The Cambridge Primary Review Trust

by

Is there time for reading and research?

At CPRT’s London Teachers Reading Group recently, we debated one of the original CPR research reviews, Children and their Primary Schools: pupils’ voices (Robinson and Fielding, 2010). Shortly to be published in updated form (see below), this reviewed published research on what pupils and former pupils think of their experiences of primary schooling.

A mixture of teachers, academics and local authority colleagues, we brought different perspectives to bear on the challenge of listening to and respecting children’s voices. We discussed the potential of involving children as co-participant researchers and almost immediately the teachers amongst us were keen to take action. Some considered inviting their classes to take photographs and devise captions to present views on the school environment, or to make collages to represent their experiences of literacy in school or at home. The range of evidence the young people collect could then be used to prompt reflection and dialogue about their experiences and feelings and how to respond to these.

We also found ourselves reconsidering the current role of published research in primary education. Tim, who had been teaching for just two years, voiced the view that keeping up to date in this manner was a professional responsibility, and commented that he’d ‘found it fascinating and invigorating’ to read research reports during his PGCE, ‘not only for the essays as it were, but for teaching’.

Yet since then, in the busy maelstrom of school life, he had received scant encouragement to read and debate his understanding, nor to explore the relationship between theory and practice in his classroom. Although he recognised research can help us as educators to re-examine the implicit theories that undergird everyday practice, he felt pressured ‘to deliver, to assess and to raise standards’. He also reflected a sense of professional isolation, since there were few with whom he could debate his reading.

Many in the group felt the emphasis on the ‘what works’ agenda, which they perceived was almost exclusively focused on raising attainment, sidelines the importance of teachers (and children) being involved in research themselves.  There was also agreement that learning is highly contextualised and thus what ‘works’ in one context may not in others.

The conversation was rather generous and gentle on this first occasion but I am sure over time more robust and critically reflective discussions will emerge as we explore our different perspectives, gain critical distance and interrogate the assumptions, values and beliefs that underpin policy and practice.

What might the consequences be if right across the country such teachers’ reading groups developed? Professional space is surely needed to consider quality research evidence, to read new empirical studies and well-established texts, and to debate the methods used and insights claimed.

Teachers, whilst respecting children’s voices, need to be careful not to dismiss their own views, their own potential as researchers, and the value of connecting to the work of others.

The next meeting of CPRT’s London Teachers Reading Group is on November 13th when Carol Robinson’s report on her updated research review will be discussed. Please contact Greg Frame if you would like to attend. All are welcome.

Carol Robinson’s report is one of five mini-projects in which CPRT has commissioned researchers to revisit and re-assess published research relating to CPRT’s eight priorities. The original 28 CPR research surveys were published in 2007-8. They were then revised for publication in The Cambridge Primary Review Research Surveys (2010).

For information about the Trust’s current research, click here.

 

by

Seize the moment: the future of primary education

One of our Schools Alliance members, Fulbridge Academy, Peterborough, has issued a call to fight the narrow strictures placed on educators by successive governments and pursue a broad, balanced curriculum for all children in line with the findings of the Cambridge Primary Review.

As we approach the General Election in May 2015, watch this inspiring declaration of core educational principles and contribute to the Cambridge Primary Review Trust’s quest to identify what the next government’s policy priorities should be for primary education.

by

Teaching or testing: which matters more?

On 26th September the Schools Minister, Nick Gibb, was extremely pleased to announce that the results of the phonics check for 6 year olds in England had improved considerably: 18 per cent more children had reached the ‘expected standard’ in 2014 than in 2012 when the test was introduced. A government spokesman stated that ‘100,000 more children than in 2012 are on track to become excellent readers’.

As primary teachers are aware, the phonics check has become a high stakes test. School results are collated and analysed in depth through RAISEOnline and made available to Ofsted inspectors, who are explicitly told to consider these results as evidence of the effective teaching of early reading in the current framework for Ofsted inspections.

The CPR final report in 2010 pointed out that primary children in England were tested more frequently than in many other countries, including some that rank higher in the international performance league tables. Since then the difference has become even more marked. Further tests have been introduced – the phonics check and the introduction of a grammar strand in the tests for 11 year olds – with the intention of introducing a similar grammar strand for 7 year olds in 2016.

