Fast Track Research Scaffold

How do EAL pupils perform in MFL and what are the effects of setting on their performance?

Helen Bergqvist 2005 Edge HIll College

1

Contents Outline of focus and justification 1 Outline of study 1 Literature review and analysis 1 Action plan 2 Analysis of data/outcomes 3 Alignment in relation to literature review 3 Further scope for investigation 4 Conclusions and Recommendations 4 References 8 Appendix 1: Presentation of Data / Outcomes Presentation of data/outcomes 10 School X Figure 1: EAL pupils in each year group 11 Figure 2: EAL pupils in each class 11 Figure 3: EAL pupils in each set of each year group 12 Figure 4: EAL pupils in sets throughout school 12 Figure 5: Percentages of EAL pupils in each set 13 Figure 6: GCSE Spanish results 2004 (Line graph) 14 Figure 7: Mock GCSE Spanish results 2005 (Line graph) 15 School Y Figure 8: EAL pupils in each Key Stage 3 Year Group 16 Figure 9: EAL pupils in each class 17 Figure 10: EAL pupils in each set of each year group 17 Figure 11: EAL pupils in sets throughout key stage 3 18 Figure 12: Percentages of EAL pupils in each set 19 Figure 13: EAL pupils divided into French sets (Bar chart) 20 Figure 14: EAL pupils divided into Spanish sets (Bar chart) 21 Figure 15: GCSE MFL results 2004 22 Figure 16: GCSE MFL results 2004 (Line graph) 23 Figure 17: GCSE French results 2004 (Line graph) 24 Figure 18: GCSE Spanish results 2004 (Line graph) 25 Figure 19: GCSE French results 2004 by set (Line graph) 26 Figure 20: GCSE Spanish results 2004 by set (Line graph) 27

Title of Investigation How do pupils with English as an Additional Language perform in Modern Foreign Languages and what are the effects of setting on their performance? Outline of the focus and its justification The investigation will focus on the performance of pupils with English as an Additional Language (EAL) in Modern Foreign Languages (MFL) in School X in North-West England, where Spanish is taught, and School Y in South-East England, where Spanish and French are taught. Given the ever-increasing number of EAL pupils in schools, the outcomes of the study will assist in setting EAL pupils in MFL and will also aid my own professional development by enabling me to understand the performance of EAL pupils in my subject. During my placement in School X, I noticed that some EAL pupils were at risk of underachieving, as they were placed in sets corresponding to their level of English rather than to their cognitive ability in MFL, whilst it has been proven that EAL pupils make more progress working alongside fluent English speakers (DfES, 2005). I also detected many EAL pupils using their knowledge of learning English to facilitate their learning of the target language, so they could potentially obtain higher grades than native English speakers and should be given every opportunity to demonstrate these abilities. Outline of the of the study (Abstract) The study has proven that EAL pupils at School X are habitually placed in low-ability sets in MFL, probably to match their linguistic ability in English. This is an inappropriate manner of dealing with EAL pupils, as they learn more quickly with fluent English speakers to help them, which is often not possible in low-ability sets. School Y, conversely, is catering well for the needs of EAL pupils by following specialist advice regarding setting and providing guidance on differentiated work for EAL pupils in its EAL policy. Further evidence suggesting that EAL pupils may perform better in Spanish than non-EAL pupils has also emerged but, given the small size of this sample, this would require further research if it were to be confirmed. By piecing together the research findings that EAL pupils are sometimes placed in low-ability sets and that they may perform better in MFL, it becomes clear that their needs are not being met by all schools. Literature review and analysis germane to the elected focus including reference where appropriate to educational policy and practice. EAL is an under-researched area in the UK context, but much of the available research, including the EAL policies of Schools X and Y, presents similar findings. The research indicates that for EAL pupils to succeed, communication between EAL specialists and other school subject departments is vital. Researchers are unanimous in their conclusions that EAL learners should be in a set corresponding to their intellectual capabilities, regardless of their level of English, as EAL pupils “learn more quickly alongside fluent users of English who are good language and learning role models” (Manchester City Council EMAS, 2004). The contentious role of the mother tongue makes assessment of EAL pupils another highly complex area, for example, there has been discussion of whether all pupils should be assessed in English to preclude prejudice (Mills, 2002). Many EAL studies focus on specific ethnic groups rather than on all learners, but all investigations that I have examined emphasize the importance of valuing the mother tongue and culture of the EAL learner (Scarcella, 1990:54), and using these to enrich the learning of the EAL learner and his or her

