interviews with local authority advisors and teachers and headteachers in <strong>the</strong> case studysites as <strong>the</strong> means <strong>of</strong> data collection.The team established <strong>the</strong> main cost categories in terms <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Pathfinder as:3.6.4.1. Staff costsIncluding:• Local authority advisor time• Local authority administrative and clerical staff time• O<strong>the</strong>r local authority staff time (e.g. ICT staff, management)• Primary teacher time• Secondary teacher time• Foreign <strong>Language</strong> Assistant time• School administrative support time• School management support time• O<strong>the</strong>r school staff support timeStaff costs are by far <strong>the</strong> greatest cost in most educational interventions and were <strong>the</strong>reforea key factor in this analysis. Staff costs are determined by staff pay and time spent on <strong>the</strong>project. Both posed challenges in this context.Staff pay was difficult to collect directly, both due to <strong>the</strong> high number <strong>of</strong> people involved in<strong>the</strong> project, especially on <strong>the</strong> teacher side, and to <strong>the</strong> confidentiality <strong>of</strong> pay and reward.Salary was <strong>the</strong>refore calculated as a common mean for all staff in a category. Teachers,school managers and AST salaries were calculated based on <strong>the</strong> <strong>of</strong>ficial teacher pay scales.An average teacher was rated as being at scale point 4. Where specific mention was made<strong>of</strong> more experienced teachers, upper scale point 1 was used. Management scales wereused for staff identified as such. Headteachers were rated as higher on <strong>the</strong> management payscales if <strong>the</strong>y were secondary than if <strong>the</strong>y were primary heads. Salary <strong>of</strong> local authorityadvisors was based on point 20 <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Soulbury grades. <strong>Language</strong> Assistant salaries werebased on research including contact with schools and heads, and study <strong>of</strong> jobadvertisements in <strong>the</strong> Times Educational Supplement. Local authority administrative timewas based on typical secretarial and administrative salaries, as ga<strong>the</strong>red from informants atNewcastle City Council.117
Time spent on <strong>the</strong> project was ga<strong>the</strong>red through <strong>the</strong> local authority advisor interviews, duringwhich advisors were asked to estimate <strong>the</strong> time spent on <strong>the</strong> project by <strong>the</strong>mselves, o<strong>the</strong>rlocal authority staff, and school based staff, and through <strong>the</strong> case study visit interviews,where teachers and heads were asked to estimate <strong>the</strong>ir own time spent on <strong>the</strong> project. It isclear that, as this is again an indirect measure, and estimating time spent on particularactivities is sometimes hard for individuals. It was noticeable in <strong>the</strong> data that while <strong>the</strong>re wasa high level <strong>of</strong> consensus between teachers on <strong>the</strong>ir own time spent on <strong>the</strong> project, this wasnot <strong>the</strong> case for local authority advisors. This was largely due to <strong>the</strong> different modelsemployed in different local authorities, though in some cases advisors appeared to haveoverestimated actual time spent on <strong>the</strong> project (65 hours a week and 60 hours a week beingmentioned). As our view was that <strong>the</strong>se numbers represented ei<strong>the</strong>r exaggeration or poortime management skills, <strong>the</strong>se were revised downwards to <strong>the</strong> maximum allowed under <strong>the</strong>European Working Time Directive, 48 hours.Interviewees were asked to rate <strong>the</strong> number <strong>of</strong> hours spent per week, as this wasconsidered to be a timescale that respondents could quantify relatively easily. This did meanthat we were left with <strong>the</strong> task <strong>of</strong> calculating actual number <strong>of</strong> hours per week, taking intoaccount holiday and leave. For teaching staff and <strong>Learning</strong> Assistants, this was done using<strong>the</strong> <strong>of</strong>ficial terms and conditions for <strong>the</strong> pr<strong>of</strong>ession, which stipulate a 195 day year, whichequates to 39 weeks. For non-school staff this exercise was again more complex. Wedecided to follow precedent from work done by <strong>the</strong> Department <strong>of</strong> Health, suggesting a 42week year taking into account holiday, leave and sickness.Ano<strong>the</strong>r issue that came to <strong>the</strong> fore in <strong>the</strong>se analyses was what exactly to include as part <strong>of</strong>teaching staff work, as it could be argued that we did not have to include teaching time asteaching