Politicians like Nick Gibb like to claim that tests like these raise standards, yet CPR found that the evidence of a causal relationship between tests and raised standards was at best oblique. It continues to be unconvincing. Scores in the tests rise, certainly. But what high stakes tests do is ‘force teachers, pupils and parents to concentrate their attention on those areas of learning to be tested, too often to the exclusion of much activity of considerable educational importance'(CPR final report, page 325).

This is particularly true of the phonics check with its 20 phonically-regular real words and 20 non- words to be decoded, with 80 per cent accuracy required if it is to be passed. Indeed, as Alice Bradbury points out, there is considerable disquiet that the check was introduced by politicians as a means of forcing teachers to change the way they teach early reading.

In his rather approving analysis of the test results David Waugh said, ‘I know many teachers who now concentrate a lot of time on teaching children how to read invented words to help them pass the test.’ This has been my experience too.

Thus the test promotes a distortion of reading development. Teachers in primary classrooms spend extra time on teaching children how to read made-up words, diminishing the time for reading real words and teaching the other strategies needed for accurate word reading (whole word recognition of irregular words, the use of context for words such as read, for example), let alone comprehension and the wider experience of different kinds of text.

Increased test scores do not infallibly demonstrate improved standards. Wynne Harlen confirms this in the forthcoming review of research on assessment and testing which CPRT has commissioned as one of its 2014 research updates of evidence cited by CPR (to be published shortly: watch this space). It is therefore hardly surprising that results of the phonics check have improved as teachers become familiar with the demands of the test and adapt their teaching in line with them. Yet here we have a test that undermines the curriculum and is unlikely to give any useful information about children’s reading development; a government which is committed to increasing the number of tests young children are subject to despite evidence of their negative effects; and an opposition that has given no indication that it will change this situation if elected in 2015.

In 2010 the Cambridge Primary Review cited assessment reform as one of its eleven post-election policy priorities for the incoming government. As we approach the 2015 election assessment reform remains, in my view, as urgent a priority as it was in 2010.

David Reedy, formerly Principal Primary Adviser in Barking and Dagenham LA, is a CPRT co-director and General Secretary of UKLA.

by

2015 election countdown: CPRT and NUT

Those contemplating their contribution to CPRT’s policy priorities for the 2015 election should read the National Union of Teachers Manifesto for our Children’s Education. This is not some ideological wish-list but a sensible and principled statement with a firm basis in evidence. The proposals on child poverty, the curriculum, assessment, teacher development, accountability, localism and the strengthening of education as a public service are all in line with those from the Cambridge Primary Review.

To contribute to CPRT’s own policy priorities exercise see our blog of 25 September.

by

Teachers, doctors and woolly tights

A friend of mine has just qualified as a GP. Her salary is £80K. I have just qualified as a teacher. My salary is £23K. Fair? Right? I don’t think so.

My friend drives a BMW generously coated with special glittery paint and with heated seats for those chilly winter mornings. I drive a rusting Ford Focus and wear woolly tights. So much for John Major and his 1990 promise that the ‘man in the woolly jumper and battered Sedan’ would no longer be the local teacher.

If I sound a trifle peeved, that’s because I am. It is a small consolation that my fellow citizens judge teachers’ wages too low, but there’s no way the profession is going to get the 15 per cent rise they consider fair.

Of course, I realise that my GP friend makes the occasional life-and-death decision – and everyone wants her to get it right. But bear in mind that ‘teachers hold in their hands the success of our country and the wellbeing of its citizens’. Quite a tall order.

Teachers are also ‘the most important fighters in the battle to make opportunity more equal’. In addition, we are ‘the critical guardians of the intellectual life of the nation’. Furthermore, we ‘give children the tools by which they can become authors of their own life story and builders of a better world’. And finally, as if we didn’t have enough to do, we are ‘the unacknowledged legislators of mankind’.

Mr Gove, whose words I have just quoted, expected an awful lot for his £23K.

There are other parallels between teachers and medics. Workload is one. Both professions are overburdened, but it is possible to work extremely part-time on a GP’s ample salary. It isn’t on mine. This is a controversial point because it is seen as being anti all the GPs who combine raising a family with having a career. Let me just say that I support part-time working for all: men, women – and teachers.

