We are testing a new beta website for gov.scot go to new site

The Educational Attainment of Looked After Children - Local Authority Pilot Projects: Final Research Report

Listen

APPENDIX 4. Additional data tables

Table 8: Scores on scales of the SDQ

Scale

Min

(0)

Max

(10)

Mean

SD

Pro-social scale (n = 67)

2

10

7.3

2.1

Hyperactivity scale (n = 62)

1

10

5.3

2.3

Emotional symptoms scale (n = 65)

0

9

3.5

2.6

Conduct problems scale (n = 64)

0

8

3.3

1.9

Peer problems scale (n = 65)

0

8

2.1

1.9

Total difficulties (N = 58)

3

29

15.9

6.3


Notes: (1) Where a respondent had omitted an item on a scale, or where the response was invalid because more than one response had been marked, the whole scale was omitted from the analysis. In these cases, the total difficulty score was also not calculated. (2) The total difficulties figures are based on four scales and exclude the pro-social scale.

Table 9: Proportions in each category of need by SDQ scale

Scale

Low need

Some need

High need

Pro-social scale (n = 67)

81%

10%

9%

Hyperactivity scale (n = 62)

55%

13%

32%

Emotional symptoms scale (n = 65)

72%

11%

17%

Conduct problems scale (n = 64)

53%

25%

22%

Peer problems scale (n = 65)

80%

15%

5%

Total difficulties (N = 58)

45%

24%

31%

Notes: (1) Girls rated themselves in a way that suggested greater emotional need than boys, but with mean scores still within the low need range: boys, 2.1; girls, 4.5 (t = 4.5; p< 0.001). (2) The total difficulties figures are based on four scales and exclude the pro-social scale.

Table 10: Harter: Do the difficulties interfere with your everyday life?

Home life

Friendships

Classroom learning

Leisure activities

A great deal

5 (14%)

2 (5%)

9 (24%)

1 (3%)

Quite a lot

9 (24%)

4 (11%)

12 (32%)

4 (11%)

Only a little

11 (30%)

13 (34%)

12 (32%)

11 (30%)

Not at all

12 (32%)

19 (50%)

4 (11%)

22 (58%)

Mean

1.2

0.7

1.7

0.6

Table 11: Mean scores on scales of Harter by gender

Scholastic

Social

Athletic

Appearance

Behaviour

Global

Female

mean

2.32

2.86

2.20

2.45

2.34

2.58

SD

0.51

0.72

43

0.67

0.72

0.52

N

41

42

0.55

40

42

43

Male

mean

2.66

3.01

2.78

2.68

2.40

2.74

SD

0.57

0.63

0.58

0.54

0.67

0.41

N

35

36

35

36

35

33

Total

mean

2.48

2.93

2.46

2.56

2.37

2.65

SD

0.56

0.68

0.63

0.62

0.69

0.48

N

76

78

78

76

77

76

Table 12: Attendance and exclusion by gender 2006-07

Gender

% attendance

No of days excluded

% excluded (and number)

Female

Mean

79.0

2.9

22% (52)

N237236237

Male

Mean

82.7

4.1

25% (77)

N311312312


Table 13: Attendance and exclusions in 2005-06 and 2006-07

Attendance

No. of days excluded

No. of exclusions

2005-06

2006-07

2005-06

2006-07

2005-06

2006-07

5-8

Mean

93.9

93.8

0.5

0.8

0.23

0.20

N

61

61

66

66

65

65

9-10

Mean

93.4

96.3*

0.1

0.5

0.03

0.15

N

39

39

33

33

33

33

11-12

Mean

90.7

88.3

1.6

4.6*

0.32

0.71 **

N

84

84

85

85

85

85

13-14

Mean

71.2

75.2

6.6

5.7

1.48

1.11

N

136

136

125

125

121

121

15+

Mean

68.7

74.7**

4.1

2.6*

1.03

0.46 **

N

186

186

183

183

178

178

All

Mean

78.1

80.9**

3.5

3.7

0.85

0.63**

N

510

510

497

497

487

487

* p<0.05 ** p<0.01

Note: Age is as at the baseline year. Totals in 'all' are greater than the sum of the age groups, due to missing age data.

