However, secondary teachers do not universally welcome <strong>the</strong> growth <strong>of</strong> primary languageswork:‘The kids who have had German in <strong>the</strong>ir primary schools are streets ahead <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> o<strong>the</strong>rs.This can be a problem.’ (secondary teacher)There was still a feeling that many secondary schools did not really value or take full account<strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> work done in primary schools. Concern was expressed by primary teachers andheads that secondary schools would not acknowledge <strong>the</strong>ir pupils’ prior language learning,which would lead to work covered in KS2 being repeated in KS3. One primaryheadteacher felt that <strong>the</strong>re was little <strong>the</strong> primary school could really do to influence whathappened at secondary school, particularly when <strong>the</strong>y fed into so many schools. Often <strong>the</strong>response from <strong>the</strong> secondary was simply ‘that’s nice’ but everyone knew that <strong>the</strong> pupilswould start again.‘I was worried that our children would be fired up with enthusiasm here and <strong>the</strong>n <strong>the</strong>y go towhatever secondary school it is and <strong>the</strong>y start again from scratch and <strong>the</strong>n <strong>the</strong>y becomedisaffected. It’s like pouring water on that flame, isn’t it?’ (primary teacher)‘But also, it doesn’t have a street cred, if <strong>the</strong>y’re being asked to do very simple things. Thedesign <strong>of</strong> MFL needs to keep on taking on board that early language skills need to bedesigned for children to access at different ages, but with different images that are modernand have high street credibility. […]’ (primary teacher)In one Pathfinder where schools concentrated on <strong>the</strong> oral approach to language learning,teachers were less anxious about repetition:‘If <strong>the</strong>y go to secondary school and are doing French <strong>the</strong>re, <strong>the</strong>y will have done no writtenwork, so <strong>the</strong> secondary school will have to introduce <strong>the</strong> written work. It’s [<strong>the</strong>n] not so mucha question <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>ir repeating everything, <strong>the</strong>y will have orally similar sorts <strong>of</strong> things that<strong>the</strong>y’re doing, but <strong>the</strong>y won’t have done <strong>the</strong> written work. It actually gives <strong>the</strong> children, wefind, a bit <strong>of</strong> a confidence boost, because ‘Ah, this is something we can already do’. (primaryteacher)One primary languages co-ordinator wondered whe<strong>the</strong>r some secondary schools were reallyaware <strong>of</strong> how much some children could do in French by <strong>the</strong> time <strong>the</strong>y entered year 7. The97
situation was especially difficult where not all primary schools were providing languages andsecondary teachers were going back to basics.‘I was asking [<strong>the</strong> secondary teacher who visits primaries to teach] what happens with <strong>the</strong>children, because in <strong>the</strong> school where she teaches <strong>the</strong>y’d had 3 years <strong>of</strong> French before <strong>the</strong>ygot to secondary school, and she said <strong>the</strong>y did originally hope to fast track <strong>the</strong>m, butbecause <strong>the</strong> children come from such disparate areas and <strong>the</strong>re’s only a few that do it and<strong>the</strong>n <strong>the</strong> rest have none, <strong>the</strong>re weren’t […] enough for <strong>the</strong>m to do this and have a specialclass for <strong>the</strong>m. So in a way it feels like a bit <strong>of</strong> a waste that <strong>the</strong>y have to start back at squareone, because […] <strong>the</strong>y must feel […], ‘well we’ve done this, we did this ages ago. Why arewe having to do it again?’ (primary teacher)One SLC was dealing with this through enrichment lessons, giving pupils in year 7 <strong>the</strong> samelanguage teachers as involved in outreach work. They also tried to group children accordingto language learnt, but this was not always possible. The attitude <strong>of</strong> some secondaryschools was shown by <strong>the</strong> fact that some children had been re-doing <strong>the</strong> same tier <strong>of</strong> alanguage award again at secondary school.One language teacher expressed concern about <strong>the</strong> consistency <strong>of</strong> teaching competenceand content which would impact on transfer:‘I worry that o<strong>the</strong>r schools are just getting someone’s Mum in, and that all sorts <strong>of</strong> things arebeing taught all over <strong>the</strong> place, and from <strong>the</strong> secondary school’s point <strong>of</strong> view, what are <strong>the</strong>ycoming to me with, completely random things, wrong things? (outreach teacher)In some cases secondary schools were responding to work done in primaries by rethinking<strong>the</strong> KS3 curriculum, or being aware <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> need to rethink:‘We were suspicious to begin with. It was new, and now thankfully we’ve stopped talkingabout that … We’re seeing things happening in <strong>the</strong> primary that are going to affect ourteaching, our future in <strong>the</strong> secondary. Yes, it’s an exciting period, but it’s going to be anupheaval, and we are going to have to re-write our [secondary] schemes again.’ (outreachteacher)In one Pathfinder in <strong>the</strong> first ten weeks <strong>of</strong> Year 7, a new <strong>the</strong>me Les vacances wasintroduced, to include avoir, être, get pupils talking about <strong>the</strong> present and <strong>the</strong> past. In <strong>the</strong>outreach teacher’s view, this would not duplicate and overlap with what had been done in98
- 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: 3.4.5. Links to KS3 Framework/Natio
- 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 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