UNPUBLISHED INTERIM REPORT – DO NOT
CIRCULATE See www.dcsf.gov.uk/research for citable summary
National Foundation for Educational Research
Primary Modern Foreign
Languages: survey of
implementation of national
entitlement to language learning
at Key Stage 2
Second Interim Report
Karen Whitby
Pauline Wade
Sandie Schagen
June 2008
UNPUBLISHED INTERIM REPORT – DO NOT
CIRCULATE See www.dcsf.gov.uk/research for citable summary
Contents
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Introduction
1
1.1 Aims
1.2 Methodology
1.3 Structure of the report
1
1
3
Progress in provision
5
2.1 Language learning provision
2.2 Policies on language provision
2.3 Percentage of pupils receiving language teaching
5
8
9
Delivery, resources and assessment
10
3.1
3.2
3.3
3.4
10
13
14
16
Teaching staff and training support
Methods of provision and teaching time
Resources
Assessment
Meeting the entitlement, transition and sustainability
18
4.1 Meeting the entitlement
4.2 Transition from KS2 to KS3
4.3 LA expansion plans
18
19
21
Summary and conclusions
22
5.1 The next stage
23
References
24
Appendix 1
School questionnaire:
Basic frequencies
25
25
Appendix 2
School questionnaire: Questions cross-tabulated by key
variables
32
Appendix 3
Local Authority questionnaire:
42
Basic frequencies
42
Appendix 4
49
Local authority questionnaire:
Key questions cross-tabulated by LA type
49
UNPUBLISHED INTERIM REPORT – DO NOT
CIRCULATE See www.dcsf.gov.uk/research for citable summary
1. Introduction
This report provides the findings of the second year of a three-year research
study on the progress being made by primary schools in England in
implementing the National Languages Strategy.
1.1
Aims
The aims of the research are:
1.2

To assess the nature and extent of language learning provision at key stage
2 in schools in England, and the progress towards the target of 100 per cent
entitlement to language learning at least in part in class time for all pupils
in key stage 2 by 2010.

To identify and map local authority (LA) strategies for delivering
languages at key stage 2 in their area, and the kinds of support they
provide.

To identify trends in the provision of primary languages, the features of
their successful implementation, and the barriers to further extension and
enhancement of this provision.