Table 14: Exclusion rates for nine pilot authorities

Local authority

Rate per 1000 pupils 36

No. of pupils

Baseline

Outcome

Aberdeen City

629

423

26

Dumfries & Galloway

86

173

23

East Ayrshire

1200

764

89

Edinburgh City

400

750

20

Falkirk

420

338

71

Glasgow City

1770

557

61

Highland

255

534

43

South Ayrshire

950

1350

20

West Lothian

615

518

52

All authorities

854

631

487

Note: we excluded from this analysis pilots where there were data for fewer than 20 pupils; below this number statistical comparisons would be unsafe.

Table 15: 5-14 National Assessment Data: Reading, Writing and Mathematics

Reading

Writing

Maths

No. (and percentage)

No . (and percentage)

No. (and percentage)

not achieved A

33

(13)

32

(13)

25

(10)

A

50

(20)

51

(21)

43

(17)

B

52

(21)

65

(26)

58

(23)

C

55

(22)

57

(23)

74

(29)

D

39

(16)

30

(12)

45

(18)

E

16

(6)

11

(5)

7

(3)

F

3

(1)

0

(0)

0

(0)

Total

248

(100)

246

(100)

252

(100)

Notes: (1) By academic year 2006-2007, 336 of the young people were no longer within 5-14 as they were in S3 to S6 at secondary school. (2) There were 300 young people within the 5-14 stage. Data were not available for 52 young people in reading, 54 in writing and 48 in maths.

Table 16: 5-15 National Assessment Levels at ages 5-8

Reading

Writing

Maths

No. (and %)

No . (and %)

No. (and %)

not achieved A

19

31.7

16

27.1

11

18.0

A

30

50.0

32

54.2

29

47.5

B

9

15.0

10

16.9

19

31.1

C

1

1.7

1

1.7

2

3.3

D

1

1.7

0

0

0

0

Total

60

100

60

100

61

100



Table 17: 5-14 National Assessment Levels at ages 9-10

Reading

Writing

Maths

No. (and %)

No . (and %)

No. (and %)

not achieved A

2

5.3

3

7.9

2

5.1

A

7

18.4

5

13.2

5

12.8

B

15

39.5

17

44.7

13

33.3

C

12

31.6

12

31.6

16

41.0

D

2

5.3

1

2.1

3

7.7

Total

38

100

38

100

39

100



Table 18: 5-14 National Assessment Levels at ages 11-12

Reading

Writing

Maths

No. (and %)

No . (and %)

No. (and %)

not achieved A

3

3.1

4

4.2

3

3.1

A

10

10.4

10

10.4

5

5.1

B

15

15.6

23

24.0

16

16.3

C

32

33.3

33

34.4

39

39.8

D

22

22.9

18

18.8

30

30.6

E

11

11.5

8

8.3

5

5.1

F

3

3.1

0

0

0

0

Total

96

100

96

100

98

100



Table 19: 5-14 National Assessment Levels at ages 13-14 37

Reading

Writing

Maths

No. (and %)

No . (and %)

No. (and %)

not achieved A

1

2.4

1

2.4

1

2.4

A

1

2.4

2

4.9

2

4.8

B

13

31.0

14

34.1

10

23.8

C

9

21.4

11

26.8

16

38.1

D

13

31.0

11

26.8

11

26.2

E

5

11.9

2

4.9

2

4.8

Total

42

100

41

100

42

100



Table 20: 5-14 National Assessment data, Scotland 2003 38

School stage

Level attained

English Reading

English Writing

Maths

Not LAC

LAC

Not LAC

LAC

Not LAC

LAC

P2

A or above

52%

29%

42%

20%

76%

57%

P3

A or above

88%

74%

85%

69%

95%

89%

P4

B or above

81%

56%

75%

50%

79%

52%

P5

B or above

92%

73%

88%

64%

92%

73%

P6

C or above

86%

59%

75%

40%

80%

46%

P7

D or above

73%

34%

60%

20%

69%

24%

S1

D or above

74%

42%

65%

30%

70%

31%

S2

E or above

59%

15%

50%

12%

53%

12%

Table 21: Changes in mean attainment levels in 5-14 National Assessments

2005-06 (Baseline)

