LITERACY IN THE SECONDARY SCHOOL

A paper prepared by Winston Brookes and Andy Goodwyn

School of Education, University of Reading

To be presented at the BERA Conference at Queens University, Belfast

Summer 1998

Contents

Page

Introduction 2-6

Methodology 7

Discussion and Findings 8-18

Summary of ‘headlines’ 19

Summary of responses 20

WB/AG/July/98

1

LITERACY IN THE SECONDARY SCHOOL

Introduction

The education system in England and Wales is currently under enormous pressure to improve the teaching of literacy. Most of this pressure in terms of literacy is directed, via the National Literacy Strategy, at primary schools but secondary schools are expected to play their part currently and in the future. We suggest that this is part of a cycle: in the 1970s the secondary curriculum was critiqued as too subject dominated. This led to the Language Across the Curriculum project. Currently, both primary and secondary schools are seen as too subject dominated (because of the National Curriculum) and this has led to The National Literacy and National Numeracy strategies. This paper focuses on literacy in the secondary school, treating 'literacy' as a contentious and problematic term and reports on the early stages of a research project that seeks to:

Place the current initiative in a historical perspective

Survey the literacy activities of secondary schools over three years, 1998-2001.

Understand what secondary schools mean by Whole School Literacy and how they interpret external demands to promote it.

Help to identify a variety of good practice in secondary schools and to disseminate this practice

To look ultimately for the characteristics of good practice that may help all secondary schools to make sustainable developments

Include primary schools with particular emphasis on transfer of pupils and their literacy records.

Background

Most of the best writing and research on literacy over the past few years (for example, Street, B., 1984, Meek, M. 1988, Millard, E. 1994, Lankshear, C. 1997) has consistently pointed out that literacy is always perceived to be 'in crisis' and that someone is always to blame, usually teachers or now 'the educational establishment'. The current 'crisis' seems to stem from the test results accumulated over the last ten years as part of the assessment of pupil performance within the National Curriculum in England and Wales. These results suggest that many pupils leave primary school with literacy levels that are inadequate for secondary school subject work. The 'crisis' also stems from a more intangible lack of confidence in the teaching of reading in primary schools and of the initial training of primary teachers, this latter point has been part of a sustained Conservative Government and media obsession over about 15 years. 'New Labour' appears to wish to capture the middle political ground of middle class parents and so has

2

picked up this particular gauntlet and put considerable economic resources into it in the shape of The National Literacy Strategy.

This current strategy has parallels with the most important example in recent history of a Government inspired attempt to drive up literacy standards, led by Mrs Thatcher, then Minister for Education, in the early 1970s, who initiated a study into reading standards in schools. However, before briefly reviewing what became 'The Bullock Report (DFE, 1975) it is vital to note that this initiative coincided with an important change in educational thinking, inspired by people like James Britton, Douglas Barnes and Harold Rosen who argued for a complete review of educational practice. In summary, they argued for placing oral development at the heart of education, for a child -centred rather than subject-centred curriculum and for respect for linguist diversity in an increasingly multi-cultural and mobile population. The 1970s were also the era of the reform of the binary secondary system and the introduction of comprehensive schools. Educational and political thinking can be seen retrospectively to be in relative harmony, both parties attempting to generate more egalitarian approaches, the former in the classroom the latter in the school system.

One element in these changes was that an essentially right wing inquiry into reading standards turned into The Bullock Report, 'A Language for Life', a chiefly progressive document arguing that all teachers were teachers of language and advocating the need for a Language across the Curriculum (LAC) movement. For a few years this movement dominated many schools, especially secondary schools leading to a review of curriculum materials, especially in relation to their accessibility through written language and to the setting up of many school working parties and the production of many LAC policy documents. Much of the attention of this movement was to reading and this emphasis is perhaps even clearer in Michael Marland's 1977 book 'Language Across the Curriculum. To offshoots of the reading standards crisis were the influential work of Southgate et al., 'Extending Beginning Reading' (1981) and that of Lunzer and Gardiner, 'The Effective Use of Reading, (1979).

