The Evidence on Teaching

Calderdale Excellence Partnership: IPEELL. Evaluation report and executive summary

Torgerson CJ, Ainsworth H, Bell K, Elliott L, Fountain I, Gascoine L, Hewitt CE, Kasim A, Kokotsaki D, Torgerson DJ · 2018

grade Brctindependentfailed
Sample
One-year trial 84 schools / 2,682 children (2,465 analysed); two-year trial 83 schools / 2,762 children (2,196 analysed)
Population
Year 6 pupils (one-year trial) and Year 5 into Year 6 pupils (two-year trial) in English primary schools; IPEELL was delivered to all children in those year groups
Design
Independently evaluated cluster RCT (Durham/York), commissioned by the EEF as the EFFECTIVENESS trial of the SRSD-derived IPEELL writing programme after the 2014 efficacy trial produced ~+0.74. Tested under "real world" conditions - trainers newly recruited rather than the programme developers, delivered across the full prior-attainment range rather than to low attainers only, and in Years 5-6 rather than across the Year 6-7 transition. Outcome for the one-year trial was the KS2 writing outcome (which had been recategorised into three bands during set-up, reducing sensitivity); the two-year trial used a bespoke writing test built from historical KS2 writing questions to recover a continuous outcome. EEF security: very high (one-year), high (two-year; reduced because >20% of starting pupils lacked post-test data). Cost ~GBP 36 per pupil per year over three years.
Key findings
Two years of IPEELL: ES = 0.11 (95% CI -0.13 to 0.34), 2 months' progress, n=2,196 - NOT statistically significant. FSM pupils: 0.14 (-0.14 to 0.41), n=811. One year of IPEELL: ES = -0.09 (-0.34 to 0.15), -1 month, n=2,465 - also not significant, and pointing the wrong way. FSM one-year: -0.07 (-0.38 to 0.23). Low prior attainers in the two-year trial did better (3 months' additional progress) on a smaller and less secure sample. The spillover finding is the one most worth carrying: "Pupils who used IPEELL for two years made SIGNIFICANTLY LESS PROGRESS IN READING, SPELLING AND MATHS compared to pupils who did not", with the same pattern (reading significant) in the one-year trial - the evaluators' hypothesis being that class time was directed away from those subjects and towards writing. The evaluators state plainly that "a previous EEF-funded trial of IPEELL in England showed positive impacts. In contrast, this project did not find evidence of consistent positive effects." Training quality was also flagged as weak, delivered by inexperienced trainers.
Genetic confound
Low. Large cluster-randomised design, independent evaluation, national outcome measures for the one-year trial. Residual exposure is the >20% missing post-test data in the two-year trial.

Effects

OutcomeMetricValueMeasureTimingVsHorizonClass
Writing, two years of IPEELLeffect size (95% CI)0.11 (-0.13 to 0.34); 2 months, not significantresearcher-designedend of Year 6 after 2 yearsbusiness-as-usualend-of-treatmentdomain-skill
Writing, one year of IPEELLeffect size (95% CI)-0.09 (-0.34 to 0.15); -1 month, not significantstandardizedend of Year 6 after 1 yearbusiness-as-usualend-of-treatmentdomain-skill
Writing, FSM pupils (two-year / one-year)effect size (95% CI)0.14 (-0.14 to 0.41) / -0.07 (-0.38 to 0.23)researcher-designedend of Year 6business-as-usualend-of-treatmentdomain-skill
Reading, spelling and maths spillover, two-year trialgroup comparisonsignificantly LESS progress than comparison pupils in all threestandardizedend of Year 6business-as-usualend-of-treatmentdomain-skill
Writing, low prior attainers, two-year trialmonths' progress3 months' additional progress (smaller sample, lower security)researcher-designedend of Year 6business-as-usualend-of-treatmentdomain-skill

Cited by