Scottish Mentoring and Leadership Programme: impact and value for money evaluation

Appendix B - Comparison of demographic variables between treatment and control groups.

The following tables comparing demographic variables between treatment and control groups and additional contextual information are available alongside this publication in Excel format. These can be downloaded here: supporting tables.

• B.1 Comparison of MCR participants, matched control pupils and all care experienced pupils on selected demographics - This table outlines the differences in the characteristics of pupils participating in MCR, all care experienced pupils and the matched groups of non-participating pupils. This illustrates the need for matching given the differences in the proportion of female pupils and pupils with additional support recorded between the groups participating and not participating in MCR. The control group averages from the main analysis column show the success of the matching model described in Approach A with the differences across most variables smaller when compared to the differences with all care experienced pupils. The table also highlights that the population of MCR participants are different to the general population of pupils. The key difference is again in the proportion of pupils with additional support recorded (86.3 percent for MCR and 31.3 percent for the general population).
• B.2 Comparison of care experienced pupils on selected demographics by whether school offers MCR - this table compares the characteristics of care experienced pupils in schools offering MCR to care experienced pupils in schools not offering MCR. This provides a rationale for the adaptation of Approach B and implementation of B2 as care experienced pupils at school offering MCR were more likely to have additional support recorded (81.1 percent compared to 73.8 percent for care experienced pupils in schools not offering MCR).
• B.3 Number of schools offering the MCR Pathways programme by year - Table 4.2 outlines the number of schools joining MCR by year. The staggered nature of schools joining forms the basis of Approach D described above. This is provided for reference.
• B.4 Curriculum for Excellence (CfE) Attainment measures in P7 - This table outlines the proportion of pupils achieving CfE Level-2 in literacy and numeracy by P7 for the treatment and control groups on Approaches A and B and the wider pupil population (including care experience and non-care experienced). This is provided as for additional information on past pupil performance which would ideally be included in the individual-level analysis for Approach A and B. However, limited availability and questions over consistency of grading between schools precluded its use in the matching. The table shows that pupils participating in MCR were less likely than the general population to achieve CfE Level-2 in literacy and numeracy by P7 but more likely than the general care experienced population. There were only small differences between the treatment group for Approach A and the matched control. Similarly, the control groups for Approach B1 and B2 were similar to the treatment groups. This provides some reassurance that Approach A and Approach B1/B2 are not biased by pupil ability.