The movement has had a lasting and important influence and traces of it can be found in our recent survey, especially where a few schools at least claim to have a Language Across the Curriculum Policy. However, in the 1980s the movement was gradually subsumed by the reform of the examination systems, the introduction of TVEI and other 'reforms' (Ball et al, 1990). The HMI turned their attention to the perceived disappearance of grammar and their two booklets in the 1980s (HMI 1984, 1986) paved the way for the Kingman Report (1988) and then the subject dominated National Curriculum. The wheel went pretty well full circle from an attempt to look across the curriculum and to bring all subject teachers together to a subject oriented National Curriculum that has now pressed subjects well down into the primary curriculum. One aspect of this subject focus was once more to place enormous pressure on English teachers to ensure basic skills and to operate more formal approaches to language so that other teachers could, as it were, get on with their job. English teachers have resisted this fiercely and recent research (Goodwyn and Findlay, 1997) shows them clearly rejecting the 'cross-curricular model' put forward by Cox (Cox, 1988) as not a model of English.

3

Overall then LAC has left some lasting and positive changes in schools but it has been overwhelmed by The National Curriculum.

Language Across the Curriculum or Literacy Across the Curriculum? As the wheel completes its circle so attention is returning to the idea that all teachers are teachers of language and literacy; The Schools Curriculum and Assessment Authority has, for example, recently published (SCAA, 1997)a whole set of guidelines for subject teachers on this very point 'Use of language: a common approach'. As we approach the whole curriculum part of the cycle there are some parallels and differences in the current situation and also some lessons here for secondary schools as they anticipate a need to review their provision of literacy.

The LAC movement, although apparently politically initiated was taken over and redefined wholeheartedly by teachers and turned into a bottom up reform. There was no National Curriculum and teachers and senior managers had great scope to interpret LAC in their own terms. There was also a Schools Council that supported excellent research (for example, both reading projects mentioned above). The current NLS is a centrally controlled, top down measure although it so far appears to have much support in primary schools. Secondary schools have about two academic years to review their provision and to plan for the reception of future year 7 pupils who have become accustomed to a daily Literacy Hour.

The NLS strategy, as articulated so far, adopts the concept of Literacy across the secondary curriculum, the most current term appears to be Whole School Literacy. The use of the term 'Literacy' seems to stem from several sources. In education considerable attention and debate has been focused on this term since the LAC movement petered out in the early 1980s with the majority of voices arguing for a redefinition of the term. Literacy, it is argued, is not a basic concept about functional reading and writing. Its true definition encompasses much more than 'basics' and may include 'new' areas such as 'computer literacy', visual literacy, media literacy and so on (Lankshear, 1997). Equally the claims made for the intellectual power of Western style print literacy have been much contested (Street, 1984). This latter point is linked to the 'critical literacy' movement of Paolo Freire (Freire, 1972) and others which has argued that most forms of literacy are used oppressively to reinforce unjust social structures and that literacy should be used by educators as a means of radicalising the people. Literacy has therefore had a high profile in educational circles which has attracted considerable attention.

However, the use of the term literacy in relation to the teaching of reading and writing in schools is relatively recent in England and Wales; its traditional use was in relation to the education of adults with low levels of literacy. For example the term literacy does not appear, as far as we can tell, in official documents about the National Curriculum for English. In the very recent 'Initial Teacher Training National Curriculum for Secondary English' it only appears in relation to pupils with low levels of literacy. Overall this change may be summed up as a move from the use of the positive term 'literate', almost always associated with highly educated individuals, to a developing definition in which, we would argue, literacy is conceptualised as a life long and open ended process i.e. a

4

move from an expectation that only a minority will be truly literate to an expectation of a society concerned with literacy for all. However, not surprisingly, our survey reveals a deep confusion in secondary schools about what 'literacy' is. Those responsible for it include Special Needs Co-ordinators, Senior Management and Heads of English; all three positions, we would argue, with quite different stances on 'literacy'. Only a third of English departments, for example, claim to have a policy on literacy.

There is also a pervasive sense in Western Societies that the media, especially television are 'replacing' reading as the key interest of young people. This loss of interest in reading is now being exacerbated, especially amongst boys (Millard, E. 1997), by the arrival of computer games and the Internet. This linkage to the media is also associated in the public mind with increases in urban violence. Research evidence is conflicting (Buckingham, 1993) much of this pervasive view is not based on any real evidence and has at least as much basis in nostalgia but also a genuine and anxiety-provoking recognition that society is being changed by technology.

