Evaluation of the Two Year Key Stage 3 Project - Communities and ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

1. EVALUATION OF TWO YEAR KEY STAGE 3 PROJECTThe Two Year Key Stage 3 Project was proposed within the 2001 Green Paper Schools: Building onSuccess and launched in 2003. The aim of the Project was for participating schools to increase the paceof learning among pupils, to improve the transition from Key Stage 2 (KS2) to Key Stage 3 (KS3) andalso improve pupils’ motivation and engagement during Years 7, 8 and 9 - the years conventionallydevoted to Key Stage 3. By completing Key Stage 3 in two years, schools could then devote the savedtime to Key Stage 4 (KS4) studies, including early entry to General Certificate of Secondary Education(GCSE) examinations, and to enrichment activities for their pupils.The Project formed part of the Key Stage 3 Strategy which was delivered by CfBT and then Capitaunder a contract with the Department for Education and Skills (DfES). Schools participating in the TwoYear Key Stage 3 Project were encouraged to find ways to complete programmes of study for KeyStage 3 in two years rather than the conventional three.Two cohorts of schools were recruited to participate in the Project. The schools involved in Phase 1 ofthe Project initiated a two year Key Stage for their Year 7 intake from September 2003. Twenty-twoschools were involved in delivering a two year Key Stage within Phase 1 and this diverse group ofschools were located throughout England. A second group of schools, comprising eighteen schools alllocated in London, were recruited to Phase 2 of the Project. These schools offered a two yearprogramme of study to pupils entering Year 7 from September 2004. A consortium comprisingresearchers from the London School of Economics and the National Foundation for EducationalResearch was commissioned by the Department for Education and Skills to evaluate the initiative.This report presents the evaluation findings.2. METHODS2.1 SampleThe research had three main elements. The first examined pupils’ attainment during Key Stage 3. Thesecond addressed pupils’ motivation and engagement via questionnaires. The third examined, via casestudies, how a Two Year Key Stage 3 fitted in with the work of individual schools.For the first two of these elements - the analysis of pupils’ attainment and responses to the attitudinalsurvey - research was also carried out in a selection of Comparison schools. There were separateComparison groups for Phase 1 and Phase 2 schools. These were recruited from schools in Englandknown to be already using the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority (QCA) Optional Tests for Year7 and Year 8 pupils. 2 For the Comparison groups, random samples of 60 schools were drawn to beapproached to participate in the evaluation. These schools were selected to be representative of theProject schools in terms of Key Stage 3 performance, school type, 3 region and known eligibility for freeschool meals (FSM). The final number of Phase 1 Comparison schools was 17. In the case of the Phase2 Comparison group, 12 schools were recruited to participate in the study from schools in London thatwere known to be using the Optional Tests. (For more details see Annex A.)2 It was originally planned for pupils at Phase 2 schools to take the Optional Tests in Year 7 and Year 8 but it wassubsequently decided to restrict the attainment analysis to the Phase 1 Project and comparison group.3 Middle schools were excluded.7
2.2 Attainment and attitudesThe timing of the attainment and attitudinal elements of the research are shown in Table 1. As can beseen, attainment analysis focused only on pupils at Phase 1 schools. For this cohort two attainmentcomparisons were possible. The first made use of the QCA Optional Tests (OTs) in mathematics andEnglish for pupils in Years 7 and 8. Phase 1 Project schools were asked that pupils following two yearprogrammes in these subjects should undertake the Year 7 and Year 8 Optional Tests. All pupils at theComparison schools were also requested to undertake these tests. Thus, we were able to compare theattainment of pupils following an ‘accelerated’ Key Stage with the attainment of pupils of the same ageattending schools offering a conventional three year Key Stage 3.In the case of the Year 7 Optional Test analysis, only pupils who had achieved an appropriate level atKey Stage 2 and were therefore working at an appropriate level (as specified by QCA) to be assessed bythe Year 7 tests were included in the statistical modelling. For the Year 8 tests, all pupils that schoolschose to enter for the tests were included in the statistical modelling. For the main models, relating tooverall test scores or levels achieved in English and mathematics, at least 2200 pupils were included inthe analysis. 