Same day intervention

This project was undertaken by Thorpe Church of England Primary School and led by Mandy Ambridge.

Scope of project

  • Adopting a two part lesson approach, teachers will begin with an input phase (35 minutes) followed by a more independent practice phase (25 minutes). During the input phase, teachers will be able to identify students who may need extra support and those who are comfortable with the content. The practice phase can then be used to allow those who are comfortable to consolidate their learning. Intervention would be provided for those less confident students to enable them to reach the required level.
  • The research project will be trialled with at least 1 class for a minimum of 1 term.
  • A short evaluation will be completed at least twice (once per half term) during the course of the project; an evaluation template will be provided by SJB.
  • A case study produced to reflect on the project with specific examples and evidence (and research where possible).
  • Showcase the results of the research project at the next primary conference (Spring 2016)
  • Share the results of the project and work collaboratively to implement in at least 4 other schools.



Thorpe Church of England Primary School is a growing Primary school with 165 on role at present from 4 to 10 years (EYFS to year 5). It is a one form entry school growing by one year group yearly until September 2016.

The project was initially to take place in year 3, 4 and 5 but due to staffing and the needs of the children it was implemented in year 5 consistently with year 3 and 4 dipping in when possible.


Research completed

Previous experience of intervention in our school has been it is most effective when it is short term and is targeted and measurable ie First class @ Number

Alice Hansen in ‘Children errors in Mathematics’ (2013) says:

‘Misconceptions are a natural part of a child’s conceptual development and consequently greater time in mathematical lessons should be given to encourage children to make connections between aspects of mathematical learning and their own meanings’

The Williams review (2008) quotes research from Every child counts development group ‘ Intervention was more successful when carried out by a qualified teacher with secure mathematics who assessed the child’s learning needs accurately and used resources and activities flexibly’

The Williams review (2008) suggests that the ‘Essential characteristics of intervention’ include:

  • Assessment – accurate identify children who need intervention
  • Timing – once the weakness is identified it must be addressed before the child’s long term confidence is eroded. (this refers to addressing the issue in KS 1 but can be linked to early intervention)
  • Teacher led intervention
  • Need for Coherence between intervention strategy and whole class activities


Data collection

Prior to and after project – Rising Stars Number and Place Value assessment

After project – pupil attitudinal survey, pupil interviews, teacher and teaching assistant interviews.


Resources Developed

Planning sheet to reflect needs of lesson structure. Also include possible misconceptions.

Collection of ‘going deeper’ challenges.

Daily assessment sheet.



Implementing the same day intervention


First half Autumn Term 2015 (September 2015)

In September we had daily maths lessons from 9.00 till 9.45 followed by time to mark and review whilst the children worked on SPAG with a TA. Then we had a second session from 10.05 till 10.25 when we provided deeper tasks for the TA to complete with the majority of the class whilst we intervened with those who had not achieved the learning objective to address their misconceptions.

Issues and Barriers

  • Timings – With new complex content it took time to do the whole class input and therefore there was little time to practice and decide who was on track.
  • ‘Marking time’ – is often rushed for teacher and difficult to resource valuable activity for the class to complete. TA delivers SPAG in this time currently not sure this is effective.
  • Consolidation activities –need a bank of resources!
  • TA has to explain the consolidation task– needs to be quick to explain TA needs to understand the task!? (TA in year 5 currently doing Maths Hub training)
  • What mark and when? – assume from first session who got it then double check those not sure of and decide who in which group for follow up?


Second half Autumn Term 2015 (October 2015)

In October 2015 we changed our timetable to suit the needs of the case study and the children. We had a Maths session 9 till 10 every morning, at around 9.50 we peer or self mark and the children also self assess using red/amber or green. They place their Maths books or work in 3 boxes as well red/amber/green to reflect how they feel about their progress that day. During the rest of the morning and lunchtime we look at the books and how the children feel and decide which group best suits their needs for the second session. We have a second maths session from 1 till 1.30 in the afternoon during which the teacher introduces the task for the Green and Amber group and then works with the Red group.

