Example negatives Example positives Is there any evidence that it is likely to raise attainment for disadvantaged children and young people? No reference to rigorous research Only school-level pre and post data RCT or quasi-experimental evidence Outcome is related to attainment Is it a clear and scalable intervention? Hasn’t been delivered before Very expensive intervention Cost-effective model Clear model that could be replicated Would it help generate useful evidence to support disadvantaged children and young people? Not about attainment or related outcome Not about generating useful evidence Evidence of particular impact on disadvantaged pupils Some additional criteria Example Positives Can it be evaluated? Unclear intervention No clear target group Complex outcomes Clear programme Clear target group Clear outcomes Does it fit with the EEF’s portfolio of projects? Replicates ongoing trial Fills gaps in evidence Focuses on priority area Does the applicant have capacity to deliver? No track record with schools Robust organisation Track record with schools These are all examples! We do vary these – e.g. if the information generated would be very useful, we will consider applications that haven’t been delivered before OR that have no prior evidence – unlikely to vary on all of these.

Priorities for this round

The application form: what you should focus on What is the project? Qs 2.7 and 2.8 2.7. Please outline your proposed project. Please focus on the intervention, including the specific activities that, e.g., schools, teachers and pupils will be expected to do. (maximum 400 words) 2.8. What is involved in supporting schools/settings to implement the intervention successfully? (maximum 300 words) What’s the evidence? Q 2.9 and 2.11 2.9 What is the evidence for the principles behind the programme? (max 200 words) 2.10 Please describe the evidence for your programme’s impact on attainment (max 300 words)

The application form: what not to focus on Do not spend lots of time telling us about the scale of the need or issue. Brief rationale is sufficient.  Do not spend lots of time on precise budgeting. Do not worry about the exact number of schools or setting you propose to work with. The scale and budgets are likely to change as we work with shortlisted applicants. We expect you to be open to advice about your intervention, timeline and budget.  We may suggest changes both to facilitate robust evaluation, and to improve the implementation quality.

What happens next The deadline is June 28th – you have time to consider your potential fit

Useful documents Application Form Guidance Notes for Round 15 – compulsory reading for all applicants Completed projects – see some examples of the output of our trials. Active projects – what work we currently have underway The Big Picture Themes, EEF Toolkits and Guidance Reports – what do we already know about this issue?