Another key factor is the equally pervasive view that a society's real capital is human. The interpretation of what human capital is leads to further disagreement. Views might be placed on a spectrum from the functional view that our basic workers need more capability to work in technological environments to the egalitarian view that we are developing a new social structure based around knowledge and creativity and that all citizens are entitled to share in this opportunity.

Even in this brief look at the difficulties in defining 'Literacy' it becomes clear that there is likely to be a struggle over meaning in the next few years. In contrast, the LAC movement was not dogged by disputes about what LAC means, although it attracted plenty of media controversy (see Ball et al 1990) and it is probable that literacy will prove to have incompatible definitions as secondary schools try to get to grips with what they mean by 'Whole School Literacy'. We hope to record and analyse this movement as it develops and look for ways of helping schools to support themselves and each other.

References

Ball, S., Kenny, A. and Gardiner, D. 'Literacy Politics and the Teachingof English' in Goodson, I. and Medway, P. Bringing English to Order: theHistory and Politics of a School Subject, London, The Falmer Press.

Barnes, D. (1976) From Communication to Curriculum, Harmondsworth, Penguin.

Barnes, D., Britton, J. and Rosen, H. (1971, rev. ed.) Language, theLearner and the School, Harmondsworth, penguin

Britton, J. (1970) Language and Learning, Harmondsworth, Penguin.

Buckingham, D. (1993) Children Talking Television: The Making ofTelevision Literacy, London, The Falmer Press.

5

DES (1977) A Language for Life, London, HMSO.

DES, (1984) English from 5 to 16, London, HMSO.

DES, (1986) English from 5 to 16: The Responses, London, HMSO.

DES (1988) The Kingman Report, London, HMSO.

DES (1989) The Cox Report, London, HMSO.

Freire, P. (1972) Pedagogy of the Oppressed, Harmondsworth, Penguin.

Lankshear, C. (1997) Changing Literacies, Buckingham, Open University Press.

Goodwyn, A. and Findlay, F. (1997) English teachers' theories of goodEnglish teaching and their theories in action, paper given at The BERAconference, York.

Lunzer, A. and Gardener, K. (1979) The Effective Use of Reading, London,Heinemann Educational.

Marland, M. (1977) Language Across the Curriculum, London, HeinemannEducational.

Meek, M. (1988) On Being Literate, London, Bodley Head.

Millard, E. (1994) Developing Readers in the Middle Years, Buckingham,Open University Press.

Millard, E. (1997) Differently Literate: Boys, Girls and the Schooling ofLiteracy, London, The Falmer Press.

SCAA (1997) Use of language: a common approach, London SCAA.

Southgate, V., Arnold, H., and Johnston, S., (1981) Extending BeginningReading, London, Heinemann.

Street, B.V. (1984) Literacy in theory and practice, Cambridge, CambridgeUniversity Press.

DfEE, (1998) 'Initial Teacher Training National Curriculum for SecondaryEnglish', London, The Teacher Training Agency

6

Methodology

February 1998 Questionnaire to headteacher (17 questions, including sub-

questions) drafted.

Consultation on draft with 20 schools – 10 responses.

A few changes in style and presentation - tick box format

preferred.

March 1998 Questionnaires to 280 schools – mainly on university mailing list in home counties, and a few

in outer London boroughs.

121 completed questionnaires (43%).

35 follow-up letters on whole-school policies - 10 responses.

April-June 1998 Questionnaires referenced

Yes/No ticks aggregated by question

Comments referenced and clustered for similaritySome problems with coding clusters

‘Headline’ conclusions drawn

7

THE QUESTIONS

Question 1 Y N

Do you consider the improvement of whole school literacy:

A real priority 71

One of a number of priorities 50

Currently a low priority 6

Already achieved 4

60 extended comments refer to working groups, development plans, target setting, boys, cross-curricular co-ordination and inspection as means to the improvement of literacy. The proportion of comments is in direct relation to the ticked boxes. The comments suggest that those who see literacy as a real priority have strategies underway, whereas those who see it as one of a number of priorities comment more in terms of attitudes to the problem and intentions to address it somehow.Spread of comments:

Question YESA 35B 21C 3D 1

Total 60

Literacy is seen as a major priority for most schools. The definition of literacy is problematic for some.