To assess changes in provision of primary languages over time.
Methodology
In three consecutive years: 2006, 2007 and 2008, all LAs in England are being
sent a questionnaire to ask them about the progress of schools in their area in
teaching primary languages, and about the support they have been able to offer
to schools to help them achieve full entitlement1. The first survey was sent to
148 LAs in October 2006 and the number of completed returns was 105, a
The primary entitlement to language learning is defined in the following way: ‘every child should
have the opportunity throughout Key Stage 2 to study a foreign language and develop their interest in
the culture of other nations. They should have access to high quality teaching and learning
opportunities, making use of native speakers and elearning. By age 11 they should have the opportunity
to reach a recognised level of competence on the Common European Framework and for that
achievement to be recognised through a national scheme… and be delivered at least in part in class
time’ (DfES, 2002, p15).
1
1
UNPUBLISHED INTERIM REPORT – DO NOT
CIRCULATE See www.dcsf.gov.uk/research for citable summary
response rate of 70 per cent. The questionnaire was comprehensive (about
eight pages in length), in order to obtain the range of data required. The
second survey questionnaire, sent out in October 2007, was shorter (about four
pages in length) and consisted of ‘update’ questions, designed to provide key
data on progress. The 2008 survey of LAs will return to the format of a longer,
more comprehensive questionnaire, similar to 2006.
The school perspective is being gained from a sample of schools in England
that are taking part in a questionnaire survey in each of the three years. The
first survey was sent to headteachers of 7,899 schools in October 2006 and the
number of completed returns was 3,789, a response rate of 48 per cent. Again,
the questionnaire was comprehensive (about 12 pages in length). The second
survey questionnaire, sent out in October 2007, was shorter (four pages in
length) and consisted of ‘update’ questions, to provide key data on progress.
This was sent to headteachers in all the schools that responded in 2006, plus a
target group of 500 schools (see 1.2.1, below). The same schools will be sent a
survey in 2008, which will again be a longer, more comprehensive
questionnaire, similar to 2006.
The return rates for the school and LA questionnaires in the second year of the
survey are shown in Table 1.1.
Table 1.1
Return rates for the schools and LA questionnaires: 2007
School
Local authority
Number of questionnaires sent
4,047
148
Number of completed returns
2,793
106
69
72
Response rate %
1.2.1 The target group
It was recognised that schools interested in and teaching primary languages
might be more likely to complete the questionnaire, and therefore that there
could be bias in the responses. As a counter measure, a target group of 500
schools was identified from the original survey sample, and information on
progress in teaching primary languages in these 500 schools will be obtained
from each of them in each year of the research. The 500 schools were selected
to be a representative subset of the total sample of schools surveyed, and any
2
UNPUBLISHED INTERIM REPORT – DO NOT
CIRCULATE See www.dcsf.gov.uk/research for citable summary
that do not return questionnaires by the required date are contacted by
telephone. If they are unable or unwilling to complete the questionnaire, they
are asked to provide at least the basic information on whether they offer
primary languages in curriculum time.
Of the target group in 2007, 100 per cent provided at least the basic
information. Furthermore, 144 schools (five per cent of the total responding)
that provided only the basic information in 2006 chose to complete and return
the questionnaire in 2007. This means that, of schools returning
questionnaires, 95 per cent were the same schools as 2006.
1.3
Structure of the report
The report discusses the findings from the 2007 school and local authority
questionnaires. Where appropriate these findings are compared with the
findings from the 2006 survey. Each chapter reports relevant findings from
both the school and the LA surveys. The structure of the report is outlined
below.
The next chapter (Chapter 2), reports on schools’ provision of languages
within class time at key stage 2 (KS2). It examines which languages are
taught, and the percentage of pupils receiving language teaching in class time.
Chapter 3 discusses the delivery of primary languages at KS2, including the
amount of time spent, the way in which teaching is provided, who provides the
teaching, the resources and support available, and monitoring and assessment.
Chapter 4 considers schools’ progress towards the primary language
