skip to Main Content

Large-scale educational remediation: 
building on Israel’s experience

The problem

It is clear that the disruption of teaching and learning caused by the Covid-19 lockdown and its aftermath will have a lasting effect on the education of many children and particularly on the disadvantaged. The Education Endowment Foundation (EEF) has found that school closures are likely to reverse progress made to close the educational gap experienced by disadvantaged children in the last decade and that sustained support will be needed to help disadvantaged pupils catch up (EEF 2020). The Education Policy Institute has found that the attainment gap between disadvantaged pupils and their peers has stopped closing for the first time in a decade. This was evident before the pandemic and has been exacerbated by it (EPI 2020).

It is unknown how effective teaching and learning will be in the socially distanced arrangements being initiated in England’s schools from September or whether there will be further disruptions if there are local resurgences of infection.

School education in England, as elsewhere, is therefore experiencing unprecedented disruption. In these circumstances the quality of remedial teaching provided by schools, particularly those with significant numbers of disadvantaged pupils, will be crucial to these pupils’ future. Policy makers should therefore be prepared to use the most effective methods of large-scale remediation for which there is good evidence.

Israel’s experience

The best evidenced programme of large-scale educational remediation was carried out by the new State of Israel in the 1950s to 1970s. Under its ‘law of return’ Israel welcomed large numbers of Jewish immigrants from throughout the world, but found that the children of those from North Africa and the Middle East were much less successful in school than those from Europe and North America. They were typically three years behind in their education and were subsequently much less successful as young adults competing for jobs.

Israel was committed to educational equality for its immigrants and invested heavily in research on remediation. The government established a substantial team of clinical and educational psychologists, many with experience of treating children traumatised by the Holocaust, to tackle this problem. They were led by Reuven Feuerstein. They decided to avoid school subjects as areas of past failure and devised a separate programme called Instrumental Enrichment (IE). This was designed to change, over a period of two or more years, the disadvantaged students’ concept of themselves as learners, their motivation and their ability to process information.

The IE course was primarily designed for young adolescents. It consisted of thirteen sequences, each with 12 to 24 activities (instruments), intended to be taught for five hours per week over two years in parallel with the normal curriculum. An essential feature of the IE instruments is that they involve little use of language and therefore have the appearance of logic puzzles and non-verbal reasoning problems (see e.g. International Renewal Institute 1982). The reason for this is that the pupils’ mother tongue was usually Arabic and they were simultaneously having to learn Modern Hebrew (Ivrit) as the language of their new country (Feuerstein et al 1980).

Each activity was delivered in three phases – input, elaboration and output – each involving discussion designed to develop pupils’ awareness of themselves as learners:

the different cognitive functions appearing in the input, elaboration – or problem solving – and output phases become part of the everyday metacognitive discussion between teacher and student and between student and student when thinking about their own strategies of problem solving … IE aims to provide the necessary mental tools putting students in a position where they have to construct for themselves the higher level thinking required. This could be described as meta-constructivism – the construction by the learner of learning strategies (Adey and Shayer 1994).

The programme was rigorously evaluated with controlled trials and found to be highly effective. Significantly, two years after the intervention the students (both sexes) entered compulsory military training in the Israeli Army. On a test of general intelligence for all recruits derived from the American Army Alpha test, the IE group performed better than many others. Although they had typically been three years behind when entering school, they were now equal with others, for example, in promotion prospects.

Feuerstein’s IE was highly successful for the purpose for which it was developed – raising the attainment of large numbers of educationally disadvantaged learners. A significant feature of the programme was that, although it generally didn’t raise attainment immediately, evidently because of difficulties of accessing the mainstream curriculum while learning a new language, IE learners’ ability continued to develop after their participation in the programme had ended. Their ability continued to rise on all the tests they took, including Army Entrance and for further and higher education so that, as adults, they suffered no disadvantage compared with the general population (Rand et al 1981). The work of Feuerstein and his colleagues is permanent evidence of what can be achieved by government commitment to raising the attainment of disadvantaged learners.

