Neil Harrison Senior Research Fellow Bristol Centre for Research in Lifelong Learning and Education (BRILLE) University of the West of England

Policy context ‘Up-skilling’ and the rise of GCSE equivalents The recent announcement on the removal of equivalence Policy direction evident in both the declaration of the ‘English Baccalaureate’ and the taking up of the recommendations of the Wolf Report (2011) Problematising the five GCSE threshold

Policy consequences Recommendation 1 of the Wolf Review: The DfE should distinguish clearly between those qualifications, both vocational and academic, which can contribute to performance indicators at Key Stage 4, and those which cannot. Unforeseen consequences of the removal of equivalence CoPE mistakenly ‘tarred with the same brush’ as those vocational qualifications seen as surplus to requirements at KS4?

Performance vs. learning Watkins (2010) argues that contemporary policy and schools responses give us a disastrous emphasis on performance at the expense of a learning orientation This is a very big problem, as performance relies completely on the development of good learning orientations – in any field of endeavour

Research questions 1. Do pupils who undertake CoPE achieve a higher grade at GCSE English Language than comparable pupils who do not? 2. Are pupils who undertake CoPE more likely to achieve five GCSE passes than comparable pupils who do not? 3. Are there any identifiable subgroups of pupils for whom the impacts above are particularly marked or absent? 4. Do pupils and staff identify relationships between CoPE and other KS4 study with respect to pupil engagement, attendance and motivation? 5. If so, what is the nature of experiences, perceptions, impressions and claims about such relationships?

Research method Main study: statistical analysis of National Pupil Database records for cohort completing KS4 in 2010, comprising over 500,000 records Secondary study: quasi-experimental analysis of a randomised paired sample of 200 young people taking CoPE and those not Case studies: qualitative data from four visits to schools offering CoPE

Approach to main study (1) Statistical technique controls for eight background variables likely to impact on KS4 outcomes: Gender Special educational needs Eligibility for free school meals Neighbourhood deprivation (using IDACI) Persistent absence during KS3 Ethnicity Having English as a secondary language

Approach to main study (2) Four main measures of KS4 outcomes used: GCSE English pass at A* to G GCSE English pass at A* to C GCSE English pass at A* or A Five GSCE passes at A* to C including English and maths, but excluding ‘equivalents’ (i.e. excluding CoPE itself) Three categories of KS3 attainment in English Low – below testable level, Level 3 and Level 4 Average – Level 5 High – Level 6 and Level 7

School typology ‘No CoPE’ schools ‘Thin usage’ schools CoPE taken by less than 25% of cohort Those taking CoPE atypical of wider cohort – predominantly those with special circumstances strongly affecting study Likely to significantly underperform at KS4 relative to KS3 ‘Wide usage’ school Cope taken by 25% or more of cohort – mainstreamed Those taking CoPE more typical of overall school cohort Main basis for comparisons in research report

GCSE English A* to C (1)

GCSE English A* to C (2) Chart simplifies a complex set of relationships Once all background variables are held constant, taking CoPE in a ‘wide usage’ school is associated with an overall 10% increased likelihood of achieving GCSE English at A* to C However, effect mainly focused on low KS3 attainers, those eligible for free school meals, those from BME communities and those with special educational needs

GCSE English A* to C (3)

5 GCSEs A* to C inc. E/M (1)

5 GCSEs A* to C inc. E/M (2) Caveat about chart again! Once all background variables are held constant, taking CoPE in a ‘wide usage’ school is associated with an overall 5% increased likelihood of achieving five GCSEs at A* to C, including English and maths Effect mainly focused on low KS3 attainers, those eligible for free school meals and those from BME communities NB: not all young people entered for five GCSEs

5 GCSEs A* to C inc. E/M (3)

Two ‘identical’ schools Overall, CoPE is associated with an average of an extra one-fifth of a grade in GCSE English

CoPE at the chalkface Data collected from senior managers, teachers and young people from four case study schools Spectrum of professional opinion from likelihood to certainty that CoPE improved outcomes Wide variety of methods of implementing CoPE within the curriculum Young people describe enjoying CoPE lessons and how it is a positive factor in their school experience

Why does CoPE work? Not primary focus of research Potential causal features : Personalised learner-centred approach The ‘Plan-Do-Review’ process Culture of achievement based on milestones Dedicated staff resources, including low staff/pupil ratio Curricular flexibility Commitment to engaging with the individual Lots of scope for future research

Summary Very strong evidence that CoPE is associated with positive outcomes at Key Stage 4 Relationship is seen in both GCSE English and at the five good GCSEs threshold Relationship strongest for young people at lower ability range and with educational disadvantages Statistical analysis not capable of proving that CoPE works, but very strong probability Plausible causal factors identified by professionals

Conclusion Removal of CoPE from the headline measures for Key Stage 4 is likely to be misguided CoPE appears to have an extrinsic value to young people beyond itself CoPE has an important role to play in both performance and learning orientations at Key Stage 4

Neil Harrison Senior Research Fellow Bristol Centre for Research in Lifelong Learning and Education (BRILLE) University of the West of England