1

classmates. A recent study at Goldsmiths College found that Portuguese students who attended mother tongue classes were five times more likely to achieve five or more A* to C grades at GCSE than those who did not attend (NALDIC, 2005), which supports the pro ‘home’ culture argument. Although conflicting opinions regarding treatment of EAL learners are not apparent, problems arise from attempting to put theory into practice. While OFSTED declared provision and support for EAL pupils “good” in School X, I observed inconsistent adherence to the EAL policy, which appeared to place EAL learners at a disadvantage. The policy of School Y, which has a much higher proportion of EAL pupils, was more effective in practice, and OFSTED rated provision “very good”. This point was reflected in the latest OFSTED reports; that of School Y highlights the “very good progress” made by EAL pupils, while that of School X fails to mention whether or not progress is made as a consequence of the “good” levels of support. The focus of my research, the setting of EAL pupils in MFL, will provide information either supporting or against previous research findings. The EAL policy of School X, although sometimes disregarded, does loosely match earlier research, while that of School Y is far more comprehensive and can be directly linked to previous research findings. Through analyzing pupil set lists and examination results, I should be able to deduce whether more stringent policy observance would be beneficial for either school. Planning and specification of an Action Plan for Implementation In order to analyse the current situation, I will use my personal experience in the MFL and EAL departments of Schools X and Y. To aid research preparations, Fischer (2001) solicits, “As you think about your teaching, how do you know when something really went well? What do you feel you are good at? How did you get good at it?” I believe that all of these questions can be answered through teacher-pupil interaction, consideration of examination results and observance of ‘best practice’, along with learning from mistakes. For this reason, I have chosen “outsider” research (Lee & Van den Berg, in Clarke, 2003) for this investigation, where the focus is on observing procedures in the school environment from an objective standpoint. I will discuss the MFL situation informally with pupils and teachers, but as this evidence will be subjective, it is not a reliable enough foundation on which to base my conclusions. My main source of evidence will be set lists and examination results because these are totally unbiased and factual. The negative side of this sort of information is that it does not provide details on pupils’ levels of ability or motivation in the subject, nor on the quality of MFL teaching. I will analyse the number of EAL pupils in different sets, and I predict that there will be a higher proportion of EAL pupils in low-ability sets. I will use original set lists from the beginning of the school year, before any set changes, to ensure there is no duplication of data. As this evidence is statistical, there is no potential for biased data manipulation, so I am certain that all information collected will be true and accurate. In addition to set lists, I will examine 2004 MFL GCSE results to evaluate the performance of EAL pupils. The downside is that as MFL is no longer compulsory at Key Stage 4, the GCSE group at School X was small, so I will also use 2005 mock GCSE examination results for this school. Again, this information is based on figures so there is no possibility for prejudiced conclusions. From an ethical viewpoint, it is imperative to remain objective throughout and guard the anonymity of any participants in the research. Protection of human subjects is paramount in any research, especially that involving ‘vulnerable’ subjects, as is the case here, since I will be working with children from ethnic minorities. I will stay objective by refraining from influencing in any way the opinions or views of participants and remaining an impartial observer.