A South African case study

Feuerstein’s IE was also used in the early 1980s by Mervyn Mehl who taught first-year Physics to medical students at the University of the Western Cape, at that time a wholly black university under apartheid. Owing to under-resourced education in black high schools, 50 per cent of first-year medical students regularly dropped out through failing their Physics course. Mehl devised an IE course closely modelled on Feuerstein’s work but designed to be delivered in one year. At the end of the year the failure rate was reduced to zero. There was a convenient control in that about half the students were taught in Afrikaans and half in English. IE was used with the English-medium students only; the failure rate for the Afrikaans-medium students remained unchanged (Mehl 1985; Adey and Shayer 1994).

As Mehl demonstrated, IE can be effective over a shorter period. A crucial difference was language. Mehl’s students had been taught in English-medium high schools, so were not having simultaneously to learn a new language as in Israel.

IE’s limitations and its successor

IE has been used experimentally in settings in the USA, UK and elsewhere with positive effects on attainment, but has not been adopted widely. This is partly because it is seen as a remediation programme intended for a minority of pupils and partly because of its deliberate separation from school subjects. Schools and education systems have been reluctant to devote significant resources to a programme apparently relevant only to disadvantaged pupils and without direct relevance to the rest of the curriculum.

These issues were addressed by Adey and Shayer in the 1980s. Michael Shayer was one of the leaders of the Concepts in Secondary Mathematics and Science project (1974 – 1980), a large-scale British Government-funded project on how to improve the teaching of these subjects across the whole ability range in comprehensive schools in England. Shayer investigated IE closely and, with Philip Adey, developed a new programme which overcame its limitations, calling it Cognitive Acceleration (CA). Like IE, CA was based on research by Vygotsky and Piaget – it trained learners how to understand their own cognitive (thinking) processes and use them more effectively. Unlike IE, CA related directly to school subjects and, not being designed for immigrant children learning a new language, used open questions in English rather than diagrammatic problems.

In essence Adey and Shayer took the ten cognitive schemas underlying scientific understanding identified by Inhelder and Piaget (proportionality, compensation, variables, etc) and devised 30 lessons to help pupils to develop these schemas. The lessons were all designed on the same pattern involving five ‘pillars’: concrete preparation, social construction, cognitive conflict, metacognition and bridging.

The programme – Cognitive Acceleration through Science Education (CASE) – proved very successful in the 1980s to 2000s before being squeezed out of schools’ curriculums by Ofsted’s requirement of frequent school-based assessment for progress tracking. CASE typically raised attainment by 1 to 2 GCSE grades across the full ability range (Adey and Shayer 1994; Shayer and Adey 2002; Adey 2012). This effect has been confirmed in more than 20 international trials (Let’s Think 2013).

(A programme based on CASE, called Let’s Think Secondary Science, was trialled by EEF in 2013 – 15 and found not to be effective (EEF 2018). It should be noted that this programme was significantly different from CASE and was not approved by Adey and Shayer.)

Cognitive Acceleration (CA) programmes in Mathematics and English have subsequently been developed, also with full suites of lessons for primary and secondary schools together with KS3 lessons in Drama, Music and Visual Art.
The English CA programme (Let’s Think in English) has become particularly successful and is currently used by some 350 schools in England and Wales as well as in Switzerland, Poland, Brazil, Hong Kong and Vietnam. It has some 20 age-appropriate lessons for each of Years 1/2, 3/4 and 5/6 together with 30+ for K3 and 20+ for GCSE, each using fiction, non-fiction, poetry or film. Samples of the English lessons are available at Let’s Think in English (2020).

Remediation after educational disruption

As the successor of Feuerstein’s Instrumental Enrichment, Cognitive Acceleration (CA) shares some features with IE but is different in others. Taken together, these would make it particularly effective in enabling pupils to catch up after educational disruption.

  1. CA raises attainment by all pupils but especially the disadvantaged. CA lessons are designed to be used with whole classes rather than, as with IE, smaller groups of disadvantaged pupils. In this way all pupils’ abilities rise, but disadvantaged pupils make the greatest progress. Two recent small-scale trials demonstrate this.
    • In six schools in Hampshire, each with two KS3 CA classes, all the students made an average of 41.5 per cent greater progress than two parallel non-CA classes, but the pupils on Free School Meals in these classes made 58.3 per cent greater progress (Let’s Think in English 2018).