Nevertheless I was peeved (again) by a recent encounter with a local GP. I was suffering from a bad hip; she was young, glowing, Superhero fit and ever so slightly smug. It became apparent that she earned twice my wage for two days a week work. She enquired if my hip pain was enough to stop me jogging. No, I shouted to myself. I hate jogging. I can’t work out how to carry and mark all those books at the same time.

Ah but remember, I hear you cry, those poor medical students. Look how hard they work and how long their training is – so much longer than that of would-be teachers. But surely having to do a responsible job with insufficient training is a reason for paying teachers more not less? GPs have had eight years to prepare themselves for the routine maladies presented by Mr and Mrs Jones for seven minutes at a time on average. Most teachers have had one year to prepare themselves for routine challenges presented simultaneously by 25 or more young people for several hours a day.

It just can’t be done, however good the training – and mine was very good. There is no way the most committed trainers, the best mentors and the most excellent teaching schools can possibly impart everything a teacher needs to know in a single year. Every day, I discover, stumble over and fall into the inevitable crevasses that await a teacher doing everything for the first time.

I am supposed to be a member of Mr Gove’s ‘best generation of teachers ever’, so why do I feel as if I have been thrown in the deep end of a murky pool with a very small and punctured lilo for support. I do sometimes reach for my passport and check out the price of flights to Helsinki. Teachers in Finland are the most respected and trusted professionals in a country remarkable for its ‘paramount commitment to social and educational equity through a genuinely comprehensive school system of consistently high quality,’ as the Cambridge Primary Review pointed out. Their training is lengthy, rigorous and thorough. No sinking feelings for them.

But no glittering BMWs either. Perhaps surprisingly, Finnish teachers’ pay also lags behind that of GPs – though the gap is not as wide as it is in the UK. I put my passport back in the drawer. Of course, it isn’t all about money, but my woolly tights would have to be a lot woollier to see me through a bitter Finnish winter.

Stephanie Northen is a teacher and journalist. She was one of the authors of the Cambridge Primary Review final report.

by Robin Alexander

2015 election countdown: what do we want for primary education?

It’s party conference time again. Season of grandiose claims, hollow promises, choreographed ovations, and now – a conference first – chunks of speech that are too important to be delivered.

When Ed Miliband confessed to forgetting those vital paragraphs on migration and the financial deficit at this week’s Labour Party Conference, I found myself hoping the other party leaders would follow suit by forgetting to talk about education. Forlorn hope. In the countdown to the 2015 UK general election we can reliably predict that the Govine legacy will be lauded as the most radical and successful programme of educational reform ever, at a stroke hauling a failing education system back from the brink and making our schools truly ‘world class.’ World class: among crowning political fatuities only ‘the best ever’ comes close. Best ever since when? 2010? 1066? The big bang? And who was around to collect the evidence?

Leaving such rhetorical games to those who choose to play them, but reminding ourselves that the evidence assessed in the Cambridge Primary Review final report provided a more measured account of ministerial achievements, the final party conferences before the 2015 election trigger something closer to home: our quest to identify what we believe should be the next government’s policy priorities for primary education. As in 2010, we shall present the resulting statement to party leaders, ministers and their opposition shadows, and we’ll give it the widest possible publicity.

In 2010, drawing on the Cambridge Primary Review final report and reactions to that report voiced at the ensuing dissemination conferences, we nominated 11 policy priorities.  These recommended specific action on children’s voice and rights, the early years, aims, curriculum, assessment, pedagogy, professional development, school staffing and educational partnership. These nine were topped and tailed by two imperatives which remain as urgent now as they were then: ‘Accelerate the drive to reduce England’s gross and overlapping gaps in wealth, wellbeing and attainment’, and ‘Rebalance the relationship between government, national agencies, local authorities and schools.’ By many accounts the wealth and attainment gaps have widened while the removal of the remaining checks and balances between Westminster and England’s schools have made our education system more centralised than ever.

Although, a year on from CPR’s final report, I was able in the Brian Simon Memorial Lecture to record modest progress in relation to some of our 2010 priorities, and although it’s clear that CPR and CPRT have played their part in securing this, most of them required and require continuing vigilance and effort. That’s why the eight priorities with which CPRT was launched in 2013 echo some of those from 2010; and it’s why CPRT’s new research projects  and professional development programmes focus on voice, learning, teaching, curriculum, assessment and tackling disadvantage.

Here’s the invitation then. Please tell us what the next government should do – or not do – in order to help schools provide the best possible primary education for all the nation’s children.