entitlement at KS2 compared to the previous year, the sustainability of current
arrangements, specific school and LA arrangements on transition in languages,
and LA plans for the expansion of language provision.
Chapter 5 provides a summary of the report and draws conclusions regarding
the implementation of the entitlement to date. Relevant tables are included in
the chapters, but a complete set of tables is presented in the appendices at the
end of the report, as follows:
Appendix 1 School questionnaire: basic frequencies
3
UNPUBLISHED INTERIM REPORT – DO NOT
CIRCULATE See www.dcsf.gov.uk/research for citable summary
Appendix 2 School questionnaire: questions cross-tabulated by key variables
Appendix 3 Local authority questionnaire: basic frequencies
Appendix 4 LA questionnaire: key questions cross-tabulated by LA type
4
UNPUBLISHED INTERIM REPORT – DO NOT
CIRCULATE See www.dcsf.gov.uk/research for citable summary
2. Progress in provision
This chapter looks at the extent to which schools were providing pupils in KS2
with the opportunity to learn a language (or languages) within class time in
2007. It looks back to the results of the 2006 survey of schools to determine to
what extent language learning provision has changed over the past year.
Where appropriate it also compares the languages young people are learning,
policies on provision, and the proportion of pupils in each year group
receiving language teaching.
2.1
Language learning provision
Of the main sample, 93 per cent of the schools surveyed responded that they
offer pupils in key stage 2 the opportunity to learn a language within class
time, 12 percentage points higher than in 2006. Within the target group
(selected to provide a more accurate representation of the national picture, see
Section 1.2.1) 84 per cent said that they provided the opportunity. This
represented a rise of 14 percentage points from 2006. Furthermore, most of the
nine government office (GO) regions showed an increase in the provision of
the opportunity to learn a language within class time (see Table 2.1.1).
As in the previous survey, schools in more difficult circumstances (having a
higher number of pupils eligible for free school meals (FSM), or a poorer
overall level of performance at key stage 2) tended to be less likely to have
language provision (see Tables 2.1.2 – 2.1.3). Levels of pupils with special
educational needs (SEN) appeared to have no significant impact.
5
UNPUBLISHED INTERIM REPORT – DO NOT
CIRCULATE See www.dcsf.gov.uk/research for citable summary
Table 2.1.1
Opportunity to learn a language/s within class time by GO
Region (weighted)
Yes
No
N
Government Office
%
%
Region
2006
2007
2006
2007
2006
2007
North East
North West/ M’side
Y’hire & The Humber
East Midlands
West Midlands
Eastern
London
South East
South West
N=
79
77
75
75
60
57
63
70
74
91
88
85
86
72
80
77
85
88
20
22
24
24
38
40
36
29
25
9
11
15
14
28
19
22
15
12
229
585
427
370
384
475
352
574
449
157
431
346
257
289
335
247
410
321
3845
2794
A single response item
Non responses ranged between 0 and 4 per cent
Table 2.1.2
Opportunity to learn a language/s within class time by % FSM
(weighted)
Proportion of pupils
eligible for FSM
Lowest 20%
Second lowest 20%
Middle 20%
Second highest 20%
Highest 20%
N=
Yes
%
No
%
N
2006
2007
2006
2007
2006
76
75
73
65
57
89
89
83
79
75
23
23
26
34
41
11
11
16
21
24
904
805
765
666
707
3847
2007
669
575
571
492
478
2785
A single response item
Non responses ranged between 0 and 2 per cent
Table 2.1.3
Opportunity to learn a language/s within class time by
attainment (weighted)
KS2 overall
performance
Lowest band
Second lowest band
Middle band
Second highest band
Highest band
N=
A single response item
6
Yes
%
No
%
2006
2007
2006
56
66
74
74
79
72
80
84
87
90
43
32
25
25
20
N
2007
2006
27
20
15
13
10
634
664
703
690
733
3424
2007
421
479
498
527
561
2485
UNPUBLISHED INTERIM REPORT – DO NOT
CIRCULATE See www.dcsf.gov.uk/research for citable summary
Non responses ranged between 0 and 2 per cent
It was also the case that schools with a larger proportion of pupils with English
as an additional language (EAL) tended to be less likely to have language
provision (see Table 2.1.4). This is particularly interesting in the light of
Ofsted’s recent finding that trainee primary language teachers were not always
‘sufficiently aware of the need to build on languages already spoken by pupils
in their class… [and] did not always identify the language-learning knowledge
and experience of bilingual and plurilingual pupils’ (2008, p13).
Table 2.1.4
Proportion of
EAL pupils
(2005)
None
1-5%
6-49%
More than
50%
Opportunity to learn a language/s within class time by %
EAL (weighted)
Yes
%
No
%
N
2006
2007
2006
2007
2006
2007
73
87
84
80
66
25
13
15
20
33
1322
200
977
1172
488
148
3847
2785
72
63
58
N=
27
35
41
1596
729
A single response item
