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

nationally expected level for pupils at the end of Key Stage 3 (i.e., Level 5/6). This is in contrast topupils nationally, who entered the tests at the end of Year 9 in accordance with statutory requirements.This creates difficulties in interpreting the results: whereas accelerated pupils at Project schools wereselected for early entry to the tests, at other schools all Year 9 pupils had to be entered. Moreover, theanalyses were not able to take into account background factors known to be associated with variationsin progress.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.Case study visits were made to eight Project schools (drawn from Phase 1 and Phase 2 schools)involved in delivering a Two Year Key Stage 3, to investigate how the Project contributed to the workof the school. The one day case study visits involved interviews with 26 teachers and 4 governors.They were carried out between autumn 2004 and 2006.Implementation of the programmeSchools had a great deal of freedom in designing their own two year Key Stage 3 programme. Theyvaried according to which subjects they chose to cover in two years; which pupils they chose to followa two year programme; and in which years they delivered the Two Year Key Stage 3.The proportion of Year 7 teaching devoted to two year programmes varied considerably. At one fifth ofthe Project schools, more than 90 per cent of Year 7 teaching involved a shortened curriculum.However, at a quarter of the schools, shortened courses accounted for less than 10 per cent of Year 7teaching. The remaining half of schools devoted between 10 per cent and 90 per cent of teaching timeto two year courses. At 13 (more than one third) of the schools, some pupils were not exposed toshortened courses at all. At all other schools, all pupils experienced a two year course in at least onesubject. The wide variation in the ways in which the Project was implemented poses difficulties for theevaluation, as the extent to which pupils were exposed to the intervention varied.ResultsAttainment during Key Stage 3In the Year 7 and 8 Optional Tests more progress was made in mathematics by pupils followingaccelerated courses in Phase 1 Project schools than by pupils in Phase 1 Comparison schools. By theend of Year 7, pupils following accelerated courses in Phase 1 Project schools had made between oneand one and a half terms of additional progress compared with pupils in Phase 1 Comparison schools.By the end of Year 8 pupils had made an additional two terms of progress compared with pupils inComparison schools.In English, the progress made in Year 7 and Year 8 by pupils at Phase 1 Project schools was notsignificantly different from that achieved by pupils at Phase 1 Comparison schools.In relation to the Key Stage 3 tests (in mathematics, English and science) the results of early entrantsfrom Phase 1 Project schools were in some respects similar to the Key Stage 3 results nationally.However, in mathematics and science some pupils chosen for early entry were significantly more likelyto achieve at least the Level 5 threshold. In contrast, in all three subjects, those selected for Year 8 entrywere less likely to make the highest levels of progress (i.e., progressing by two or three levels from KeyStage 2 to 3).3