A Case Study of the Benefits of the Science Learning Partnerships in Early Years and Primary Education in England

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The topic of this paper is highly relevant to the focus of the special edition Education Science: Leadership of/in Early Years—Primary Education Sector: An International Perspective for which it is intended. However, the paper would require considerable editing. This is partly a problem of the complexity and changes of policy and practice that have been enacted in England, which are described by the author. The early sections, entitled Introduction, STEM Learning UK, Teaching Schools, Impact of Schools Trusts, Impact of COVID-19 and Early Years and Primary Leadership review these, but unless the reader is already familiar with the history, are hard to follow.  

For one strong example, on p2 comments on policies enacted by Michael Grove, Secretary of State for Education (in England) in 2010, are reported from a 2020 book review as: ‘New Labour invested economically …. the Coalition disinvested …. ’ The reader would have to know that ‘New’ Labour was a political party that had been in power in the UK before a Coalition of two parties (Tory and Liberal) came into power, with Michael Gove as a minster. The discussion here is about ‘Teaching Schools’ but the author interrupts a description of what these are to opine that skepticism has meant that some of their better work and partnership potential has not been widely acknowledged. The reader has to deduce that they do offer partnership potential (from some perspectives). The paper then moves to outline the money available and risk sharing in the city in ‘this SLP’. 

If the history is important to the paper, and I am not sure it is, perhaps a summary chart would suffice to explain how key factors have been handled in some relevant and recent timescale, and how this influences current 'partnerships’, and what these are? P1 says historical development is being charted, and a literal chart, with dates, might help the reader. Otherwise, a clear account of the current situation, following many changes, would do, and where the current policies fit together, or do not.  

The COVID-19 impact section could better come after the description of the methodology, when the reader knows something of the study being described, and disrupted.  

The innovation in the study, working across two geographically adjacent Science Learning Partnerships (SLPs) to offer joint courses and share knowledge, appears entirely sensible, but not particularly innovative. Is it an unusual thing to do?  Are there usually barriers? It would be helpful to explain why this iwas an nnovation further.  

The reports of what happened are rather anecdotal, and little information is given about how (post- course?) data was gathered. Two presenters are named, using their first names, and would better be obscured, as the GUEP Act would require permission for even this level of disclosure (given the local context might be deduced by those who know the areas), and no statements are made about obtaining ethical permissions: was this not required for the ‘research’ aspect of the course. And spell out and explain CLEAPSS?  

How many questionnaires and Interviews were obtained, and how were they analyzed? Were there indeed evident benefits of sharing across SLPs in terms of participant learning, as well as organizational convenience? The bullet-pointed assertions on p6 require further substantiation. ‘More children’s ideas were developed into the science lessons throughout the (sic) school’ is a great result – but how do we know: was it measured? The examples of disseminating the names of relevant organizations to staff are encouraging, but what is the evidence that this did ‘rapidly improve the subject knowledge base of staff’ (p.6)? Explaining the Continuing Professional Development Impact Tool KIt (Findings, p6) would help. And were there any negative comments? What ‘coding’ had the researcher provided (p7)?  

In relating the conclusions to the data obtained, some anecdotal statements are made. Could they be further substantiated? And perhaps refer to the ongoing impacts of COVID again towards the end.  

In summary, this paper could either accommodate a critique of the changing structures and funding for STEM education in England, with broad comments on their affordances and limitations, or an account of a project to work across some boundaries and its effects on participants. If both are to be attempted, a clearer, brief summary of the policies and structures, and a more evidenced-based account of the project and its outcomes might be possible.  

Author Response

Please see attached file.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

[1] There are too many abbreviations and it is extremely diffcult to follow the rationale of the manuscript.

[2] Research methodology is quite weak. Specifically there is no description on research questions, as well as on the data coding, and the data collection tool and procedure.

[3] It is not clear how the findings are derived from data analysis. In addition the findings are poor and they do not clearly correspond to the nine aims of the project.

[4] Furthermore, the way the references 5 and 14 are written, the author's name can be revealed.

Author Response

Please see attached file.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Thank you for allowing me to read your article which I thoroughly enjoyed and found most interesting. I feel the article could be developed through your consideration of the following points.

• The title clearly states a case study methodology and this is mentioned in the text. More detail/academic reference is needed regards the use of this methodology i.e. its benefits and drawbacks and why it was appropriate for this study.
• Some examples of the type of sessions/course/CPD given would help the reader picture this work in the settings.
• Should the paragraph entitled ‘What have been the recorded impact of these events?’ be included as part of the findings section? It would seem to fit more with this section for the reader. Consideration could also be given to the use of a table or figure rather than the use of lengthy bulleting of findings i.e. after line 251.
• With the findings I did wonder if there was any negative feedback or issues encountered since these seemingly were not mentioned. If not this needs clearly stating.

Author Response

Please see attached file.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

This revision has taken account of my previous comments, removing the longer history and clarifying what was actually done. Some minor grammatical errors remain, and a careful proof-reading is required.

Two changes are needed for this version. Two staff members are named (lines 161/2). It is stated that names have been anonymised, and this may have happened, but there still is a possibility for confusion (for example, if any staff happen to have the new names allocated.) Removing names altogether is best, using initials instead, and would not require a lot of re-writing.

Secondly, materials are listed in lines 207/8, and should be referenced.