2

Analysis of the data/outcomes In School X, more EAL pupils were present in low-ability than high-ability sets, but the difference between top and bottom sets is significantly reduced during Key Stage 3. In Year 7, 8.3% of top set and 35.1% of bottom set are speakers of EAL – a difference of 26.8%; in Year 8 the difference is reduced to 14.2%; and in Year 9 to just 10%. This implies that School X places EAL pupils in the bottom set until they have proven that they are capable of more, rather than giving them the opportunity to demonstrate their ability from the outset. In opposition, the pattern at School Y is inconclusive. There is no evidence of different proportions of EAL pupils in each set, although in each year group, the highest proportion of EAL pupils is in Set 2, apart from in Year 8 French, where the majority is in Set 1. The data collected does not account for the actual ability of pupils, but as previous research has proven that EAL pupils have already developed the skills necessary to learn another language, one would presume that they would be better placed initially in a high-ability set, as in School Y, where they would be able to learn from classmates. Concerning GCSE results, although the School X sample is small, it is apparent that EAL pupils have outperformed non-EAL pupils in both 2004 examinations and 2005 mocks. There appears to be a much wider ability-range in non-EAL pupils, whereas EAL pupils seem to achieve higher grades in general. Taking the slightly larger sample of pupils at School Y, this pattern is not overtly repeated. EAL and non-EAL pupils perform at a similar level, apart from Spanish GCSE Sets 1 and 2, where a similar pattern to that in School X emerges and EAL pupils outperform their non-EAL classmates. The pattern does not however continue into Set 3, corroborating the hypothesis that EAL pupils do not benefit from low-ability setting. It also suggests that in learning English, EAL pupils may acquire skills to facilitate learning Spanish, but these skills do not assist them in learning French. It must be noted here however that School Y has over 70% EAL pupils, whereas School X has only around 20%, which could be a reason for differences in results. Consideration of the degree of alignment of these in relation to the literature review The data analysis presents a new, previously unencountered, factor to the research findings discussed in the literature review. Although previous research concluded that EAL pupils should be placed in sets corresponding to their cognitive ability rather than to their level of English, prior to this I had not found any evidence that this was not happening in schools. It was perhaps presumed that schools would follow advice from professionals and heed research into the field, as in School Y, but this investigation has proven that in School X this is certainly not the case. Although EAL pupils in School X appear to be achieving higher MFL GCSE grades than non-EAL pupils, they are consistently placed in low-ability sets in Key Stage 3, which could have negative consequences on their future MFL achievements. As confirmed by the decrease in range of EAL pupils between top and bottom sets from Years 7 to 9, some EAL pupils must be proving themselves and being moved into higher-ability sets. However, previous findings that EAL pupils learn more quickly working with fluent native English speakers (DfES, 2005) are being disregarded, as in low-ability sets this is not always possible, due to the fact that non-EAL pupils are often stretching themselves to understand the work so do not have the time or ability to help EAL learners. Behavioural difficulties, which are more common in lower-ability groups, also affect progress. In brief, the outcomes of previous research seem to be being overlooked, and EAL pupils are put in sets with no consideration of linguistic skills already acquired through learning English. Some manage to demonstrate a higher level of ability and move sets, but others never gain this opportunity. This further supports one of the issues highlighted by Mills (2002), that assessment of EAL pupils is extremely difficult. However, in School Y, it seems that the EAL policy reflects previous

3

research findings and teachers do adhere to the policy. So why do EAL pupils not outperform non-EAL pupils in GCSE MFL at this school? Consideration of further scope for investigation, and reflection on unresolved issues, questions and concerns This study has in fact uncovered more questions than answers. At School X, although an EAL policy exists and specialist advice is available, these are often overlooked, so further research into the practicalities of the philosophy may be beneficial here. Vis-à-vis GCSE results, having predicted that EAL pupils would outperform non-EAL pupils, the outcomes of this investigation show that EAL pupils may achieve higher grades in Spanish, but that French may not be affected. Further research, using a larger sample of pupils studying a variety of Modern Foreign Languages, perhaps at a language college, where all pupils must study a language to GCSE level, would be necessary to obtain a definitive conclusion. Since EAL pupils appear to perform better than non-EAL pupils at GCSE level, at least in Spanish, it would be advantageous for them to be in a high-ability set from the beginning of Year 7. From this study, it is clear that current assessment criteria for setting pupils should be modified in some way for EAL pupils, and in case of doubt, they should be placed in a higher-ability set until a more accurate recommendation can be made. In School X, the percentage of EAL pupils in Key Stage 4 classes is higher than in Key Stage 3, whereas in School Y the percentage of EAL pupils in Key Stage 4 classes is significantly lower than in Key Stage 3. What does this suggest about the experiences/expectations of EAL pupils studying MFL? This, alongside school catchment area, parental backing and degree of specialist support available in the area, is a major influencing factor that could be considered in future investigations. To discover the true national picture, research would have to be completed in a wide variety of schools across the country, as this investigation has already shown two vastly different operational approaches. Conclusion and recommendations All of the findings of this research seem to support prior investigations into the area of EAL. It appears that advice resulting from earlier literature would be beneficial to EAL pupils, should schools choose to follow it. The problem in School X is that previous research has been disregarded, to the detriment of EAL pupils. The type of teacher research used in this investigation has been “outsider” research:

In the case of “outsider” teacher research, a teacher studies other educators for the fundamental purposes of understanding and improving educational practice generally. (Lee & Van den Berg, in Clarke, 2003: 93)