2006-07 (Outcome)

Reading

Mean

2.0

2.4

p<0.001 ( t Test)

N

232

232

Writing

Mean

1.8

2.3

p<0.001 ( t Test)

N

229

229

Maths

Mean

2.0

2.5

p<0.001 ( t Test)

N

235

235



Table 22: Factors correlating with attainment in Standard Grade and National Qualifications

N=149

Total tariff all awards (correlations)

Gender

-.28(**)

Level of involvement

.14ns

% attendance in year during pilot

.30(**)

CLASS (a Glasgow programme)

-.31(**)

EVIP (a Glasgow programme)

-.29(**)

Looked after at home

-.25(**)

Looked after in residential care

.17(*)

Looked after in foster care

.23(**)

Glasgow (All young people in Glasgow pilot programme)

-.35(**)

* Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed)
** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed)
ns Not significant

Table 23: Characteristics of 109 young people: Tariff scores

N=109

Mean

SD

N

Total tariff all awards

43.5

50.0

109

Tariff points (in 'best 5')

25.8

36.4

109

% attendance in year during pilot

74.1

25.5

109

A-F level in writing (baseline)

3.2

1.1

109

A-F level in maths (baseline)

3.3

1.0

109

Notes: (1) For 109 of the 148 young people for whom we had Standard Grade / National Qualifications data we had three baseline 5-14 National Assessment levels, and we found that maths and writing (taken together) were a reasonably good baseline for prior attainment. We took account of the fact that these effects may well be inter-related, since the young people participating in the different pilot activities may not be randomly assigned to them by gender, or pilot or 5-14 levels.

(2) We examined this using multiple regression analysis. (The results of three such models are shown in Table 24 below). Gender was found to be significantly associated with attainment. When we added care placement (Model 2), the gender effect diminished. Girls are more likely to be in foster care, while boys are more likely to be looked after at home. The effects of these three variables (attainment, gender and care placement) are therefore impossible to extricate from each other. However, baseline 5-14 maths remained a good predictor of attainment in Standard Grade / National Qualifications, even when everything else was held constant (Model 3).

(3) Model 3 also showed that young people in the Glasgow pilot attained least. This is in part because they are more likely to be boys, to be looked after at home, to have lower attendance and to have lower 5-14 levels of attainment. There is, however, a large and significant Glasgow effect over and above all of these factors.

Table 24: Factors correlating with attainment in Standard Grade and National Qualifications - multiple regression model

Model

Standardized Coefficients (ß)

Significance

1

Gender

-.236

**

2

Gender

-.178

ns

Looked after at home

-.150

ns

Looked after in foster care

.163

ns

3

Gender

-.059

ns

Looked after at home

-.060

ns

Looked after in foster care

.028

ns

A-F level in writing (baseline)

.136

ns

A-F level in maths (baseline)

.218

*

% attendance in year during pilot

.084

ns

Glasgow

-.297

**

EVIP

-.099

ns

Dependent variable: Total tariff all awards (outcomes)

* Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed) ** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed) ns Not significant

Notes: (1) Concerned that the young people within the Glasgow EVIP project might typically have some National Qualifications which were however unrecorded and that it was unfair to include in the analysis Glasgow students in CLASS who were below S4, we re-ran the analysis (on 77 students rather than the 109 included in the earlier analysis, i.e. we excluded all EVIP students and all CLASS students below the S4 level), but the same effect was noted.

(2) However, there were particular difficulties in recording information about the progress of young people within the Glasgow pilot and so it is impossible to draw particular conclusions from these findings, other than reinforcing the more general points made at the start of this chapter about the difficulties noted in relation to collecting robust data on looked after children and young people.