    • An International School in Switzerland used the Australian Council for Educational Research tests (similar to the PISA tests) with Year 6 before and after a year’s use of Let’s Think in English, with these gains (effect sizes):
        Mathematical Literacy Reading Narrative Writing Expository Writing
      All pupils 0.27 0.30 0.12 0.42
      Least able quartile 0.61 0.42 0.46 0.67

      Again, the least able achieved the greatest gains, though the overall results compared to the performance on the same tests by the top 14 International Baccalaureate schools (Black 2018).

  2. As with IE, lessons are immediately available. Suites of fully trialled age-appropriate CA lessons in English, Maths and Science are available for Key Stages 1 to 4. They consist of full lesson plans and pupils’ materials in photocopiable or electronic form. Teachers are therefore not required to create lessons and professional support is available to enable them to deliver the lessons most effectively.

  3. Unlike IE, CA lessons are designed to be used fortnightly – 30 lessons over two years. IE was designed to be used for five hours each week and CA’s lesser frequency relates directly to the fact that the lesson’s use language in which pupils are already proficient. This is helpful, of course, when schools have a great deal of other work to cover. Nothing is gained by using CA lessons more frequently and, in fact, the gap between them provides opportunities for developing metacognition. Some schools using the English programme have a ‘metacog wall’ in the classroom – a large sheet of sugar paper on which pupils are welcome to put comments or queries about the CA lesson on post-it notes in the two weeks following the lesson. After the early lessons there are few notes, but after a time there are many, providing the focus for discussion before the next CA lesson.

  4. Longer-term effects. Both Feuerstein’s IE and CA which is based closely on it show that intensive systematic focus on improving pupils’ view of themselves as learners has long-term effects on their attainment. The development of their cognitive abilities, accompanied by a growth in self-confidence, is transformative and leads to long-term, possibly permanent, increases in attainment. This is a recurrent feature of research on the long-term effects of IE and CA (Rand et al 1981; Adey and Shayer 1994; Shayer and Adey 2002; Let’s Think 2013A).

  5. It is hoped that a reconsideration of Feuerstein’s response to systemic educational disadvantage and Cognitive Acceleration as its successor will be helpful in this current unprecedented situation.
    1st September 2020


    The author is a visiting lecturer and honorary research associate at King’s College London. Although previously involved in the development of Let’s Think in English, he now has no financial interest in it or in any of the Cognitive Acceleration programmes.


    Adey, P (2012) – Let’s Think, formerly known as Cognitive Acceleration: Programmes for developing high-level thinking

    Adey, P and Shayer, M (1994) – Really Raising Standards: Cognitive intervention and academic achievement. London: Routledge.

    Black, A (2018) – Effects of a one year Let’s Think in English intervention in an International School

    Education Endowment Foundation (2018) – Let’s Think Secondary Science

    Education Endowment Foundation (12th June 2020) – Best evidence on impact of school closures on the attainment gap

    Education Policy Institute (26th August 2020) – Education in England: Annual Report 2020

    Feuerstein, R, Rand, Y, Hoffman, M and Miller, M (1980) – Instrumental Enrichment: Intervention Programme for Cognitive Modifiability. Baltimore: University Park Press.

    International Renewal Institute (1982) – Feuerstein’s Instrumental Enrichment: Standard Program

    Let’s Think (2013A) – Evidence of Efficacy (CASE)

    Let’s Think (2013B) – Cognitive Acceleration Through Mathematics 

    Let’s Think in English (2014)

    Let’s Think in English (2018) – Hampshire

    Let’s Think in English (2020) – Sample lessons

    Mehl, M (1985) – The cognitive difficulties of first year physics students at the University of the Western Cape and various compensatory programmes. PhD thesis, University of Cape Town.

    Rand, Y, Mintzker, R, Hoffman, M B and Friedlander, Y (1981) – The Instrumental Enrichment programme: immediate and long-term effects. In Mittler, P (ed) Frontiers of Knowledge: Mental Retardation, Vol 1. Baltimore: University Park Press.

    Shayer, M and Adey, P (eds) (2002) – Learning Intelligence: Cognitive Acceleration Across the Curriculum 5 to 15 years. Buckingham: Open University Press.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Powerlessness, not workload: is this why secondary, but not primary, teachers are leaving teaching?