This sort of research can at times appear disparaging, but it is important to bear in mind its purpose – the educational benefit to children. Taking into account this research in conjunction with previous literature, it is evident that EAL pupils are strong in MFL. Having already acquired the expertise needed to learn English, this knowledge can be transferred to the learning of another foreign language. Through analysis of the outcomes of this research and the other

4

literature on the topic, it is clear that EAL pupils new to a school could justifiably be placed in a high-ability rather than a low-ability set: Some subjects are more linguistically demanding than others. However, it should not be assumed that these subjects are beyond the cognitive capabilities of pupils, even if the linguistic demands need considerable support in the early years. (Manchester EMAS, 2004) As MFL should be no more “linguistically demanding” to an EAL pupil than to a non-EAL pupil, because the class ought to be delivered in the target language (Spanish, French etc.), EAL pupils should be able to manage in a higher-ability set because they already possess second language learning skills. The analysis of Spanish GCSE results from School X and Sets 1 and 2 of School Y lends further support to this, since EAL pupils generally attained higher marks than non-EAL pupils in their examinations. This area, however, would profit from further investigation, using a larger sample of examination candidates studying a wider range of languages; GCSE results from School Y show that EAL pupils did not appear to do any better than their classmates at French, so acquiring English as an Additional Language perhaps facilitates the learning of some foreign languages, but not others. The breakdown of the School X Key Stage 3 sets demonstrates that EAL pupils are regularly presumed less intelligent or less capable than their peers and are all too often placed in low-ability sets, having to prove their ability in the subject before being permitted to move into a more suitable set. Most non-EAL pupils, on the other hand, are placed in high-ability sets in Year 7 but many are moved into lower sets in subsequent years to allow for high-ability EAL pupils. In the short term, a great deal more research needs to be carried out into the field of EAL. Suggested areas for research, identified by this study, include the performance of EAL pupils compared with non-EAL pupils in MFL at GCSE level, and perhaps a continuation of this study into AS and A2 Advanced Level examinations. It may also be useful to focus on the progression of specific EAL pupils from the beginning of Year 7 up to GCSE and beyond. This would give a more accurate picture of the setting situation of EAL pupils, since the GCSE grades could be used as a measure of ability in MFL, and each pupil could be tracked from Year 7, taking note of the sets in which he or she was placed from the beginning. If an EAL pupil were placed in bottom set in Year 7 and went on to gain a grade A* at GCSE, it would show that his or her level of ability had not been accurately assessed at the outset. It could also prove constructive to trace the progression of EAL pupils placed in an inappropriate set at the commencement, in order to see the effects it may have had on their learning. Additionally, it would be interesting to investigate different languages, as the pattern that has emerged in Spanish does not seem to be reflected in French. In the medium term, teachers and school leaders should be aiming to incorporate further research findings into their school EAL and setting policies, and obviously put these policies into practice, since unless policies are adhered to, they are worthless. An effective assessment system for EAL pupils must also be established, in order for EAL pupils to be placed in the correct set from the beginning of Year 7, so that progress is not hampered by slow lesson pace or behavioural issues in low-ability sets. This method could make use of CAT scores, or other similar tests, which