Non responses ranged between 0 and 2 per cent
The most popular language by far was French (see Table 2.1.5). This is the
same as in 2006. Spanish and German remained popular languages for schools
to offer, and a small number also offered Italian, Chinese, Japanese and Urdu.
Other languages mentioned included Latin (ten schools), Russian and Polish
(both seven schools); 12 schools also mentioned the ‘Investigating
Languages’2 course.
It should be noted however, that the proportion of schools teaching each
language has reduced slightly since last year. This implies that schools are
offering fewer different languages.
2
A modern languages resource for key stage 2 which enables non-linguistic teachers to teach
languages.
7
UNPUBLISHED INTERIM REPORT – DO NOT
CIRCULATE See www.dcsf.gov.uk/research for citable summary
Table 2.1.5
Languages offered at KS2 in primary schools in England
Language
2006
%
91
25
12
4
1
1
1
4
1
3336
French
Spanish
German
IItalian
Chinese
Japanese
Urdu
Other languages
No response
Number of schools
2007
%
89
23
9
3
1
1
<1
3
<1
2586
A multiple response item.
2.2
Policies on language provision
The number of schools reporting that they had a written policy on primary
language provision had increased from 33 per cent in 2006 to 45 per cent in
2007. However, as shown in Table 2.2, this differed greatly depending on
school type, with infant/first schools least likely to have a written policy and
middle schools most likely (32 and 77 per cent respectively). The percentage
of schools with a policy on language provision increased for all school types in
2007, except for middle schools where the proportion fell between 2006 and
2007.
Table 2.2
Policy on language provision by school type
Type of school
Infant/First
Primary/Combined
Junior
Middle
N=
8
Yes
%
2006
2007
29
32
35
88
32
44
47
77
No
%
N
2006
2007
2006
2007
66
65
62
9
62
50
49
14
164
2688
325
75
3252
139
2129
259
56
2585
UNPUBLISHED INTERIM REPORT – DO NOT
CIRCULATE See www.dcsf.gov.uk/research for citable summary
A single response item
Between 2 and 7 per cent responded ‘don’t know’
2.3
Percentage of pupils receiving language teaching
Schools were asked to say what proportion of pupils in each year group
received language teaching. As in 2006, the majority of schools delivering
languages within class time did so for the whole year group (a median of 100
per cent for all year groups). At least 78 per cent of schools taught the whole
year group in years 3, 4, 5 and 6 as shown in Table 2.3.
Table 2.3
Percentage of pupils receiving language teaching by year
group
Less than 100 %
100 %
Not answered
N=
Year 3
%
Year 4
%
Year 5
%
7
84
9
7
85
8
8
81
12
Year 6
%
8
78
14
2586
A single response item
The questions concerning proportion of pupils were asked in the same way in
2006 and 2007. It is therefore possible to compare the same cohort of children,
those who were in year 5 in 2006 and in year 6 in 2007. This shows that the
majority of schools teach the same proportion of pupils as they move between
year 5 and 6, with a small proportion of schools either increasing or decreasing
the percentage of pupils taught languages.
9
UNPUBLISHED INTERIM REPORT – DO NOT
CIRCULATE See www.dcsf.gov.uk/research for citable summary
3. Delivery, resources and assessment
This chapter examines the way in which primary languages were being
delivered, resourced and assessed; it includes comparisons, where possible,
with the results of the 2006 school and LA surveys. It concentrates on which
staff were teaching languages and the type of class-time provision. The
chapter goes on to discuss the financial and training support for teaching and
assessment of languages, the available resources and the extent of assessment.
3.1
Teaching staff and training support
School respondents were asked who provided language teaching in the school,
and, as had been the case with the 2006 survey, it was usually a class teacher
with a background in languages (see Table 3.1.1). It is interesting to note the
percent of respondents who indicated that language teaching was provided by
a class teacher who had undergone language training had increased from 30
per cent in 2006 to 37 per cent in 2007.
Table 3.1.1
Who is currently providing language teaching?
2006
%
Primary class teacher with background in languages
Trained primary class teacher
Peripatetic specialist language teacher
Teacher from another secondary school
Teaching assistant
Language teacher on school staff
Foreign language assistant
Teacher from a specialist language college
Headteacher
Native speaker
Volunteer/parent
External AST or LA advisory teacher
Other
No response
N=
A multiple response item
Indicates the question was not asked in 2006
10
46
30
16
14
12
9
8
9
7
12
7
12
2
3336
2007
%
44
37
12
12
11
9
9
8
7
7
4
3
14
1
2586
UNPUBLISHED INTERIM REPORT – DO NOT