Issues and Barriers

  • Format change – this addressed many of the issues from September.
  • Time – longer spent on Maths now impact on other subjects but easier to input maths content.
  • Time to mark and assess work –still ongoing issue.
  • TA on sick leave- no TA for either of the Maths sessions to support learning.
  • Building up ideas for easy to explain but valuable ‘ going deeper’ tasks


Impact so far

  • One term is too short and one class too limited to have any real definitive proof of impact, however it is useful to be able to identify and target immediately those children who are struggling to understand concepts introduced. Also when questioned, all the children in the class had a positive attitude towards maths and the same day interventions.

“If I don’t get it in the morning I get it in the afternoon”

“I like doing it on the same day, it helps me understand more than I did.”

“I like doing it twice you can sort out your mistakes.”

  • Intervention is very targeted as works on the concepts introduced that day unlike other interventions ie snap and first class which follow their own programs. Resulting in improved understanding.
  • Children are also becoming more capable at self- assessment using the coloured boxes and taking ownership of their own learning.
  • Class generally very supportive of each other in terms of making mistakes and learning from each other-no stigma attached to putting work into the red box- fluid as to who puts their book in there.
  • High quality intervention as delivered by a teacher. This teacher has also marked the work so fully understands the nature of the errors and misconceptions.


Observations/children’s progress

It is difficult to assess the children’s progress over and above what would be normal progress however children were assessed on the Rising Stars diagnostic test on entry and at Christmas and 92% children have made progress. There is no way of knowing at this time whether this would be better or worse without the same day intervention.

Looking at the data and from classroom observations and discussions with the children, same day intervention does seem to suit girls, who on entry to year 5 lacked confidence, as the progress they have made is very good.

Results of pupil attitudinal survey show significant improvement in how children feel about maths.

  • 13% more children consider themselves good at maths and 23% more consider themselves very good at maths;
  • Half as many children now rate themselves as ‘in the middle/average’ after the first term of SDI.

See below:


How would you rate yourself in the class?


Very good Good In the Middle Not so good
Before SDI 0% 28% 71.5% 0.5%
After SDI 23% 41% 35.5% 0.5%


  • A large increase can be seen in the enjoyment of maths;
  • Significant decrease in children considering maths to be ok.


See below:


How much do you enjoy maths?


I really like it I like it It is ok I do not like it
Before SDI 31.5% 18% 50% 0.5%
After SDI 31.5% 45% 23% 0.5%


All the above shows the children have become more resilient, are more motivated within lessons and feel a sense of empowerment through higher ownership of their own learning


Considerations for further implementation

A need for more ‘going deeper’ tasks is required to further consolidate the learning of the children who grasp the concepts from first session.

The provision for children who are SEND and are significantly behind ( 2 years or more) needs to be addressed.

Time available to assess and mark work and prepare resources for intervention.

Impact on other subjects due to time allocated to maths.


Quotes from children interviews

“I enjoy the challenge of the afternoon activities.” (more able child)

“I am very confident with maths and enjoy the afternoon activities they are fun.”

“I feel more confident this year.”

“Things make more sense than before. The challenge in the afternoon helps me”

“Maths is fun”

“I feel good and confident.”

“Maths is my favourite subject. I understand more now and after lunch makes sure that I understand. It’s good I can improve what I have done.”

“Fresher in my mind than doing it the next day.”


Teacher quotes

“It is very satisfying knowing that I am addressing the children’s learning needs immediately.”

“I feel more in control of the children’s learning. From my experience of other interventions they are most successful when they are short term and focussed which SDI definitely is”

“I enjoy working alongside the teacher in the classroom instead of withdrawing children to work with. I feel better placed to help the children progress and can ask the teacher for advice immediately.”


Click here to download the powerpoint from the spring conference Session 2 – Intervention

1 comment

Leave a Reply

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