The secondary teaching crisis

On 27thJune 2019 the Education Policy Institute published this chart derived from DfE school workforce figures:

To be clear: the fall in number of secondary teachers doesn’t reflect a fall in the number of secondary students. According to DfE figures, the number of secondary students in England’s schools fell from 2010 to 2014, then rose by 2018 to a similar number as in 2010. The number of primary pupils rose throughout the whole period. [PDF document]

There is clearly a crisis in recruitment and retention of teachers in secondary schools – the number of teachers is falling while the number of students is rising.

This seems to be the first time that the different resignation rates of primary and secondary teachers have been made clear. Strangely, no-one seems to have pointed this out before. All the analyses of why teachers leave teaching treat primary and secondary together, yet clearly the experience of the two sectors is very different.

Is excessive workload the cause?

The most common reason given for teachers leaving is excessive workload, but another recent study shows this isn’t so. In September 2019 the UCL Institute of Education published the longest ever study of teachers’ working hours, from 1992 to 2018, and found that their hours haven’t significantly changed in 25 years:
Working hours trends graph [PDF document]

Secondary teachers’ hours of work are, if anything, slightly less than primary teachers’ and this hasn’t changed for 25 years. Yet secondary teachers are currently leaving the profession in droves while primary teachers are staying.

These two charts explode two common myths. The first is the teacher unions’ belief that teachers are leaving the profession because of excessive workload. This is obviously untrue when hours of work have remained largely unchanged for 25 years and primary teachers, though working longer hours, are increasing in numbers. The second is that teachers entering the profession these days will no longer accept such long hours. Again, the charts, taken together, show that this is untrue – primary teachers, though working longer, stay. The causes of the secondary teachers’ exodus must lie elsewhere.

Is pupil behaviour to blame?

One possibility is that secondary teachers find adolescents harder to manage. After all, younger children are mostly obedient while adolescents often test the boundaries of what is acceptable. But there is no evidence that this is a major feature of most teachers leaving the profession.

In 2017 the DfE completed an analysis of the OECD’s Teaching and Learning International Survey (TALIS) findings in 2013 on teacher retention and reported that the most significant factors in teachers’ job satisfaction are (in descending order):

  • supportive leadership
  • effective professional development
  • teacher cooperation
  • scope for career progression
  • feeling sufficiently prepared for teaching.

Admittedly the analysis didn’t distinguish between primary and secondary teachers, but pupil behaviour scarcely registered. [PDF document]

This is supported by a DfE in 2017 study of teachers’ reasons for leaving the profession the previous year.
Reasons for leaving teaching chart

Pupil behaviour comes eighth, far behind other factors.

The problem with surveys like this is that they rely on teachers ticking boxes for the reasons they are leaving, not on in-depth interviews, and it’s clear that some of these are proxies for other dissatisfactions. As we have seen, workload (given first) hasn’t changed in 25 years and Government policies and Ofsted (2nd and 4th) affect primary schools just as much as secondary ones.

To find the real reasons why secondary teachers are leaving while primary teachers aren’t, we need to explore two of the other factors rated strongly in Figure 4.1: feeling undervalued (3rd) and lack of support (5th). This ties in with the DfE TALIS analysis mentioned above which found that, for teachers’ job satisfaction, the quality of interpersonal relations and sense of personal autonomy within a school outweigh all other considerations including workload and challenging circumstances.

Primary and secondary experience

There has been no formal investigation of why secondary teachers, but not primary teachers, are leaving in greater numbers, but the following differences are evident.
In primary schools:

  • teachers teach almost the whole curriculum to a single class which they come to know very well
  • classes are usually mixed-attainment so teachers develop expertise in simultaneously teaching children of all abilities; this requires a child-centred approach responding to the varied needs of each of the children
  • teachers therefore become experts in their class’s learning at individual pupil level; they are the ‘go to’ person for any issues relating to one of their pupils
  • to teach the whole curriculum, co-planning with colleagues is the norm
  • as schools are small, the SLT are usually physically nearby and professionally supportive.

The typical pattern in primary schools is that teachers are both autonomous as experts in their class’s learning and used to close cooperation with colleagues in planning varied lessons across the whole curriculum.