Examples

09 My view is that of new HM significantly different to that of school perception in general.

32 40% + pupils with reading quotients below 80 at age 11.

48 The level of priority is being reassessed and is on the SDP for 98/99.

51 Success will require co-operation and enthusiasm of all staff, all departments.

55 Silly question I know - but what do you mean by literacy?

63 This is a high achieving school in an affluent area but our intake is changing slowly but surely,

and our boys seriously underachieve, in particular white working class boys whose literacy skills

are very weak.

115 Not at present. We are in the process of forming a new working party to address this issue and this is likely to take shape in Autumn 1998.

8

Question 2 Y N

Is there one person with responsibility for whole school literacy? 40 58

Is there a team with responsibility for whole school literacy? 59 41

75 extended comments on both questions refer to a variety of individuals and groups: Head of English, SENCO, deputy, senior teacher, co-ordinator, working party, committee, task force, year 7 team, whole school team, English department, SEN department, HoDs, a project, whole school. The spread of comments is:

One person 131+ a team 15Team only 20None 27Total 27

There is general uncertainty about how to orchestrate literacy improvement. English department seen as having a central role.

Examples

06 Historically, HOD English!

17 I shall shortly be charting a whole-school Task Force on Literacy.

34 But with so much else to do it is a problem finding time to develop a whole school policy.

40 The school is involved in the Hampshire School Improvement prospect which is examining literacy. I am the Co-ordinator.

54 My role is to ensure all pupils achieve their potential. The English Dept is the team with the responsibility but they do not have the skills to teach reading but to appreciate Literature.

77 I suppose it's me, but we use Cross-Curricular working parties to decide policies on Literacy.

89 At the moment I'm 'left' with the responsibility but I would like to involve Senior Teachers across the curriculum.

94 The team is dominated by English teachers and many staff think literacy is the English Department’s job.

105 We are really tackling it from the point of view of special needs at the moment - the Basic Skills Quality Mark has been achieved and our focus centres on this.

113 A fluctuating team including subject heads and SMT.

9

Question 3 Y N

A Is there a written policy for the whole school? 35 75

B If applicable to you, is there a written policy for your LEA? 8 43

C Is there a written policy for your English department? 68 38

D Are there other policies relevant to whole school literacy? 50 47

65 extended comments refer to a range of English specific and whole school policies: English, reading, writing, speaking and listening, spelling, handwriting, language, LAC, DARTS, marking, assessment, target setting, drafting, SEN, teaching and learning. Spread of comments:

Question NO YES ? TotalA 41 18 6 65B 28 2 35 65C 21 38 6 65D 20 29 16 65

The great majority of schools do not have a distinctive whole school literacy policy.

There is little awareness of a substantive LEA role. One third (35.8%) of English departments do not have a policy for literacy.

Examples

12 The policy is in process - we decided that practice should precede policy.

52 No policies - a lot of practice & procedures.

73 We have yet to embrace literacy as a whole school issue.

74 I am on the LEA Working Party to draw up a borough policy, and am currently involved in producing a written whole-school policy. A meeting is planned in June to discuss the Literacy Hour at KS3.

81 Reading/Literacy policies exist within English and have been discussed in whole school forums but not necessarily always implemented.

93 Spelling and handwriting policies.

95 Whole School Marking Policy refers to Literacy.

10

Reading policies (whole school and departmental)Question 4A Would you describe the quality of literacy information that you receive from your feeder schools as:

EXCELLENT 0 VERY GOOD 16 GOOD 38 FAIR 40 INADEQUATE 23

B Would you describe your use of literacy information from your feeder schools as:

EXCELLENT 3 VERY GOOD 27 GOOD 39 FAIR 26 INADEQUATE 17

56 extended comments made. Of these, 23 refer to lack of information, variability and inconsistency, sheer volume, lack of time to analyse, the limited value of SATs levels, limited use beyond SEN departments. Spread of comments:

Question Excellent Very good Good Fair Inadequate None TotalA 0 8 15 18 11 4 56B 2 9 21 12 4 7 56

More than half (54%) thought the quality of feeder school information fairor inadequate.

A significant majority (62%) said they made good or better use of the information received – an inverse correlation ( self-promotion factor? ).