You may wish to voice your views by adding comments to this blog. Or you may prefer to email us. If you are involved with one of CPRT’s regional networks you may want to encourage discussion locally or within your own school. In any event, please tell us what you propose. We’d also encourage you to look again at the CPR and CPRT priorities referred to above. Are these still as pressing as they were? Do some override others? Once we’ve heard from you – preferably by the end of this term – we shall combine your proposals with our own to produce a draft set of primary education priorities for the next government. We’ll then consult further on these before firming them up and publishing them.

Of course, you may feel this exercise has little point on the grounds that governments are influenced more by ministerial prejudice and tabloid headlines than by evidence or reason. Despair at Westminster’s impervious arrogance has been prominent lately in Scotland, but south of the border it’s pretty widespread too. You may also have registered the CPR/CPRT leitmotif that policymakers have less influence than they believe and teachers have more, while what counts for children is not the latest DfE initiative but what happens in classrooms. That’s true, too. Yet policy undoubtedly frames and constrains our professional actions, especially in a regime as centralised and ideologically-driven as England’s, and to that extent we should do our utmost to influence it.

So please accept this invitation. Let us know what you want the makers of education policy to do for our children’s primary education after the 2015 general election.

www.robinalexander.org.uk

by Robin Alexander

In praise of… Fred Jarvis and Michael Armstrong

Saturday 13 September: up betimes to celebrate not one birthday but two.  To Southampton first for Michael Armstrong’s 80th.  Then on to London for Fred Jarvis’s 90th.

Over many decades these two exceptional educators have trodden very different paths to the same elusive destination: an education that is in the best sense comprehensive. Comprehensive in the access it offers all children, regardless of birth, income or circumstance, to learning that engages, inspires and empowers; comprehensive in its quest for human betterment, equity and social justice. Both of them have also been good friends to the Cambridge Primary Review.         Michael contributed to its final report.  Fred repeatedly excoriated ministers for playing fast and loose with its evidence.

Their birthday parties offered glimpses of the richness of their hinterlands. Michael, steeped in literature and music, chose to mark the occasion with a concert at which his son gave barnstorming accounts of two of the most taxing pieces in the piano repertoire. Fred’s guests were surrounded by his photographs of some of the many political leaders he has worked with and against, his sobering images of postwar Europe and Russia, views of himself in full flow at National Union of Teachers (NUT) conferences, and of course his trademark close-ups of floral perfection.

Michael has always stayed close to the classroom. He taught in Leicestershire and London before serving for 19 years as head of Harwell Primary School in Oxfordshire. In 1980 he published Closely Observed Children, the first of two books which chronicle children’s outer behaviours and inner lives and demonstrate their immense capacities for learning and imagining. Compulsory reading for those – and sadly there still are some – who hold to the view that chronological age imposes arbitrary limits on those capacities, this book is also a fine example of ethnographic research. A quarter of a century later came the sequel, Children Writing Stories (2006) in which Michael couples examples of children’s writing with his own persuasive accounts of the imaginative power and narrative skill that the stories reveal. Intense and illuminating, the book impelled former Children’s Laureate Michael Morpurgo to exclaim, ‘Unlock the chains, let the light in, and this is the kind of writing that will flow.’ He was referring of course to the children, but the accolade applies equally to the writing that flows from Michael’s acute and revelatory intelligence.

This is the world Michael has revealed in both his highly-regarded summer schools in Vermont and his articles and editorial work for Forum, that fine and still flourishing campaigning journal founded in 1958 by Brian Simon, Robin Pedley and Jack Walton. And educational campaigning is the link between Michael and Fred Jarvis, whose autobiography appeared a few weeks ago with the sub-title Reflections of a cockney campaigner for education.

Fred’s career has been nothing short of remarkable: from London’s East End and wartime evacuation to Wallasey, to the D-day landings, Liverpool and Oxford universities and a lifelong dedication to politics, education and West Ham. His was a career sandwiched by union presidencies – the National Union of Students and the Trades Union Congress – and amply and courageously filled with his work for the NUT, of which he was General Secretary from 1975-89, a role which put him on a collision course with more than one secretary of state.