5

could possibly be carried out in the mother tongue, in order to influence setting, which may help to obtain a more accurate setting placement from the outset. As a long term goal, educational establishments should continue to pay attention to research carried out on EAL pupils and their performance in MFL, and integrate any recommendations into school policies, without forgetting the advice from previous literature. As the whole field of learners is EAL is under-researched in the UK, there is plenty of scope for new investigations, and the outcomes of these should be welcomed by the educational world. With regard to comments from members of the school community, all of the staff and teachers with whom I spoke were of the same opinion – that same opinion expressed by the literature on EAL pupils. One EAL pupil at School X, recently arrived from China and placed in set 4 of 5 in Spanish, said “English hard; Spanish too easy”. The majority of the other pupils in her class had severe behavioural difficulties, and she was unable to obtain help from any of the other pupils as they had difficulty understanding the work themselves. Other teachers in School X agreed that the system in place was prejudiced against EAL pupils, who often had to put up with the poor behaviour of their non-EAL classmates. However, no matter whom I spoke to, the blame was always pointed in the direction of somebody else, and no teacher interviewed was willing to take responsibility for the situation or ownership of the problem. The fact that in School X the setting of pupils in MFL had nothing to do with any teacher in the department is perhaps another situation that needs to be rectified, as MFL teachers are currently the only people able to assess the ability of pupils in MFL. School X does not put Year 7 pupils in sets until November, by which time the teachers have a good idea of the pupils’ capabilities, but why wait until November if the teachers have no input anyway? The setting of pupils at School Y, on the other hand, appears to be effectively meeting the needs of EAL pupils, although further research into future examination results would be necessary to find out whether setting does play as large a role as suggested by this research. In respect of the influence that this study has had on my own professional development, I now have some evidence supporting the notion that some EAL pupils are being disadvantaged by being placed in sets that do not correspond to their intellectual capabilities. It could be that some schools are unable to determine an appropriate set for EAL pupils as there is at present no adequate assessment available to test their ability. However, now that I am aware of the situation, in future I will always keep careful track of the progress made by EAL pupils in my classes, and at the slightest sign of underachievement, I will do my best to move them into a different set, using this research to support the case. Hopefully, however, a suitable means of assessment will be devised in the near future to test the true capabilities of EAL pupils, thus eliminating the need for such action. In conclusion, this examination of the support system in operation for EAL pupils at Schools X and Y has been successful at identifying areas where these and other schools may find it difficult to meet the needs of EAL pupils, and it has also paved the way for further research into the domain. It has enhanced my professional development and influenced my future in teaching by making me aware of the situation and assisting me in providing evidence to substantiate what I suspected

6

through observation of the system – that EAL pupils often have an aptitude for learning other foreign languages and that their needs are different to those of non-EAL pupils, so must be met by different means. One possible way to begin meeting the needs of EAL pupils more successfully is to ensure that research findings such as these are more extensively published, and therefore reach a wider audience, who will then be able to take action.

7

References Altrichter, H, Posch, P & Teachers Investigate Their Work: An Introduction to the Somekh, B. (1993) Methods of Action Research, London: Routledge Busher, H. & Harris, A. (2000) Subject Leadership and School Improvement, London: Paul Chapman Publishing Ltd. Clarke, A. & Erickson (2003) Teacher Inquiry: Living the Research in Everyday Practice, London: Routledge Falmer DfES (2002) Access and Engagement at Key Stage 3: Teaching EAL Learners, London: DfES DfES (2002) Key Stage 3 National Strategy Grammar for Writing: Supporting Pupils Learning EAL, London: DfES Dunham, J. (1995) Developing Effective School Management, London: Routledge Hollingsworth, S. (1984) International Action Research, Great Britain: Oxford University Press Kincheloe, J. L. (2003) Teachers as Researchers: Qualitative Inquiry as a Path to Empowerment, 2nd Edition, London: Routledge Falmer Levine, J. (1990) Bilingual Learners and the Mainstream Curriculum, Great Britain: The Falmer Press McKernan, J. (1996) Curriculum Action Research, 2nd Edition, London: Routledge Falmer McNiff, J (2002) Action Research: Principles and Practice, 2nd Edition, London: Routledge Falmer Mason, J. (2002) Researching Your Own Practice: The Discipline of Noticing, London: Routledge Falmer Nixon, J. (1981) A Teacher’s Guide to Action Research, Great Britain: The Pitman Press OFSTED (2003) More Advanced Learners of English as an Additional Language in Secondary Schools and Colleges, Reynolds, D. et al (2002) World Class Schools: International Perspectives on School Effectiveness, London: Routledge Falmer