Examples

02 We have so many feeder schools with varying amounts of information provided from them that it is difficult to use anything adequately.

07 We go through the entrance exam and through the documents from the feeder schools both HM, Head of Lower School and Head of English with English Department and collate the information received.

20 It is difficult to answer as we have 50 feeders and the quality ranges from excellent to inadequate.

26 I only know about those with SEN.

41 We get little or no information on literacy given to departments. We get VQR scores, but other information is not divulged as a matter of course.

52 We set standard reading & spelling tests for all our Year 7 students - SAT results are hardly ever complete and of very limited value.

59 We have information that we have begun to use more precisely these last two years.

94 We use Key Stage 2 English results, but do our own reading & writing tests. Very little information comes from some primary schools. Some information is misleading. Key Stage 2 results are a rough indication only as level 3 and 4 seem to cover a very wide range.

111 More emphasis placed on our own information such as Reading Tests & CATS.

116 It is difficult to find time to read records. We have many feeder schools who have different standards of assessment, i.e., no moderation.

11

Question 5a Y N

Do you use tests to assess the literacy levels of your intake? 115 5

73 extended comments giving details of the tests used. A wide range of tests cover: individual, paired and group reading, spelling, grammar, vocabulary, comprehension, composition, verbal reasoning, CATs. Of these, 25 make specific reference to CATs.

Schools differ in the choices they make from a diverse range of tests. Most schools do blanket testing in Y7. Some testing is used to identify SEN pupils. It is not clear to what other purpose the tests are put.

Examples

07 We do the battery of CATS tests Autumn Term (NFER) & Spring Term. English Dept does a different kind of (context based) reading test & writing test.

16 1. Gapadol/Vernon spelling.2. NFER Readability series E in May

20 We use MIDYIS.

24 AH2 testing.

27 All pupils do Reading, Punctuation & grammar tests on entry.

53 GAPADOL.

80 Macmillan Reading, AH2, other diagnostic assessment (Neale, Vernon)

114 Neate analysis with any student where there is a concern and Y6's SEN register at stages 2, 3, 4, 5 + summer screening tests NFER in Yr 7 + Holborn as a v. quick indicator of reading level for 'paired readers' or in English classrooms.

12

Question 5b Y N

Do you test for literacy in later years? 74 42

53 extended comments. Of these 22 make specific reference to special needs as the main focus of testing, generally in Y7-Y9. Testing is usually of identified individual low attainers. A range of reading tests and CATs are used, as well as routine school examinations. Little reference to key stage 4 – ALIS and YELLIS mentioned by four. Spread of comments:

Test Number Test NumberEnglish department 3 Macmillan 1CATs 3 Other targeted pupils 9SATs 4 Spelling-unspecified 1Reading-individual 4 Spelling-Vernon 1Reading-group 2 Spelling-SPAR 1YELLIS 4 Gapadol 1ALIS 3 NFER AH3 3SEN assessment 10 Neale 3NFER-unspecified 3 None 6

Most schools do not blanket test for literacy beyond Y7. Most testing is used to assess the progress of individual low attainers –

usually in reading. Writing not mentioned specifically. SATs are mentioned only in four cases as a measure of literacy.

Examples

07 CATS in Year 9.

20 We use YELLIS and ALIS.

49 Tests re-administered x 2 per year up to end KS3.

55 Only for targeted pupils.

93 Only those with a score of 85 in Y7 tests – to assess progress.

94 NFER. AH3 test. Otherwise not specifically.

97 End year 7, 8 and year 9. NFER reading. SPAR spelling.

98 Selected pupils on code of practice.

13

Question 6 Y N

Has the school, or have individual staff, had any INSET in the last two years related to whole school literacy?

71 47

60 extended comments, that cover a diversity of provision: staff meetings, whole school INSET days, individuals one day courses (e.g. SENCO, Head of English), adviser input, twilight sessions. No extended training. 39% had no INSET at all. 16 referred directly to very recent or intended courses. Irrelevance of INSET mentioned by a few. See responses to question 8.

There is no coherent pattern of INSET provision. There is no INSET over time. There is no INSET at all for nearly half the respondents.

Examples

02 It was interesting but not directly practical.

12 Loads.

17 An adviser visited recently to give us some preliminary ideas.

19 Not that I know of.

21 It was mentioned briefly in this year's Heads of English conference - mainly in connection with work in Primary Schools.