staff would be engaged in <strong>the</strong> teaching <strong>of</strong> o<strong>the</strong>r subjects when not teachinglanguages anyway. However, from a cost effectiveness perspective this would have beenproblematic, as this would not have taken into account <strong>the</strong> opportunity cost associated withteaching languages as part <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Pathfinder. This opportunity cost was associated with <strong>the</strong>fact that time spent teaching languages had, in view <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> limits <strong>of</strong> school time, been to <strong>the</strong>detriment <strong>of</strong> teaching ano<strong>the</strong>r subject or o<strong>the</strong>r activities in <strong>the</strong> school which may have madean equally valid claim on teacher time (Levin & McEwen, 1999). However, in terms <strong>of</strong>additional costs <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Pathfinder it could also be argued that <strong>the</strong>se costs should be left out.We have <strong>the</strong>refore undertaken both analyses, with <strong>the</strong> proviso that additional preparationtime for <strong>the</strong> development <strong>of</strong> Pathfinder materials has been added.118
- Page 1 and 2:
RESEARCHEvaluation of the Key Stage
- Page 3 and 4:
Contents1. Executive summary 32. In
- Page 5 and 6:
practice and factors that might imp
- Page 7 and 8:
of the experience. Individual feedb
- Page 9 and 10:
• The analysis revealed the need
- Page 11 and 12:
• Are pupils with SEN and gifted
- Page 13 and 14:
Both respondent characteristics and
- Page 15 and 16:
Interviews were recorded and a 25%
- Page 17 and 18:
2.2. Advantages and disadvantages o
- Page 19 and 20:
2.2.2. Languages Delivery by the Pr
- Page 21 and 22:
2.2.4. Languages Delivery through a
- Page 23 and 24:
Analysing these models, conditions
- Page 25 and 26:
• Schools should be encouraged to
- Page 27 and 28:
however, instances of schools where
- Page 29 and 30:
3.1.3.4. Time allocated to language
- Page 31 and 32:
‘French would not be taught now a
- Page 33 and 34:
• beneficial for the subject’s
- Page 35 and 36:
Many teachers remained very depende
- Page 37 and 38:
Table 2: Integration and Communicat
- Page 39 and 40:
‘We’ve written a letter and dra
- Page 41 and 42:
‘it makes you realise that if acc
- Page 43 and 44:
Table 5: Languages and Learning - Q
- Page 45 and 46:
3.1.5. Pupils - Learning and Attitu
- Page 47 and 48:
• useful for travelling abroad -
- Page 49 and 50:
• ‘Comments at the end to help
- Page 51 and 52:
‘At times they find it difficult
- Page 53 and 54:
teacher who knew our level.’ In t
- Page 55 and 56:
In most Pathfinders, however, there
- Page 57 and 58:
3.2.2. Recommendations• Primary t
- Page 59 and 60:
Effective staffing is essential to
- Page 61 and 62:
Martin and Mitchell 1993). In anoth
- Page 63 and 64:
Nineteen respondents had specialise
- Page 65 and 66:
As revealed in questionnaire 1, in
- Page 67 and 68: However, some teachers were pleasan
- Page 69 and 70: However, there were frequent instan
- Page 71 and 72: • team-teaching on the ground•
- Page 73 and 74: involved external bodies in the del
- Page 75 and 76: Generally, there was a sense that s
- Page 77 and 78: • Methods of recording progressio
- Page 79 and 80: However, there were challenges in a
- Page 81 and 82: In one Pathfinder one school cluste
- Page 83 and 84: One example of assessment included
- Page 85 and 86: trying to evaluate, prior to each u
- Page 87 and 88: Case study: exemplar of a well deve
- Page 89 and 90: In some Pathfinder schools effectiv
- Page 91 and 92: ‘Only a very small number (6/7) g
- Page 93 and 94: • transfer of more sensitive info
- Page 95 and 96: ‘…I know the Year 7 teachers we
- Page 97 and 98: 3.4.5. Links to KS3 Framework/Natio
- Page 99 and 100: situation was especially difficult
- Page 101 and 102: 3.5. Sustainability and Replicabili
- Page 103 and 104: develop ‘effective and replicable
- Page 105 and 106: 3.5.4. Leadership and managementThe
- Page 107 and 108: on one aspect of delivery. This was
- Page 109 and 110: 3.5.5. Staff and staff expertiseIn
- Page 111 and 112: ‘Usually it is impromptu: 10 or 1
- Page 113 and 114: ‘The reason why I have decided to
- Page 115 and 116: c) there is obvious progression fro
- Page 117: to be constrained. Methodologies ge
- Page 121 and 122: Estimating development costs of res
- Page 123 and 124: There were significant differences
- Page 125 and 126: on staff costs, with the impact on
- Page 127 and 128: 5. CONCLUSIONSOverall, this evaluat
- Page 129 and 130: 5.2. Teacher Competence• Primary
- Page 131 and 132: o for training secondary teachers i
- Page 133 and 134: ReferencesBell, E with Cox, K. (199
- Page 135 and 136: Case Study 2Case study 2 is a compa
- Page 137 and 138: channelled through this school. At
- Page 139 and 140: Case Study 5This LA is a large auth
- Page 141 and 142: Case Study 7Case study 7 is a joint
- Page 143: Copies of this publication can be o