8

Scarcella, R. (1990) Teaching Language Minority Students in the Multicultural Classroom, United States of America: Prentice-Hall Inc. Searle, C. (2001) An Exclusive Education: Race, Class and Exclusion in British Schools, London: Lawrence & Wishart W.W.W. Pages & E-books Burnaford, G., Fischer, J. Teachers Doing Research: The Power of Action through Inquiry, & Hobson, D. (2001) 2nd Edition, London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers http://library.edgehill.ac.uk/search/tteacher+research/tteacher+research/-2%2C0%2C0%2CB/l856&FF=tteachers+doing+research+electronic+resource+the+power+of+action+through+inquiry&1%2C1%2C%2C1%2C0/indexsort=- (accessed 9 August 2005) DfES (2005) Aiming High: Meeting the Needs of Newly Arrived Learners of English as an Additional Language (EAL) (updated 2005) http://www.standards.dfes.gov.uk/primary/publications/inclusion/newarrivals/pns_incl138105newarrivals.pdf (accessed 8 August 2005) Manchester Council (2004) Ethnic Minority Achievement Service: Supporting New Arrivals (updated 13 December 2004), http://www.manchester.gov.uk/education/diversity/ema/newarriv.htm, (accessed 11 March 2005) Mills, R. W. & J. (2002) Bilingualism in the Primary School: A Handbook for Teachers, London: Routledge http://library.edgehill.ac.uk/search/tbilingual/tbilingual/25%2C33%2C33%2CB/l856&FF=tbilingualism+in+the+primary+school+electronic+resource+a+handbook+for+teachers&1%2C1%2C%2C1%2C0 (accessed 11 August 2005) NALDIC (2005) NALDIC Bilingual Research, (updated 2005), http://www.naldic.org.uk/docs/research/bilingual.cfmT, (accessed 11 March 2005)

9

APPENDIX 1 Presentation of data/outcomes From the quantitative data from School X showing Key Stage 3 sets (Figures 2 & 3), the proportion of EAL pupils in low-ability sets is substantial. As predicted, as the sets get lower, the proportion of EAL pupils gets higher; this is significant because progression of EAL pupils is affected by the capabilities of their classmates. Unfortunately, the small sample size of GCSE candidates at School X made the formulation of any definitive conclusions impossible. However, from the cumulative frequency graph of 2004 GCSE results (Figure 6), it is apparent that EAL pupils outperformed non-EAL pupils in Spanish, as no EAL pupil obtained below a grade D. The graph of the 2005 mock results (Figure 7) is ambiguous, owing to fewer candidates, but again the lowest grades were obtained by non-EAL pupils. In relation to data from School Y, Figures 12, 13 and 14 make it clear that most EAL pupils in each year group are in Set 2, with the exception of Year 8 French, where most are in Set 1. This suggests that EAL pupils in this school are given the opportunity to put previously acquired skills to good use in learning MFL. Furthermore, there is no pattern at this school implying the number of EAL pupils in low-ability sets decreases as they progress through Key Stage 3 like in School X. From the cumulative frequency graphs of GCSE results, it is evident that EAL pupils performed at a similar level to non-EAL pupils (Figures 16-20) apart from in Spanish Sets 1 and 2 (Figure 20), where EAL pupils generally surpassed their classmates. This supports my original hypothesis that placing EAL pupils in the bottom set does not benefit them in any way.

10

Breakdown of EAL Pupils Studying Spanish in Each Year Group Year

Total number of pupils

Total number of EAL pupils

Percentage of pupils with EAL

7 212 30 14.2 8 222 29 13.1 9 201 28 13.9

10 18 3 16.7 11 25 4 16

School X Figure 1

Breakdown of EAL Pupils in Each Spanish Class

Class Total In Class

Total EAL

Percentage EAL

7A1 30 2 6.77A2 29 2 6.97A3 30 4 13.37A4 19 9 47.47B1 30 3 107B2 30 3 107B3 26 3 11.57B4 18 4 22.28A1 30 2 6.78A2 29 2 6.98A3 25 5 208A4 15 5 33.38A5 12 2 16.78B1 29 3 10.38B2 31 1 3.28B3 26 4 15.48B4 15 2 13.38B5 10 3 309A1 30 4 13.39A2 26 5 19.29A3 30 4 13.39A4 14 2 14.39B1 27 1 3.79B2 26 4 15.49B3 30 4 13.39B4 18 4 22.210AB 18 3 16.711A 13 1 7.711B 12 3 25

School X Figure 2

11

Breakdown of EAL Pupils in Each Spanish Set of Each Year Group (Key Stage 3)

Total In class

Total EAL in class

Percentage EAL in class

year 7 1 60 5 8.3 year 7 2 59 5 8.5 year 7 3 56 7 12.5 year 7 4 37 13 35.1 year 8 1 59 5 8.5 year 8 2 60 3 5 year 8 3 51 9 17.6 year 8 4 30 7 23.3 year 8 5 22 5 22.7 year 9 1 57 5 8.8 year 9 2 52 9 17.3 year 9 3 60 8 13.3 year 9 4 32 6 18.8

School X Figure 3

Breakdown of EAL Pupils in Spanish Sets Throughout School (not by specific year groups)

