Evaluating Diplomas
Pauline Wade discusses her research into the impact and development of the Diplomas programme so far
N JANUARY 2008, the Department for Children, Schools good of all learners” could be a major challenge and it could not be
I
and Families commissioned the National Foundation for imposed from above.
Educational Research (NFER) and the University of Exeter to Other factors that appeared to contribute to eff ective consortia
conduct the national evaluation of the implementation and were fi rm and supportive leadership from the consortium lead (with
impact of Diplomas between 2008 and 2013. the ability to broker partnership working and communicate well),
T_h e aims were to review the implementation and delivery and the involvement of staff with the right experience, skills and
of the Diplomas, and to assess their impact on young people’s authority to undertake key roles and co-ordinate implementation
participation, attainment and progression, as well as the complexity (line leads were considered to have a crucial role).
of the new qualifi cation and the range of issues surrounding it. T_h e complexity of delivery models was considerable, with
T_h e fi rst year of the evaluation (ending in January 2009) focused variations not only between consortia, but also between
on the preparations for the new qualifi cation. In the summer term of institutions within consortia and within institutions for diff erent
2008, we carried out a baseline survey of year 9 and 11 learners and lines. However, we saw a pattern of predominating models: shared
case study visits to 15 Gateway 1 consortia. We visited around four delivery between a school and further education college; a school
institutions in each – most commonly schools and further education sending all its learners to a further education college for all their
colleges, but also some 6th form colleges and higher education Principal Learning; a school delivering the entire Diploma in-house
institutions. Interviews took place with a range of staff and with to their own learners only; a number of schools sharing delivery with
students in years 9 and 11. learners travelling between schools; or a further education college
T_h e evidence from this fi rst phase of the research was published delivering the entire Diploma in house to their own learners only.
in January 2009, and the second phase of the evaluation saw case T_h e rationale for delivery models, not surprisingly, was primarily
study visits concluded by Easter 2009. T_h ese were then succeeded by pragmatism, with transport considerations, capacity, facilities
a new round of case study work, this time for a second phase of 15 and staff expertise as the deciding factors. Most examples of
consortia that would be delivering through Gateway 2. T_h ese visits shared delivery involved the learners travelling outside their home
concluded in July 2009. institution, rather than staff travelling to teach. Aligned timetables
From the fi rst round of evaluation, we have an emerging were in place in almost all consortia, but transport strategies varied
view about preparations for fi rst delivery of Diplomas and the considerably (with assistance for learners not always off ered).
characteristics of the fi rst cohort of learners. T_h e main challenges associated with shared delivery, apart from
Although the details varied, we found a common management competition between centres, were quality assurance and logistical
structure across the 15 consortia: an overall strategy group in control issues, and there was a perception that these challenges would
of decision-making; line of learning operational groups which made increase as more lines became available and with more learners.
strategic decisions relating to that line; and groups of practitioners Survey data revealed that around 12,000 learners started
that made operational decisions about delivery and subject Diploma courses in September 2008, with the highest numbers at
development. Some consortia also had specialist groups which Level 2. Learners who had chosen, or were considering a Diploma,
focused on a particular issue, such as employer engagement. tended to have lower than average prior attainment, but a positive
It was clear that the consortia that were operating most eff ectively attitude to school and learning, and tended to be planning to
were those that had been able to build on pre-existing progress to a work-based route post-16. In year 9 they were more
partnerships. Not only did these often likely to be boys.
have the practical advantages of Case study data indicated that although the majority of schools
existing aligned timetables and off ered the Diploma to all their year 9 students, there was often
good communication informal targeting of learners who were considered to have a special
systems, they were aptitude for a line of learning. Almost all case study schools had set
also more likely to an entry requirement for Level 2 Diplomas related to achievement
have developed that in key stage 3 assessments, and this was based on the need to attain
essential ingredient Functional Skills at Level 2 and the perceived level of challenge
– trust. in the Principal Learning. T_h e entry requirement for the Level 3
Even consortia Diploma was generally set at fi ve GCSEs at grades A* to C. DD
with well established
partnerships admitted • Pauline Wade is a researcher with the National Foundation for
that overcoming traditional Educational Research. Higher education views on the Diploma and
rivalries between institutions further fi ndings from Gateway 1 consortia will be published in autumn
and working for “the greater 2009. Visit www.nfer.ac.uk/research-areas/14-19-education
12 Delivering Diplomas • Volume 1 No 1 Autumn 2009
12-13 research.indd 8 17/9/09 18:05:23
Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40  |  Page 41  |  Page 42  |  Page 43  |  Page 44  |  Page 45  |  Page 46  |  Page 47  |  Page 48  |  Page 49  |  Page 50  |  Page 51  |  Page 52  |  Page 53  |  Page 54  |  Page 55  |  Page 56  |  Page 57  |  Page 58  |  Page 59  |  Page 60  |  Page 61  |  Page 62  |  Page 63  |  Page 64  |  Page 65  |  Page 66  |  Page 67  |  Page 68