That would have been enough for most of us. But it didn’t stop there and hasn’t stopped since. Since his ‘retirement’ Fred has fought the educational fight with undimmed vigour, meanwhile assembling numerous photographic exhibitions and commuting between London and his beloved Provence. He has set up and for many years chaired what is now the New Visions for Education Group, an organisation of over 100 members which champions an inclusive and well-founded public education service providing a high quality education for all, with the advancement of children’s rights and a properly-functioning democracy as both precondition and consequence. While NVG is politically unaffiliated, its aims have inevitably set it against government attempts to weaken education as a public service through marketisation, the impoverished educational vision that has characterised recent political interventions in curriculum and assessment, and the contempt for evidence that education ministers habitually display.

Throughout, while some of us despaired at these tendencies, Fred maintained his belief in the importance of political engagement and his optimism that good sense would prevail, though his autobiography names one or two recent Secretaries of State who were beyond redemption.

Both Fred Jarvis and Michael Armstrong combine in their distinctive ways principled commitment, lively intelligence, deep understanding, unshakeable integrity and a keen awareness of history and its lessons, all basic qualifications for educational leadership. Signalling the gulf sartorially, Fred’s lustrous silk ties and immaculate suits are a league apart from the grey suits and greyer minds of those educational leaders whose checklist – it can hardly be called a vision – starts and stops with whatever DfE mandates and Ofsted inspects, who jump on whichever policy bandwagon offers the best prospects for patronage, promotion and preferment, and who preach the importance of enlarging the child’s experience while doing nothing to enlarge their own.

Happy birthday, Fred.   Happy birthday Michael.  We need you more than ever.

www.robinalexander.org.uk

by

Time for some insubordination

Before July 14, I was happy. OK, I’m lying, but who cares about the feelings of someone barely out of NQT nappies? Certainly not the education politicians who can break teachers with a brisk sweep of a policy brush – ‘Heh, let’s abolish levels!’ ‘Tell you what, let’s assess all subjects … all the time!’ (Pause for righteous fear and loathing.) Yet, though the powers-that-be are not remotely interested in the content of my opening sentence, they are interested in its grammar. They care about my use of the word ‘before’.

How do I know? Well, back in July, I read these three sentences on the Department for Education website:

‘We left the cinema before the end of the film.’

‘The train ticket is cheaper before 9:00 in the morning.’

‘I brush my teeth before I have breakfast.’

I then read the accompanying question: which of the sentences uses the word ‘before’ as a preposition and which as a subordinating conjunction? Hmm. Tricky. First, I had to put aside any normal thoughts such as train tickets are actually more expensive before 9am. And isn’t it better to brush your teeth after breakfast? Never mind the human drama that lurked behind the decision to leave the cinema early. Spilled popcorn? Spilled tears? The sight of a lover with a rival… Stop!

Yes, I admit it. I didn’t know the answer. As a child of the 1960s, I was not taught grammar any more than I was taught the scientific composition of the paint we used in art. ‘Today, children, we will be learning how to collect and dry the corpses of female cochineal beetles. Artists can use the resulting red colour to paint fabulous sunsets…’

In that BG (Before Gove) era, the explicit teaching of grammar was regarded as harmful. Young imaginations risked being cabined, cribbed, confined. Young minds would be pained by concepts too abstruse for them to grasp. No longer.  The question on the use of the word ‘before’ appears in the sample Grammar, Spelling and Punctuation test, published on July 14, and intended to be taken by Year 6s in 2016. Hedged about by caveats and disclaimers, this test is nevertheless the only concrete example of the ordeal that awaits the current Year 5s – and their teachers. Remember, the 2016 test is going to be Much Harder (ungrammatical use of capital letters for emphasis) than its three predecessors as it is the first to be based on Mr Gove’s new primary English curriculum – the one which devotes 15 more pages to spelling and grammar appendices than it does to actual aims and content.

The sample test does include a little story, no doubt a sop for those who pleaded for grammar to be taught in context. What a shame it is a pitiful non-story about a squirrel in a park notable only for an unnaturally large number of semi-colons and colons. Helpful hints for teachers also appear. One reads ‘this question assesses the ability to transform given verb stems into the past progressive form, and understanding of the term.’ Clear as mud is the simile that springs to mind. Don’t the powers-that-be realise that some children in Year 6 struggle to remember their full stops and capital letters? Shocking maybe, but true.

