Careers Hubs: pilot of a place-based school improvement network in England

Figures & data

Table 1. Hub performance vs. non-Hub schools by level of potential selection effect.

	Level of potential school-level selection effect in Hubs
	Negligible	Moderate	High
Hub Sample Size (W1 & W2)	377	365	366
Comparison Sample Size	1,813	1,813	1,813
ATET (Headline Model)	+0.43	+0.64	+0.30
ATET 95% confidence interval	0.14–0.72	0.32–0.96	−0.02–0.62
p	0.004	0.000	0.069
Average FSM in Hub schools	21.8%	21.1%	24.5%

Table A1. Sample descriptive data [standard deviation in square brackets where applicable].

Variable	Wave 1 Hub Schools	Wave 1 Comparison Schools	Wave 2 Hub Schools	Wave 2 Comparison Schools
Sample size (N)	550	1398	485	1449
Compass return data on careers provision quality
Latest Benchmark Score (0–8) (to end March 2020)	4.9 [2.0]	3.6 [2.2]	4.3 [2.0]	3.5 [2.1]
Benchmarks Progress since Baseline Score (# Benchmarks)	2.5 [2.2]	1.5 [2.2]	1.3 [2.0]	0.9 [1.9]
Time between baseline and endline Benchmark score (days)	649 [100]	562 [145]	315 [138]	326 [151]
Proportion of schools with an endline Benchmark score filed Jan-Mar 2020	70.0%	36.6%	69.9%	50.9%
School/area characteristics
FSM (%)	21.9% [13.4%]	19.8% [13.8%]	22.9% [14.9%]	21.0% [14.6%]
Number of pupils	881 [441]	954 [495]	896 [474]	905 [515]
Whether has a Sixth Form	55.5%	63.9%	68.2%	61.1%
Whether has selective admissions	0.5%	5.2%	3.5%	4.3%
Proportion that are girls-only	2.0%	6.5%	6.0%	5.2%
Proportion that are boys-only	1.3%	4.9%	3.7%	5.1%
Local area (LA) unemployment (%)	4.2% [1.2%]	4.1% [1.1%]	4.4% [1.5%]	4.2% [1.1%]
School performance/outcome data
% Ofsted Outstanding	9.6%	17.9%	13.8%	17.7%
Attainment 8 grades at age 16	40.9 [14.0]	43.2 [16.3]	41.0 [17.3]	41.5 [17.5]
Progress 8 score at age 16	−0.18 [0.53]	−0.06 [0.63]	−0.18 [0.62]	−0.10 [0.65]
% with at least six month sustained education, employment, or training destinations after age 16	93.4% [6.0%]	93.7% [6.8%]	93.7% [6.2%]	93.6% [6.9%]
Number with missing data (if > 5% of sample)
Attainment 8 grades at age 16	73	185	73	224
Progress 8 score at age 16	74	188	73	229
% with at least six month sustained education, employment, or training destinations after age 16	85	218	91	268

* Analytical sample with qualifying Compass data; prior to imputation of missing data.

Table A2. Model results.

Model specification	Wave 1 Hubs			Wave 2 Hubs
	ATET / Coefficient	Sample size	P-value	ATET / Coefficient	Sample size	P-value
Headline	0.96	1,948	0.000	0.54	1,934	0.000
(i)	0.80	897	0.000	0.54	1,077	0.007
(ii)	0.89	1,948	0.000	0.53	1,934	0.000
(iii)	0.86	1,948	0.000	0.40	1,934	0.013
(iv)	0.95	1,948	0.000	0.57	1,934	0.000
(v)	0.95	1,948	0.000	0.57	1,934	0.000
(vi)	0.82	1,948	0.000	0.50	1,934	0.000
(vii)	0.95	1,948	0.000	0.56	1,934	0.000
(viii)	0.96	1,948	0.000	0.57	1,934	0.002
(ix)	0.98	1,686	0.000	0.59	1,632	0.000
(x)	0.96	1,940	0.000	0.52	1,921	0.000
(xi)	1.09	836	0.000	0.56	813	0.002

Specification coding: (i) Requiring the endline Compass to have been completed between January and March 2020, in case Hub schools were completing Compass more recently and show greater progress given the national trend of increased support over time; (ii) dropping the dummy variable for schools being in government-specified Opportunity Areas due to possible endogeneity with Hub participation, being targeted to areas of greater disadvantage; (iii) direct measurement of benchmarks progress (as opposed to absolute endline score, with exact match to baseline score); (iv) control for the proportion of students in sustained education, employment or training in the year after Year 11 (age 16); (v) using just continuous variables where binned dummy variables are used in the headline specification; (vi) excluding continuous variables where binned dummy variables are available; (vii) via linear multivariate regression with robust standard errors; (viii) via propensity score matching, excluding variables that contain perfect predictors of hub status (region of England, school subtype, opportunity area, rurality); and analysis on the pre-imputation dataset: (ix) dropping observations with missing values; (x) dropping the academic outcome variables with material missing data, and (xi) removing the half of observations in (ix) with the worst quality matches by Mahalonobis distance.

Data availability statement

This paper draws on data jointly held by individual education institutions and The Careers & Enterprise Company for which data policies and permissions prohibit public sharing. Other data used in the paper are publicly available from the UK Government websites. Interested parties are invited to contact the authors to discuss analyses that might be completed on the data as described in this paper.