Evaluation of the Key Stage 2 Language Learning Pathfinders

More documents

Recommendations

Info

3.6.6. Sensitivity analysisAs mentioned above, the cost effectiveness analyses undertaken were based on a numberof assumptions, which could strongly affect the findings of this section. To test the impact ofthese assumptions, a sensitivity analysis was carried out on the two key variables in theanalysis, time spent on the project by key staff and salaries of key staff. This allowed us toestimate the extent to which changes in these assumptions were likely to affect the finalresult of the analyses.3.6.6.1. TimeThe time variable was especially crucial with regards to the amount of time spent by localauthority advisors and teachers. Both were analysed.For local authority advisors, the first analysis looked at a downwards revision (to 37 hours aweek) of the time estimates of those advisors that had put in very high estimates of their owntime. This did not have a significant impact on overall staff costs, which reduced by less thanhalf a percentage point. The impact on costings for individual local authorities was greater,but still remained below 2% in all cases. Following this, a similar analysis was done revisingupwards (to 10 hours a week) the time commitment of local authority advisors who hadestimated their time at less than 10 hours a week. This had a similar impact on overall andlocal authority specific costs as the downwards revision of high outliers. A further set ofanalyses attempted to look at the sensitivity of the analyses to this variable by looking at theimpact of increasing/decreasing advisor time by two hours across the board. This led to animpact of .6 of a percent. Overall, then, it can be concluded that the analyses were not overlysensitive to changes in reported advisor time. As advisor time is the bulk of total localauthority level time, the impact of changes on estimated time commitments of other localauthority staff will be smaller.The main staff cost was teacher time. A number of sensitivity analyses were conducted onthis variable. A first analysis consisted of a downwards revision of all high estimates to 3hours a week. This included ASTs and specialist teachers, who in some cases wereestimated to do up to 37 hours a week on Pathfinder work. This led to a total impact of 8.7%on staff costs, and up to 18% impact in some local authorities. An across the board revision,whereby teacher time was increased by two hours for all teachers, resulted in a highlysignificant 19% increase in overall staff costs. An even greater impact was obtained whereall low estimates were revised upwards to 2 hours a week. The total impact of this was 27%123
on staff costs, with the impact on some individual local authority estimates being even larger.Therefore, it can be concluded that the analyses were highly sensitive to errors in theestimates of teacher time. Luckily in most cases significant triangulation existed, with datafrom a range of interviewees allowing for higher reliability of these estimates than of theestimates of local authority advisor time or resources, which would (hopefully) have limitedthis problem.3.6.6.2. SalaryAs mentioned above, assumptions regarding salary scale points were made in calculatingsalary costs. In general, it was assumed that staff were towards the midpoint of scales,unless indications were given that staff were, e.g. ‘experienced’. Again, sensitivity of theanalyses to errors in this assumption was tested using both advisor and teacher salaries asexamples.A revision of advisor hourly rates by 10% resulted in a change to overall salary costs of just0.4%, once again showing limited sensitivity to changes in local authority level salary costs.A 10% upwards revision of teacher salary costs had a stronger impact, increasing salarycosts by just over 6%.Overall, then, it would seem that the analyses were highly sensitive to errors in the reportingof teacher time spent on the project. There was some sensitivity to errors in estimation ofteacher salary rates, and of course these could be exacerbated because of differences insalaries between local authorities. This is a serious caveat around these analyses. Theanalyses were far less sensitive to errors at the local authority level. However, school levelvariables were probably more reliable due to triangulation from different data sources(interviewees) than local authority level variables. As the other variables accounted for lessthan 8% of the total cost, sensitivity to errors therein would have been limited.3.6.7. Cost differences for different delivery modelsAs mentioned earlier, it was not possible to arrive at overarching Pathfinder models.However, it was possible to discern, across Pathfinders, different delivery models (seesection 2). The three main ones identified were use of an outreach teacher, use of primaryteachers and use of FLAs in delivering primary languages. The relative cost of thesealternatives depended on the inclusion or exclusion of primary teacher time as an124
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 and 118: to be constrained. Methodologies ge
Page 119 and 120: Time spent on the project was gathe
Page 121 and 122: Estimating development costs of res
Page 123: There were significant differences
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
show all

Evaluation of the Key Stage 2 Language Learning Pathfinders

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?