Gove’s decision, back in 2012, to impose a formal grammar test on Year 6 children was hotly debated at the time. The NUT and the NAHT talked of a boycott. Michael Rosen argued powerfully that this pernickety, ‘there-is-a-right-answer’ approach to grammar was wrong-headed in linguistic terms. He also warned that it was yet another mechanism to control schools and would add to the ‘army of passive, failed people’ needed to keep wages down. Even the government’s own advisers warned against it.

So of course in 2013 the Spag test, based on the old curriculum, went ahead. Now the protests have faded – or at least so it seems to me. Occasionally last year, I would look up from my marking/assessment/lesson planning/resource hunting/display mounting/behaviour managing/weeping to wonder why no one was shouting any more that teaching young children about fronted adverbials was not going to help them read, write or function as human beings FULL STOP.

Instead, there are now numerous education resources and organisations promising to help teachers with their modal verbs and relative clauses. The message seems to be, ‘No one really believes in teaching this stuff, but here’s a way to do it.’ But if no one believes in teaching it, perhaps – radical thought here – it shouldn’t be taught. What a shame teachers are not permitted, in accordance with CPRT principles, ‘to exercise the responsible and informed autonomy that is the mark of a mature profession’.

After all, as the final report of the Cambridge Primary Review pointed out, ‘the goal of literacy must be more than just functional’. Literacy should confer the skill ‘not just to read and write but to make these processes genuinely transformative, exciting children’s imagination, extending their boundaries and enabling them to contemplate lives and worlds possible as well as actual’.

I did extend some boundaries this summer. Sadly I was not planning literacy lessons rich with talk of how to write wondrous stories, whimsical poems and powerful letters to politicians. Instead, I was shamefully and secretly working on my grammar. My time could have been so much better spent – and so could the children’s. Let’s ditch the grammar test before* it is too late.

* subordinating conjunction or preposition? You decide.

Stephanie Northen is a teacher and journalist. She was one of the authors of the Cambridge Primary Review final report.

by Robin Alexander

What you may have missed during August

Forthcoming events, hard lessons from the United States, Eton speaks, sustainability, global citizenship, Cameron’s ‘family test’, and tributes to Anna Craft … What you may have missed during August.

CPRT’s new website went live just before the end of the summer term. Among its innovations is a more or less weekly blog to which you are invited to respond and which many are now regularly circulating via Twitter and email. The blog continued throughout August, for not everyone was on holiday and neither education nor the wider world took a break.

If you’ve just returned from holiday, or if with impressive self-discipline you switched off your computer, smartphone or tablet for the duration, here’s what we have discussed.

I’ve held the fort during August but you’ll be relieved to hear that during the coming weeks others will be joining me on CPRT’s blog roster. Apart from commentary on current educational developments, we’ll be sharing findings from CPRT’s eight new research projects and consulting about the messages we should give to the parties contesting the 2015 general election.  CPR conducted a similar exercise before the 2010 election. Have the resulting 11 policy priorities been addressed? What has the Coalition done right and wrong? What hopes should we voice for 2015?

Events

Also on the home page is an expanding list of events for teachers organised by CPRT and others. Contact links are provided. If your own organisation wishes to advertise a forthcoming event, please contact CPRT’s administrator, Greg Frame.

Join us

Information about CPRT’s news, events and blogs is sent to all those on our mailing list. If you do not yet receive these alerts and would like to do so, please subscribe here. If you know of others who may be interested or in your view ought to know about the legacy of CPR and the work of CPRT – especially serving teachers, trainee teachers, teacher educators and professional consultants – please forward the form to them. Our mailing list is treated in strictest confidence and you are free to unsubscribe at any time.

Equally, if you wish to work with others in your region, contact your nearest CPRT Regional Network Co-ordinator.

www.robinalexander.org.uk

by

Thinking outside the National Curriculum box – CPRT’s South East network and Schools Alliance join forces

On 2 July, 2014, one of our Schools Alliance members, Hythe Bay Church of England Primary School, held an event in conjunction with our South East network (based at Canterbury Christ Church University). Entitled ‘Waving not drowning in the new primary curriculum‘, teachers were given an opportunity to discuss and share progress in planning for all subjects in the new Primary Curriculum (including assessment implications).

It was underpinned by the principles, values and priorities of the Cambridge Primary Review Trust, and you can read a report of the activity here.

Contact

Cambridge Primary Review Trust - Email: administrator@cprtrust.org.uk