Set Total number of pupils

Total number of EAL pupils

Percentage of EAL pupils

1 207 19 9.2 2 183 20 10.9 3 167 24 14.4 4 99 26 26.3 5 22 5 22.7

School X Figure 4

12

Breakdown of Percentages of EAL Pupils in Each Spanish Set of Each Key Stage 3 Year Group

Set 1 Set 2 Set 3 Set 4 Set 5 Total Year 7 16.7 16.7 23.3 43.3 100 Year 8 17.2 10.3 31 17.2 24.1 99.8 ←due to rounding Year 9 17.9 32.1 28.6 21.4 100

School X Figure 5

13

14

GCSE Spanish Results 2004

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

A* A B C D E F G

Grade

Cum

ulat

ive

Freq

uenc

y (%

)

Non-EAL pupilsEAL pupils

School X

Figure 6

15

Mock GCSE Spanish Results 2005

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

A* A B C D E F G

Grade

Cum

ulat

ive

Freq

uenc

y (%

)

Non-EAL pupilsEAL pupils

School X

Figure 7

Breakdown of EAL Pupils in Each Key Stage 3 Year Group

Year Total number of pupils

Total number of EAL pupils

Percentage of pupils with EAL

7 204 169 82.88 185 152 82.29 182 132 72.5

School Y Figure 8

Breakdown of EAL Pupils in Each Key Stage 3 Class

Class Total In Class Total EAL

Percentage EAL

7Fr1 36 22 61.17Fr2 31 28 90.37Fr3 27 21 77.87Fr4 22 19 86.48Fr1 34 27 79.48Fr2 31 25 80.68Fr3 28 25 89.39Fr1 27 18 66.79Fr2 24 19 79.29Fr3 22 14 63.69Fr4 21 13 61.97Sp1 29 24 82.87Sp2 30 27 907Sp3 29 25 86.28Sp1 32 26 81.38Sp2 31 29 93.58Sp3 29 21 72.49Sp1 22 15 68.29Sp2 23 20 879Sp3 19 15 78.99Sp4 24 18 75Total 571 451 79

School Y Figure 9 Fr = French Sp = Spanish

16

Breakdown of EAL Pupils in Each Set of Each Year Group (Key Stage 3)

French Total In class

Total EAL in class

Percentage EAL in class

year 7 1 36 22 61.1 year 7 2 31 28 90.3 year 7 3 27 21 77.8 year 7 4 22 19 86.4 year 8 1 34 27 79.4 year 8 2 31 25 80.6 year 8 3 28 25 89.3 year 9 1 27 18 66.7 year 9 2 24 19 79.2 year 9 3 22 14 63.6 year 9 4 21 13 61.9

Spanish Total In class

Total EAL in class

Percentage EAL in class

year 7 1 29 24 82.8 year 7 2 30 27 90.0 year 7 3 29 25 86.2 year 8 1 32 29 90.6 year 8 2 31 25 80.6 year 8 3 29 21 72.4 year 9 1 22 15 68.2 year 9 2 23 20 87.0 year 9 3 19 15 78.9 year 9 4 24 18 75.0

School Y Figure 10

17

Breakdown of EAL Pupils in MFL Sets Throughout Key Stage 3 (not by specific year groups)

Fr & Sp Sets Total number of pupils

Total number of EAL pupils

Percentage of EAL pupils

1 180 135 75.02 170 144 84.73 154 121 78.64 67 50 74.6

French sets Total number of pupils

Total number of EAL pupils

Percentage of EAL pupils

1 97 67 69.12 86 72 83.73 77 60 77.94 43 32 74.4

Spanish

sets Total number of

pupils Total number of EAL

pupils Percentage of EAL

pupils 1 83 68 81.92 84 72 85.73 77 61 79.24 24 18 75.0

School Y Figure 11

18

Breakdown of Percentages of EAL Pupils in Each MFL Set of Each Key Stage 3 Year Group

French sets Set 1 Set 2 Set 3 Set 4 Total Year 7 24.4 31.1 23.3 21.1 100 Year 8 35.1 32.5 32.5 100 Year 9 28.1 29.7 21.9 20.3 100 Spanish sets Set 1 Set 2 Set 3 Set 4 Total Year 7 31.6 35.5 32.9 100 Year 8 34.2 38.2 27.6 100 Year 9 22.1 29.4 22.1 26.5 100 Fr & Sp sets Set 1 Set 2 Set 3 Set 4 Total Year 7 27.7 33.1 27.7 11.4 100 Year 8 34.6 35.3 30.1 100 Year 9 25.0 29.5 22.0 23.5 100

