Buy cheap essays online
To conclude, this evaluation has chronicled the success of the EPD pilot scheme.
Given its discontinuation, it is buy cheap essays online important to consider what lessons might be carried forward to inform subsequent policies and practices aimed at supporting teachers at the outset of their careers and - given the strength of the outcomes to emerge from the pilot - perhaps all teachers. Based on the experience of the EPD scheme, amongst the key factors associated with effective professional development were: autonomy for teachers, mentoring, a school ethos that embraces the buy cheap essays online professional development of its staff and an LEA role in buy cheap essays online support and promotion. In the absence of the scheme itself, these are the attributes that would perhaps benefit from particular attention, so the philosophy of EPD can be used to nurture and develop new cohorts of teachers entering the profession.
The objectives of the analysis were to compare the relative cost- effectiveness of the approaches undertaken by each of the 12 LEAs involved in the pilot and to account for differences in cost-effectiveness. It was not the objective to conclude whether the EPD scheme as a whole offers value for money. This outcome would require a cost-benefit analysis to be undertaken, in which the custom research paper services benefits of EPD would have to be measured in monetary terms.
The first outlines the methods used to undertake the CEA, including the data collection methods for both costs and effectiveness. The second section reviews the expenditure patterns of the 12 LEAs with respect to the EPD pilot.
Finally, the fourth section aims to account for differences in cost-effectiveness between LEAs.
This section also highlights that care must be taken when interpreting the findings reported here. Owing to the confidential nature of the data presented in Appendix 1 , the LEAs have been anonymised. The letters A-L are used to identify the authorities, but the alphabetical sequence does not reflect any particular ordering of the LEAs. In applying CEA in a comparison of different pilot approaches, the aim is to identify the approach that offers the best value for money (i. As the name suggests, CEA requires that data be collected on both costs and effects. In the current study, both costs and effects data refer to the second year of the EPD pilot i. Data on costs was collected at LEA-level, through interviews with the key LEA personnel and analysis of supporting documentation. Such data collection may appear unnecessary as the EPD scheme allocated an identical amount for each second and third year teacher in each LEA and detail on these allocations had been provided to the research team by the DfES. However, there are a number of reasons why LEA-level data collection was necessary: 126 APPENDICES 1. These funds generally came from other budget centres within an LEA although one LEA used money from a community initiative.
Owing to circumstances beyond their control, LEAs may not have allocated all of their EPD funding in the current academic year (e. Actual teacher numbers within LEAs showed some variation from provisional numbers used by the DfES in their allocations of EPD funding.
This issue affected LEAs in both possible directions. Some LEAs (seven) had more funding than teachers to allocate this to, while others (two) had more teachers than were accounted for in their funding allocation.
In order to ensure the validity of the results, actual teacher numbers should be used in the CEA. Finally, collecting data on costs at LEA level allows an analysis of expenditure patterns to be undertaken. This analysis may help to account for some of the differences in cost-effectiveness between LEAs. Data have therefore been collected on both income and expenditure for each LEA. Two measures of effectiveness were applied as outcomes in the CEA. Both of these were taken from items in the year 2 questionnaire returned by a sample of 1,189 teachers spread across the 12 EPD pilot LEAs. Five of the twelve LEAs made the full teacher allocation available to EPD teachers, while the remaining seven LEAs top-sliced a proportion of the teacher allocation for example, to provide LEA-funded training for mentors or LEA-funded EPD opportunities and activities for participating teachers. Table 22 provides a summary of how the LEAs managed their allocations. This figure shows the percentage of total expenditure accounted for by each of five following categories. LEA central costs (LEA): costs associated with management and administration of EPD such as salaries, general office expenses and LEA-level evaluations. Therefore, this category includes the majority of the activities listed in Column 4 of Table 22, including the provision of videos and employing consultants. Payments to schools to coordinate EPD (Schools): payments to reimburse schools and coordinators for time spent administering and managing EPD i need help writing an essay for college (usually supply cover costs). Payments to mentors (Mentors): three LEAs made payments to cover the time costs of mentors. The word in parentheses for the five categories above is used as a category label in Figure 1.
Comparisons between LEAs based on Figure 1 should be made with caution given that each LEA managed their own financial accounting processes. Some data was provided already categorised and it was not always possible to check whether the LEA-imposed categories matched those of the research team. However interview data was used to collaborate financial data and thus any differences in categorisation will be minimal. Expenditure patterns shown in Figure 1 were somewhat indicative of the level of centralisation employed by each LEA in their EPD scheme i. LEAs providing a common curriculum or component (e. The expenditure patterns in some LEAs require clarification. However, buy cheap essays online the majority of the top-sliced funds were paid back to teachers to cover their supply costs for attendance at the sessions. The LEA reported a surplus that comprised these top-sliced funds, suggesting that the top-slicing had not been necessary. On the other hand, LEAs H and I had a relatively large proportion of total expenditure accounted for by LEA costs, yet these LEAs did not top-slice any teacher allocations.