Emisiones a la atmósfera

In addition to exploring the outcomes for young people who participated in IFP and continued their involvement throughout the two years of the programme, the analysis examined the outcomes for any students who embarked on the programme, including those who discontinued. These findings, which reflect the potential key stage 4 outcomes for a student who 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4 Level 5 Level 6 Level 7

Key Stage 3 Achievement

E xpe cte d T o ta l P o in t Sc or e

had embarked on the IFP in Year 10, regardless of whether they continued on the programme to its completion or not, are illustrated in Figures 2.3 and 2.4. Figure 2.3 presents the outcomes at key stage 4 for all students who embarked on IFP and took GCSEs in vocational subjects, including those who subsequently discontinued.

Figure 2.3 Attainment at key stage 4 of young people who achieved GCSEs in vocational subjects and all students nationally: including IFP students who may have discontinued

As can be seen in Figure 2.3, when other background factors were taken into account, young people’s attainment at key stage 4 increased in relation to their prior attainment at key stage 3. As was the case when students who discontinued were excluded from the analysis (Figure 2.1), young people who had studied a GCSE in a vocational subject either through IFP, or not through IFP, attained higher points at key stage 4 than similar students who had not taken such qualifications.

Figure 2.4 presents the outcomes for young people who had embarked on IFP and had taken GNVQs, including those who had not remained on the programme to its completion.

0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4 Level 5 Level 6 Level 7

Key Stage 3 Achievement

E xpe cte d T o ta l P o in t Sc or e

Figure 2.4 Attainment at key stage 4 of young people who attained GNVQs and all students nationally: including IFP students who may have discontinued

As figure 2.4 reveals, when the outcomes for students who undertook GNVQs, whether this was through IFP or not, are compared with the attainment of students who did not take such qualifications, it emerges that students who undertook a GNVQ had significantly higher attainment at key stage 4 than those who did not take a GNVQ.

It appears that overall, students who embarked on IFP and undertook GCSEs in vocational subjects and GNVQs gained more points than might be expected given their prior attainment and background characteristics. Similar students who had not taken such qualifications but were the same in all other respects, gained fewer points than those who had taken GCSEs in vocational subjects or GNVQs through IFP. However, Figures 2.3 and 2.4 also indicate that, when students who discontinued their involvement in IFP are included in the analysis, the outcomes for the cohort as a whole are lower than when they are excluded. This appears to be explained by the noticeably lower attainment of this sub-group of students in terms of their total points achieved at key stage 4. This is discussed in more detail below.

Around fifteen per cent of the IFP cohort used in this analysis (2,366 individuals) who were identified by schools in Autumn 2002 as participating in IFP, and taking GCSEs in vocational subjects and GNVQs, were not entered for these qualifications on the NPD. Students in this group had attained significantly less well at key stage 4 than might have been expected, given their prior attainment and other background characteristics. More specifically: 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4 Level 5 Level 6 Level 7

Key Stage 3 Achievement

E xpe cte d T o ta l P o in t Sc or e

• young people who embarked on new GCSEs through IFP, and

discontinued before the end of Year 11 attained significantly lower at key stage 4 (54 points less) than might be expected given their prior attainment and other background characteristics.

• students who embarked on IFP and discontinued a GNVQ before the end

of Year 11 attained 32 points less than similar students who had not participated in IFP.

This suggests that, embarking on an IFP course and discontinuing is associated with significantly lower attainment than a student might have achieved had they either continued on the programme, or not participated in IFP.

Further exploration of the characteristics of these IFP participants who discontinued their involvement revealed that they had slightly lower attainment at key stage 3 than their peers who took GCSEs in vocational subjects and GNVQs. For example, 52 per cent had achieved level 5 and above in English at key stage 3 compared with 67 per cent of those taking GCSEs in vocational subjects and 71 per cent of those who took GNVQs. In addition, a greater proportion were recognised for action on the register of SEN. Among those who had discontinued, 26 per cent were recognised for action while 14 per cent of those who were entered for GCSEs in vocational subjects through IFP, and 16 per cent of those who were entered for GNVQs, were recognised for action.

Whilst the reasons for a student having discontinued their participation cannot be inferred from the available data, previous analysis of the extent of discontinuation among the first cohort of IFP participants15 showed that location of study did not appear to be related to discontinuation and there was no evidence of drop-out clustered in particular partnerships. Nevertheless, discontinuation was greater among young people who had embarked on NVQs and other vocational qualifications and it appeared that the students’ attainment at key stage 3, and whether they had SEN recognition was influential. Visits to nine partnerships16 conducted in 2004 revealed a variety of reported explanations for students discontinuing their involvement. Those which related to IFP included inappropriate selection of students, lack of motivation and commitment from the students, inability of the young people to cope in an adult environment and students missing lessons in order to participate. Staff also cited issues that were not directly related to IFP including wider problems within school, exclusion from school and personal reasons. In addition, staff in two schools noted the challenge of re-integrating

15

GOLDEN, S., NELSON, J., O’DONNELL, L. and RUDD, P. (2004). Evaluation of Increased Flexibilities for 14 to 16 Year Olds Programme: Profile of Partnerships and Students 2002 and 2003 (DfES Research Report 558). London: DfES.

16

GOLDEN, S., NELSON, J., O’DONNELL, L. and RUDD, P. (2004). Implementing the Increased Flexibility for 14 to 16 Year Olds Programme: the Experience of Partnerships and Students (DfES Research Report 562). London: DfES.

students who discontinued their involvement in IFP into the school curriculum.

2.4.4 The effect of qualification type on students’ attainment at