School Y Figure 12

19

20

EAL Pupils Divided into Key Stage 3 French Sets

0.0

5.0

10.0

15.0

20.0

25.0

30.0

35.0

40.0

Set 1 Set 2 Set 3 Set 4

Set

% of EAL pupilsYear 7Year 8Year 9

School Y Figure 13

21

EAL Pupils Divided into Key Stage 3 Spanish Sets

0.0

5.0

10.0

15.0

20.0

25.0

30.0

35.0

40.0

45.0

Set 1 Set 2 Set 3 Set 4

Set

% of EAL PupilsYear 7Year 8Year 9

Figure 14 School Y

GCSE MFL Results 2004 (Cumulative Frequency)

French A* A B C D E F G Non-EAL pupils 1 3 10 14 16 16 16 16EAL pupils 1 9 16 29 34 35 35 35 Spanish A* A B C D E F G Non-EAL pupils 1 2 7 12 18 19 19 19EAL pupils 1 3 9 36 45 48 48 48 Overall A* A B C D E F G Non-EAL pupils 2 5 17 26 34 35 35 35EAL pupils 2 12 25 65 79 83 83 83 PERCENTAGES French A* A B C D E F G Non-EAL pupils 6.25% 18.75% 62.50% 87.50% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00%EAL pupils 2.86% 25.71% 45.71% 82.86% 97.14% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% Spanish A* A B C D E F G Non-EAL pupils 5.26% 10.53% 36.84% 63.16% 94.74% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00%EAL pupils 2.08% 6.25% 18.75% 75.00% 93.75% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% Overall A* A B C D E F G Non-EAL pupils 5.71% 14.29% 48.57% 74.29% 97.14% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00%EAL pupils 2.41% 14.46% 30.12% 78.31% 95.18% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00%

School Y

Figure 15

22

23

GCSE MFL Results 2004 (French and Spanish)

0.00%

20.00%

40.00%

60.00%

80.00%

100.00%

120.00%

A* A B C D E F G

Grade

Cum

ulat

ive

Freq

uenc

y (%

)

Non-EAL pupilsEAL pupils

Figure 16 School Y

24

GCSE Results in French 2004

0.00%

20.00%

40.00%

60.00%

80.00%

100.00%

120.00%

A* A B C D E F G

Grade

Cum

ulat

ive

Freq

uenc

y (%

)

Non-EAL pupilsEAL pupils

School Y Figure 17

25

GCSE Results in Spanish 2004

0.00%

20.00%

40.00%

60.00%

80.00%

100.00%

120.00%

A* A B C D E F G

Grade

Cum

ulat

ive

Freq

uenc

y (%

)

Non-EAL pupilsEAL pupils

School Y Figure 18

Helen Bergqvist Research Scaffold

GCSE French Results 2004 by Set

French Set 1

0.0

20.0

40.0

60.0

80.0

100.0

120.0

A* A B C D E F

Grade

Cum

ulat

ive

Freq

uenc

y (%

)

Non-EAL PupilsEAL pupils

French Set 2

0.0

20.0

40.0

60.0

80.0

100.0

120.0

A* A B C D E F

Grades

Cum

ulat

ive

Freq

uenc

y (%

)

Non-EAL PupilsEAL pupils

French Set 3

0.0

20.0

40.0

60.0

80.0

100.0

120.0

A* A B C D E F

Grade

Cum

ulat

ive

Freq

uenc

y (%

)

Non-EAL PupilsEAL pupils

School Y

Figure 19

- 26 -

Helen Bergqvist earch Scaffold

- 27 -

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

A* A B

Cum

ulat

ive

Freq

uenc

y (%

)

GCSE SpanishS

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

A* A B

Cum

ulat

ive

Freq

uenc

y (%

)

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

A* A B

Cum

ulat

ive

Freq

uenc

y

Res

Results 2004 by et

Spanish Set 1

C D E F

Grade

Non-EAL PupilsEAL pupils

Spanish Set 2

C D E F

Grade

Non-EAL PupilsEAL pupils

Spanish Set 3

C D E F

Grade

Non-EAL PupilsEAL pupils

School Y

Figure 20