52 Sort of.

68 Only in the context of effective teaching, including key vocabulary.

87 SENCO and me have attended courses.

89 I am going on a course in late April.

100 2 weeks ago a member of our Literacy Project Team went on a 1 day course on "An Intervention Programme for Literacy in Secondary Schools."

102 Not on a formal, structured basis as part of an overall development strategy.

14

Question 7 Y N

In your view can your individual school raise standards of whole school literacy?

117 4

59 extended comments. Overwhelming optimism that schools can raise standards – main emphasis on low attainers. References to the need to raise awareness and for consistency and co-ordination. Boys an issue. A few refer to need for resources.

Nearly all schools believe that they can raise standards of literacy. Little explicit reference to how improvement will be measured?

Examples

02 We are doing!

12 We have demonstrated that we can.

16 Not much! What does raising standards mean? What definition of literacy are we working to? We hope to set in motion a disparate range of supportive measures and, in the end hope staff awareness of, disparities and the nature of such disparities in attainment can be increased.

18 Not sure what question means precisely.

48 The understanding of the term literacy is not clearly understood by many Departments.

67 Departments within the school do not work well together. Majority of departments see literacy as something for the English Department only.

68 Yes but only if whole school staff are committed to this.

80 Yes, but only with sufficient resources. Need to be clear what we mean by literacy, and to approach through a range of strategies. Often an improvement to confidence, but not apparent in scores.

84 Can't every school?

115 Yes. Definitely, but resourcing is a key issue. Seem to increasingly need to bid through elaborate paperwork to maintain funding which is exhausting.

15

Question 8 Y N

In your view does your school need some form of support to raise standards of whole school literacy?

102 12

64 extended comments, most of which refer to: resources, training in literacy skills teaching, interpretation of data and the use of software. Some emphasis on the need for networks or means to share ideas and strategies that have proven worth. Need for improved cross-phase links and a framework related to progression through the phases. See responses to question 6.

Most schools need support in the improvement of literacy. Support is seen by many in terms of workable ideas and strategies. The need for training in the teaching of literacy skills is identified. Need for coherent cross-phase framework.

Examples

16 Yes - Lists of strategies tried elsewhere for us to sample and decide which works best for our own culture. I currently haven't many strategies (i.e. haven't a clue) about evaluating or measuring our success.

25 A network of like minded people would be useful.

41 Yes - it would be useful if there were more materials widely available that could be introduced relatively simply to various departments, which were subject specific.

53 Yes - the usual one - policy needs resourcing!

69 Yes - always helpful to have someone with wide experience of what has worked in other places. Too much theory will not go down well.

96 Yes - Whole school awareness of the necessity for a whole school policy, needs to be raised.

111 Yes - comparison of practice with other schools.

113 Yes – there needs to be a framework, related to primary/secondary and tertiary progression.

118 Yes - money for Global English software & staff training.

16

Question 9 Y N

Do you have a view about literacy in your school or about current Government or other (e.g. LEA) initiatives?

79 17

24 extended comments, of which to majority are positive. References to the need for more funding and training.

Most schools have a positive view about literacy improvement initiatives, despite concerns about funding and training.

Examples

26 Yes - LEA are giving funds and training. Government priority but we need more money, especially schools with an intake like ours.

28 Yes, praiseworthy, but requires more money.

41 Yes - usual bluster with little or no support, time or money.

54 Yes – impact of literacy hour and need for liaison.

55 No resources for Secondary!

63 It will become more of a priority as the number of children with poor skills continues to grow annually while the need I presume to meet PANDA targets etc. also increases.

82 Welcome initiative – concerns about being too prescriptive.

113 Yes. It should be funded across all age levels with proper training.

119 The primary initiative is good but we have so many who have slipped through. Secondary education needs help too.

17

Question 10 Y N

If appropriate, please identify your external contact for literacy, e.g. LEA representative, independent consultant, etc.

41 80

Of the 41 responses, 24 identified an LEA adviser/inspector by name. Most of the rest presumed an LEA representative. The great majority left this section blank – the only question that did not have a tick box.

Only one third of the schools named an external contact for literacy, most of whom were LEA.