In secondary schools:

  • teachers usually teach a single subject to a range of classes
  • classes are often setted by prior attainment in English and/or Maths
  • as a subject specialist, the teacher is responsible for their pupils’ attainment in that subject
  • however, although they are subject specialists, teachers may not be able to teach according to their preferred pedagogical style; they may be expected to deliver a particular model of teaching and learning by their Subject Lead, SLT or MAT adviser (the last two not necessarily specialists in their subject)
  • in these circumstances, co-planning is more likely to be unavailable; as subject specialists, teachers are expected to be able deliver the specified material in the required way
  • in large schools, teachers may be chiefly confined to departmental bases with limited personal contact otherwise; SLT members may be physically remote and mostly encountered in an administrative or judgemental role
  • some secondary academies are run on a business-orientated model which teachers, who usually enter teaching to help young people grow intellectually and personally, may find uncongenial.

Secondary teachers are therefore more likely to feel unsupported and professionally undervalued – though subject specialists, they may not be regarded as experts in their students’ learning, but rather chiefly as deliverers of lessons designed by others. The EPI report cited first in this blog also tracks the resignation rates of graduate NQTs with 10 per cent leaving in the first year, a further 10 per cent in the second and a continuing steep slope thereafter. Put briefly, young secondary teachers seem often to find themselves in a high-demand profession in which they have great responsibility but in which, in professional matters, they are powerless. They find this intolerable and leave, either for a school which allows greater autonomy and professional self-worth or for other work.

The pressure of preparing pupils for public examinations is clearly a factor. In primary schools, teachers prepare pupils for low-stakes tests in phonics and Key Stage 1 English and Maths. The high-stakes Key Stage 2 tests are the responsibility of Year 6 teachers who are either highly experienced or, if not, are strongly supported by SLT and colleagues. It is also the case that, while the KS2 tests are important for school accountability, parents have less interest in the results than GCSE because their child’s future doesn’t depend on them in any way.

In secondary schools GCSE results are seen as important by pupils and their parents and by the school as vital for reputation and recruitment. Many schools therefore have detailed assessment systems for tracking students’ progress in relation to GCSE even from Year 7. This in turn puts pressure on teachers constantly to demonstrate student progress.

Further, the current search for evidence-based methods of raising attainment may lead to a range of relatively mechanistic approaches recommended or required by department, SLT or MAT: repetition/re-presenting of material (up to 85 per cent of a lesson); knowledge organisers; interleaving; quizzes; and low-stakes multiple-choice tests. A teacher who enters teaching for the satisfaction of helping young minds to grow may find such an emphasis too functionalist and emotionally unsatisfying.

It would need further research, but it seems at least possible that some schools’ requirement of a particular kind of pedagogy which some teachers find impersonal and overprescriptive may contribute strongly to their decision to leave the school or even the profession. It may be at this point that long working hours, which are otherwise acceptable, become less so. Without the satisfactions of teaching according to one’s own personally preferred style, workload may be felt as a problem.

What should be done?

Certainly something other than workload is causing increasing numbers of secondary, but not primary, teachers to leave the profession and the DfE needs to investigate this. So far, the DfE has commissioned various investigations into teacher workload and made various well-meaning recommendations for reducing it which have had no effect. If the flow of secondary teachers leaving the profession is to be stopped and hopefully reversed, something else needs to be done.

An immediately helpful development would be for Ofsted to include teacher turnover in its inspection reports. The OECD, Education Policy Institute and DfE are all clear that high staff turnover harms the quality of education in a school and parents presumably have a right to this information as potentially affecting their child’s education. Where turnover is high, Ofsted should take a view on the causes and include this in its report and, if appropriate, grading.

In the longer term, the DfE should commission independent research on the deeper reasons why teachers leave high-turnover schools, using confidential exit interviews by independent researchers. This would be more accurate than using questionnaires which, unless they are very carefully designed, may enable teachers to avoid giving the true reasons for their leaving.

It may be that that a requirement to deliver a particular pedagogy may be found unsatisfying and unacceptable and/or that the school’s leadership style is felt as abrasive or even repressive. In either case, a sense of powerlessness may be the deciding factor in teachers’ decision to leave. Until this is investigated, the haemorrhage of secondary teachers is likely to continue.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

NB: This post has other comments. You can read them here.