Evaluation of the Key Stage 2 Language Learning Pathfinders

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Case Study 3Case study 3, located in two neighbouring urban districts, was intended to be a jointPathfinder. However, in reality, the two local authorities worked almost entirelyindependently of each other. Each was separately funded and the management anddelivery of the two programmes was quite different.LA1In LA1, Pathfinder funding enabled expansion and consolidation of an already existinglanguage competence model based primarily on the employment of peripatetic foreignlanguage (French and Spanish) assistants. Primary languages had begun in 1999 with thelocal authority taking a lead in co-ordinating one of the Good Practice projects promoted byCILT. This was a small scale project involving only four schools teaching French to years 5and 6. However, strong interest from other schools meant that the project expanded rapidly.Furthermore, the authority supported this expansion financially through a number ofinitiatives, including Education Action Zones.An arrangement had been adopted by which schools opted into a service level agreementwith the authority to maintain the provision. Pathfinder funding had helped introduce newschools to this scheme. This commitment from schools and the LA had resulted in almost allof the one hundred and twenty primary schools in the city providing some form of foreignlanguage experience for their pupils, although few had extended their provision throughoutKS2. The LA had already created a number of advisory teacher posts to provide essentialco-ordination, liaison between schools and training for the growing team of FLAs, the mainelements in the delivery of teaching. Some teaching was also provided by outreach workfrom the Specialist Language Colleges, by teachers at 'destination' secondary schools andby teachers in the primaries with some experience of MFL some of whom had AST status.Some of the primaries had been designated Centres of Excellence and served as points ofdissemination for other primary language providers. Whilst French dominates, there werereal efforts to increase provision of Spanish. Beneficial international links had beenestablished bringing many visitors – and visiting teachers – to the city’s schools.Expansion of provision had been facilitated by a dedicated and dynamic advisory team. Theywere largely responsible for the recruitment, induction, training and monitoring of theassistants and they supported other teachers in cross phase liaison and outreach work.They had also produced schemes of work and training materials which defined veryprecisely the content of lessons and set out a very clear methodological framework.While the consistency of approach guaranteed a good foundation for replicability, there werestill areas needing further development, notably:• sustaining the supply of able assistants and providing them with career prospects;• ensuring that class teachers, currently observing the work of the FLAs and other MFL'specialists', take a more active role in lessons and gain the necessary confidence –linguistic and methodological - to be able to take on full responsibility for languageclasses;• establishing an assessment scheme which will provide evidence of pupils’achievements in all language skills.Schools visited were uniformly optimistic about the future of primary languages although lesscertain about how they were going to meet, in full, the requirements of the national policy.LA2LA2 went into the Pathfinder from a much lower base-line than its neighbouring authority.However, unlike LA1, the main thrust for primary languages development has come andcontinues to come from its one Specialist Language College. Pathfinder funding was135
channelled through this school. At the beginning of the Pathfinder, the SLC was workingwith seven of the LA's fifty-nine primaries (its own partner schools). The number of primaryschools involved increased marginally but, in the later stages of the Pathfinder, there wasalso more ‘in depth’ work in those specific schools to develop languages across KS2.Most participants encountered accepted that the collaboration with LA1 had been beneficial,but it was clear that there had been relatively little contact after the initial developmentalstage.Several factors, labelled as ‘unfavourable’ by the main protagonists, had created a difficultclimate for primary language developments. Only four of the Borough’s secondary schoolshad retained languages as a compulsory subject in key stage 4. This inevitably reduced thecapacity of secondary schools to take on responsibility for developing languages in theirfeeder schools. There was also considerable 'leakage' at the primary-secondary transferstage with some parents selecting secondary schools in neighbouring LAs for their children.The precise extent of this problem at the time of the case-study visit was not investigated butthere is no doubt that if it was, indeed, significant, it did not help the development of strongsystems for transition and it may also have affected the morale of teachers interested inprimary languages in both primaries and secondary schools.Despite some difficulties in attaining all the aims of the Pathfinder, notably the commitmentof other secondary schools to develop similar outreach language teaching, there had been anumber of worthy initiatives on the part of the SLC, including special events for gifted andtalented pupils, experimentation with a family learning scheme, the production of ICTresources and associated training, and surveys of pupil attitudes.There had also been real efforts to diversify provision which had resulted in an increase inSpanish and some more German being taught. The level of some teachers’ competence,however, was rather low, therefore providing a rather poor model for pupils.The main obstacle to be overcome, if the authority’s schools are to be ready for 2010, is theover-reliance on the single SLC and the lack of interest and engagement - so far - from othersecondary schools in creating new ‘families’ of schools.Both LAs benefited from the proximity of HEIs, providing specialist initial and in-servicetraining. Primary teachers in both authorities were also supported if they took advantage oflanguage refreshment classes, some of which, in LA1, were organised by LA staffthemselves.136
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 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: Case Study 2Case study 2 is a compa
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

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?