A value-added study of the impact of science curriculum reform using the National Pupil Database

This paper compares the examination performance of students following GCSE

Applied Science and Double Award science on a value-added basis. It uses data from the National Pupil Dataset, which are analysed by a variety of methods, including multilevel modelling. It argues that the claims made within Ofsted reports on the impact of the new Applied Science course are inaccurate, and in some cases positively wrong. Our analysis, based on the second (2003-5) cohort of students following the course, shows that students of lower attainment at Key Stage 3 appear to perform better than would have been predicted from their Key Stage 3 attainment, but that higher attaining pupils perform less well. Schools offering Applied Science show greater diversity in the value-added effects they produce than they do with Double Award science. The paper argues that analyses of this kind are of value in seeking to understand the impact of curriculum reform, but that they are dangerous as a generalized guide for policy. They must be complemented by work in schools in which the sources of the effects observed and of school diversity are examined.