The great majority of schools did not respond to the question.

Question 11 Y N

Reviewing your answers above, would you consider your school, in its current position, an example of good practice in relation to whole school literacy?

44 59

63 extended comments. Of the specifically ‘yes’ comments only 9 were unqualified: most were tentative or equivocal, felt they were making progress. Of the specifically ‘no’ comments all 20 were unqualified.

Only 9 of the 121 schools thought they were an example of good practice. Two thirds of the schools do not consider themselves to be examples of good

practice.

Examples

26 Yes - We have taken the bull by the horns and put a programme into practice even if it is in its early stages. I know that other secondary schools in the borough haven't.

32 We are learning.

37 Yes - doing quite well.

38 Typical, I should think.

52 No - It is one with very real problems but as yet few solutions.

77 No - the English department cannot do it all.

101 Yes - 1) Successmaker individualised learning programmes (Reading, Spelling, Maths - Computer - across whole school. 2) Literacy Working Party - initiatives across the curriculum to raise profile of literacy. 3) Special Needs Committee focusing on specific learning needs.

111 No - I hope it will be in a year's time.

18

Summary of Headlines

Literacy is seen as a major focus for most schools. The definition of literacy is problematic for some. There is general uncertainty about how to orchestrate literacy improvement. English department seen as having a central role. The great majority of schools do not have a whole school literacy policy. There is little awareness of a substantive LEA role. Only one third of the schools named an external contact for literacy, most of

whom were LEA. The great majority of schools did not respond to the question about external

support. One third (35.8%) of English departments do not have a policy for literacy. Less than half (46%) thought the quality of feeder school information good

or better. However, a significant majority (62%) said they made good or better use of

the information received – an inverse correlation. Schools differ in the choices they make from a diverse range of tests. Most schools do blanket testing in Y7. Some testing is used to identify SEN pupils. It is not clear to what other purpose the tests are put. Most schools do not blanket test for literacy beyond Y7. Most testing is used to assess the progress of individual low attainers –

usually in reading. SATs are mentioned only in four cases as a measure of literacy. There is no coherent pattern of INSET provision. There is no INSET over time. There is no INSET at all for nearly half the respondents. Nearly all schools believe that they can raise standards of literacy. Little explicit reference to how improvement will be measured? Most schools need support in the improvement of literacy. Support is seen by many in terms of workable ideas and strategies. The need for training in the teaching of literacy skills is identified. The need for a coherent cross-phase framework is expressed. Most schools have a positive view about literacy improvement initiatives,

despite concerns about funding and training. Only 9 of the 121 schools think they are an example of good practice. Two thirds of the schools do not consider themselves to be examples of good

practice.

19

Summary of ResponsesQuestions Y N

1. Do you consider the improvement of whole school literacy:

A real priority 71 59

One of a number of priorities 50 -

Currently a low priority 6 5

Already achieved 4 4

2.

person with responsibility for whole school literacy?

40 58

3. Is there a team with responsibility for whole school literacy? 59 41

4. Is there a written policy for the whole school? 35 75

5. If applicable to you, is there a written policy for your LEA? 8 43

6. Is there a written policy for your English department? 68 38

7. Are there other policies relevant to whole school literacy? 50 47

8. Would you describe the quality of literacy information that you receive from your

feeder schools as:

EXCELLENT 0 VERY GOOD 16 GOOD 38 FAIR 40 INADEQUATE 23

9. Would you describe your use of literacy information from your feeder schools as:

EXCELLENT 3 VERY GOOD 27 GOOD 39 FAIR 26 INADEQUATE 17

10. Do you use tests to assess the literacy levels of your intake? 115 5

11. Do you test for literacy in later years? 74 42

12. Has the school, or have individual staff, had any INSET in the last two years related to whole school literacy?

71 47

13. In your view can your individual school raise standards of whole school literacy?

117 4

14. In your view does your school need some form of support to raise standards of whole school literacy?

102 12

15. Do you have a view about literacy in your school or about current Government or other (e.g. LEA) initiatives?

79 17

16. If appropriate, please identify your external contact for literacy, e.g. LEA representative, independent consultant, etc.

41 80

17. Reviewing your answers above, would you consider your school, in its current position, an example of good practice in relation to whole school literacy?

44 59

20