4Pupils’ test scores were matched to data relating to prior attainment and school characteristics (drawnfrom PLASC) and also to pupils’ responses to questions relating to home background in thequestionnaires (completed as part of the examination of pupils’ motivation and engagement). Multilevelmodelling was the statistical technique used to analyse this data. 5Phase 1 Project schools were also able to enter pupils early (in Year 8) for their statutory Key Stage 3tests. Where schools chose to do this, the test results of early entrants were compared with the resultsof pupils nationally. However, it must be noted that Project schools were able to choose which pupils toenter for the Key Stage 3 tests whereas this was not the case for schools nationally that entered pupils inYear 9. In addition, this analysis did not take into account the range of background factors included inthe analysis of Optional Test results.Pupils at Phase 1 Project and Comparison schools were asked to complete an attitude questionnairewhen they were in Years 7, 8 and 9. Pupils attending Phase 2 Project and Comparison schoolscompleted the questionnaire when they were in Years 7 and 8. Responses to individual items werecombined to form scales and changes in those scale scores were examined from one year to the next.Table 1 - Timing of the attainment and attitudinal elements of the evaluationPhase 1 Project andComparison Schools2003/04 2004/05 2005/06Year 7Year 8Year 9Pupil survey and OTs Pupil survey, OTs, KS3 tests Pupil surveyPhase 2 Project andComparison schoolsYear 7Pupil surveyYear 8Pupil surveyIn addition to the elements shown in Table 1, Project schools were contacted in the Spring terms of2004 and 2005 to identify which pupils were following a condensed Key Stage 3 in which subjects.4 The number of schools from which these pupils were drawn varied between models (ranging from 23 to 31 schools). Thisis because not all Phase 1 Project schools provided shortened mathematics and English courses (and therefore not all Phase 1Project schools had any pupils to enter for the Optional Tests). In addition, a few schools did not return test scores for allelements of the evaluation.5 Multi-level modelling is a form of multiple linear regression that takes into account the clustering of pupils within schools.8
Page 1 and 2: RESEARCHEvaluation of the Two YearK
Page 4 and 5: CONTENTSEXECUTIVE SUMMARY 21. EVALU
Page 6: nationally expected level for pupil
Page 9: For schools operating an accelerate
Page 13 and 14: could follow a Year 7 and Year 8 Ke
Page 15 and 16: Figure 2 - Percentage of Project sc
Page 17 and 18: The analysis of Key Stage 3 results
Page 19 and 20: Table 4 - Proportion of pupils achi
Page 21 and 22: Figure 4 - 2005 Key Stage 3 mathema
Page 23 and 24: Table 6 - Proportion of pupils achi
Page 25 and 26: SummaryIn the case of English, when
Page 27 and 28: 4.4 Attainment summaryThe analysis
Page 29 and 30: to 8 these were in the opposite dir
Page 31 and 32: Figure 10 - Percentage of Year 7 pu
Page 33 and 34: 6. ANALYSIS OF CASE STUDY DATAAs ha
Page 35 and 36: Table 9 - Operationalisation of the
Page 37 and 38: 6.1 Overall viewsMost, though not a
Page 39 and 40: Points of interest for the higher s
Page 41 and 42: The key advantage is opening up Key
Page 43 and 44: 6.3 ProgressionNevertheless, findin
Page 45 and 46: would no longer exist. Both of the
Page 47 and 48: However, as a colleague noted, even
Page 49 and 50: Most commonly the freedom was used
Page 51 and 52: Phase 2 Project and Phase 2 Compari
Page 53 and 54: A11 - Key Stage 3 attainmentProject
Page 55 and 56: A20 - Reported number of books in t
Page 57 and 58: The variables listed below were inc
Page 59 and 60: Table C1 - Final model for Year 7 M
Page 62 and 63:
Table C3 - Final model for Year 7 E
Page 64 and 65:
Figure C2 - Year 7 English Optional
Page 66 and 67:
Table C8 - Final model for Year 8 m
Page 68 and 69:
Figure C4 - Year 8 mathematics high
Page 70 and 71:
Table C11 - Final model for Year 8
Page 72:
Good teachersMy teachers make sure
Page 75 and 76:
ANNEX F - CASE STUDY SUMMARIESPhoeb
Page 77 and 78:
Abbotswell SchoolThe case study vis
Page 79 and 80:
Elsiemaud SchoolThe case study visi
Page 81 and 82:
Henryson SchoolThe case study visit
Page 83 and 84:
ANNEX G - OTHER EARLY ENTRANTS TO 2
Page 85 and 86:
Table G5 - Key Stage 3 Mathematics
show all

Evaluation of the Two Year Key Stage 3 Project - Communities and ...

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?