CIRCULATE See www.dcsf.gov.uk/research for citable summary
The 2007 survey also revealed a similar pattern of primary schools making use
of external expertise as in 2006, such as peripatetic specialist teachers (12 per
cent), teachers from secondary schools (12 per cent), teaching assistants (11
per cent) and native speakers (seven per cent).
Half the schools which responded used only one type of teacher, however, as
shown in Table 3.1.2, 30 per cent (783 schools) reported that they used two
different types. The most commonly quoted combination of two teaching types
was ‘primary class teacher with background in languages’ and ‘primary class
teacher who has undergone languages training’. This was given by 183
schools and represents 23 per cent of all schools reporting using two types of
teacher (seven per cent of all schools in the sample). It should be noted that
this may not represent two separate teachers. As with other combinations of
teacher types, one teacher could be described in more than one way.
Table 3.1.2
Most common combinations providing language teaching
Teacher type
Primary class teacher with background in languages +
Primary class teacher who has undergone languages training
Primary class teacher with background in languages +
Teacher from another secondary school
Primary class teacher with background in languages +
Other
Primary class teacher with background in languages +
Teaching assistant
Primary class teacher who has undergone languages training +
Teacher from another secondary school
Primary class teacher with background in languages +
Foreign language assistant
Primary class teacher with background in languages +
Peripatetic specialist language teacher
Primary class teacher with background in languages +
Teacher from a specialist language college
Primary class teacher who has undergone languages training +
Teacher from a specialist language college
Primary class teacher who has undergone languages training +
Teaching assistant
Primary class teacher with background in languages +
Head teacher
Primary class teacher who has undergone languages training +
Foreign language assistant
No. of schools
183
43
37
31
31
29
26
25
24
23
21
21
11
UNPUBLISHED INTERIM REPORT – DO NOT
CIRCULATE See www.dcsf.gov.uk/research for citable summary
Primary class teacher who has undergone languages training +
Head teacher
20
The most common response categorised as ‘other’ was that class teachers
taught their own classes (170 schools), i.e. they did not have one designated
person to teach languages throughout the school. In 58 schools, a class teacher
without specific language qualifications had responsibility for language
teaching. The details of the ‘Other’ category revealed small but interesting
examples of how schools utilised external language specialists, for example
staff provided by Consulates (17 schools) and university students on
placements (eight schools). A question on whether schools had recruited
teaching staff who were graduates of the initial teacher training languages
programme (not asked in 2006) revealed that seven per cent of the schools had
recruited staff in this way (Ofsted, 2008, figures show that between 2001 and
2007, 3000 teachers graduated from the initial teacher training languages
programme).
All but two of the LAs (98 per cent) reported that training had been provided
during the last 12 months (the 2006 survey asked local authorities if training
had been provided in the past four years and 96 per cent reported positively).
Details of the type of training provided by LAs in 2007 were very similar to
2006, as shown in Table 3.1.3. However, there was an increase in nearly every
category of the number of LAs offering these types of training, which
indicates an increasingly comprehensive approach to staff training for primary
languages.
In 2006, 21 LAs reported that between 80 and 100 per cent of KS2 schools
had been involved in some kind of training related to languages in the past 12
months. By 2007, this had increased to 35 LAs while correspondingly, the
number of LAs reporting a low proportion of schools involved in language
training (0-20 per cent), fell from seven to two.
Table 3.1.3
Types of training provided by LAs
Teaching resources/schemes of work
Languages pedagogy for primary teachers
Language proficiency
Primary pedagogy for secondary teachers
Subject management
Supporting teachers new to teaching KS2
Range of languages
12
2006
% of N
88
97
78
47
55
39
2007
% of N
95
95
89
59
57
52
51
UNPUBLISHED INTERIM REPORT – DO NOT
CIRCULATE See www.dcsf.gov.uk/research for citable summary
For senior leaders in primary schools
In assessment of language learning
Other
N=
A multiple response item.
17
101
49
49
35
104
Indicates the question was not asked in 2006
In the ‘Other’ category, the most frequent responses were:

networking days (six LAs)

language conferences (six LAs)

training in the KS2 framework (five LAs)3

training in developing foreign links (four LAs)

immersion courses abroad (three LAs).
No other responses were given by more than two LAs.
3.2
Methods of provision and teaching time
Table 3.2.1 shows the main responses to a question in the 2007 school survey
on the number of minutes spent in class per week on languages. It
demonstrates, for all year groups, a peak in provision at around 30 minutes,
with a lower peak at classes lasting around 60 minutes.
The median amount of time reported by schools for teaching languages was 35
minutes in Year 3, and 40 minutes in Years 4, 5 and 6. A similar pattern
occurred in the 2006 survey. However, the question in the 2006 survey had
asked for the number of hours rather than minutes per week, and it is possible
that some schools may have rounded up their time to one hour, even though
their delivery time was actually less than this. For this reason it is difficult to
compare the two sets of results.
Table 3.2.1
0 minutes
0-10 minutes
11-20 minutes
3
Amount of time spent teaching languages to each year
group: 2007
Year 3 %
Year 4 %
Year 5 %
Year 6 %
1
1
4
1
1
4
1
<1
3
2
<1
3
This should perhaps be included in ‘training in languages pedagogy’, but five respondents
evidently saw it as distinct.
13
UNPUBLISHED INTERIM REPORT – DO NOT
CIRCULATE See www.dcsf.gov.uk/research for citable summary
21-30 minutes
31-40 minutes
41-50 minutes
51-60 minutes
60 minutes +
No response
38
10
15
17
1
13
37
11
16
17
1
12
31
10
17
20
2
16
N=
30
10
16
20
2
18
2586
There is no evidence to suggest that schools in the sample are tending to stop
teaching languages in year 6. A small proportion of schools are reducing the
time spent on teaching languages between years 5 and 6 but a small proportion
are also increasing the time spent. The majority of schools in 2006 and in 2007
spent the same amount of time teaching languages in year 6 as in year 5.
In addition to time spent on teaching languages, the 2007 school survey also
asked about the way in which teaching was provided in class time. The results
are shown in Table 3.2.2. Provision through discrete lessons was by far the
most usual and this was the same across all year groups, although some
schools were using a combination of delivery methods.
Table 3.2.2
How language teaching is provided in class time
In discrete
lessons
Focused
activities
No
response
% of N
Embedded
across the
curriculum
% of N
% of N
% of N
81
82
78
76
65
24
23
20
19
16
18
18
18
18
15
11
10
14
16
Year 3
Year 4
Year 5
Year 6
All years
groups
N=
2586
A multiple response item.
3.3
Resources
Both schools and local authorities in the 2007 survey were asked how they
spent funding allocated for language learning at key stage 2.
14
UNPUBLISHED INTERIM REPORT – DO NOT
CIRCULATE See www.dcsf.gov.uk/research for citable summary
Local authorities reported that they centrally retained 33 per cent (median 4) of
their Standards Fund allocation to spend on learning languages at KS2. Of this
money, they reported that it was spent on funding a coordinator or advisor
who works with local schools (93 per cent) and training teachers in the KS2
framework or scheme of work (86 per cent). A large number also reported
using the money to provide resources (71 per cent), as shown in Table 3.3.1
below.
Sixty per cent of schools said that they had received devolved funding (14 per
cent said no, others said they did not know or did not respond). The most
popular use for this funding was the provision of teaching resources, followed
by training teachers in the KS2 languages framework. The responses to the
question on how the money was used in schools are shown in Table 3.3.2.
Table 3.3.1
How the money has been spent by LAs
%
Funding a coordinator/advisor who works with local schools
Training teachers using the KS2 framework/schemes of work
Providing teaching resources for schools to draw on
Funding for networks
Providing or training lead teachers
Training teaching assistants/higher level teaching assistants
Providing or training foreign language assistants
Providing or training advanced skills teachers
Other
LAs responding
93
86
71
54
50
44
38
28
41
106
A multiple response item.
Table 3.3.2
How the money has been spent by schools
%
Providing teaching resources
Training teachers using the KS2 framework/schemes of work
Obtaining support and/or advice from external sources
Providing or training foreign language assistants
Training teaching assistants/higher-level teaching assistants
Other
No of schools receiving devolved funding
4
84
52
28
8
6
10
1563
Lower quintile = 30, upper quintile = 35
15
UNPUBLISHED INTERIM REPORT – DO NOT
CIRCULATE See www.dcsf.gov.uk/research for citable summary
A multiple response item.
Amongst the other ways in which the funding had been used, the examples
that occurred most frequently were:

employing a specialist language teacher

language courses for teachers

paying for an external teacher

networking with other schools.
Schools were asked about their knowledge of a particular resource – the
Primary Languages Training Zone website. Awareness of this resource was
not widespread, and the majority of respondents (71 per cent), had not heard of
it. Of the 29 per cent that said they were aware of the site, just over half had
used it.
3.4
Assessment
In the LA survey, just under half the respondents (49 per cent), said that they
provided training in assessment (see Table 3.1.3).
School respondents were asked to comment on the tools they were using to
monitor and assess progress in language learning. As shown in Table 3.4, a
large percentage (63 per cent) of respondents did not answer the question –
suggesting that these schools were probably not yet monitoring or assessing
progress – this number had dropped from last year (by 15 percentage points)
suggesting the number of schools monitoring and assessing progress in
language learning has increased. As with last year, most schools chose to use
their own assessment materials, and e-learning profiles were still used by less
than one per cent of schools.
Table 3.4
Assessment and monitoring tools
School’s own assessment materials
%
European Language Portfolio %
16
Year 3
Year 4
Year 5
Year 6
20
20
20
20
6
6
6
6
UNPUBLISHED INTERIM REPORT – DO NOT
CIRCULATE See www.dcsf.gov.uk/research for citable summary
Languages Ladder %
e-learning profile %
Other %
No response %
N=
6
1
10
63
5
1
10
63
5
1
10
63
6
1
10
63
2586
A multiple response item
Of the other forms of assessment in use, those mentioned most frequently
were:

that assessment was monitored by the teacher or headteacher (41 schools)

assessment materials were embedded in the scheme of work (32 schools)

assessment was provided by the LA (27 schools)

using commercial assessment materials (20 schools).
17
UNPUBLISHED INTERIM REPORT – DO NOT
CIRCULATE See www.dcsf.gov.uk/research for citable summary
4. Meeting the entitlement, transition and
sustainability
This chapter examines the extent to which schools were providing the national
entitlement to language learning at KS2, and includes comparisons, where
possible, with the results of the 2006 school survey. It also looks at how (if at
all) schools and local authorities are arranging support for transition from KS2
to KS3 for young language learners. It concludes by looking at the plans local
authorities have to expand their language provision in the next 12 months.
4.1
Meeting the entitlement
Schools offering language provision at KS2 were asked to describe, for each
year group, the extent of their progress towards the national entitlement. There
is little difference between the extents of provision between year groups, but
the responses did suggest a rise since 2006, across all year groups, in the
number of schools providing the national entitlement. In 2006 the question
was asked of all schools, but in 2007 only of those teaching primary
languages. When schools not teaching languages were taken into account, and
appropriate weighting applied, the proportion of schools fully meeting the
entitlement for each year group was 62-67 per cent as shown in Table 4.1. The
proportion of schools fully meeting the entitlement for all year groups was 54
per cent (weighted), 20 per cent more than in 2006.
In the 2006 questionnaire, schools which responded that they were not at that
point fully providing the entitlement, were asked whether they had plans to do
so, and if so when. In total, 48 schools reported plans to provide the full
entitlement by 2007. Looking back at these schools using the 2007
questionnaire, 28 (58 per cent) now said they had fully met the entitlement
over all four year groups. Of the remaining 20 schools, 11 did not answer the
question and nine had met the entitlement in at least one year group.
18
UNPUBLISHED INTERIM REPORT – DO NOT
CIRCULATE See www.dcsf.gov.uk/research for citable summary
Table 4.1
Extent school provides the full entitlement (weighted)
Fully
Partiall
y
Minimall
y
%
5
5
6
5
6
5
6
5
%
7
2
8
2
7
2
8
2
%
2006
48
2007
67
2006
45
Year 4
2007
67
2006
45
Year 5
2007
64
2006
47
Year 6
2007
62
2006 N = 2793
2007 N = 2793
A series of four single responses items
Year 3
Not at all
%
No
response
%
16
5
21
5
19
5
17
6
24
22
21
21
23
24
23
25
Furthermore, the majority of schools were confident that their current
arrangements for provision of language teaching at KS2 were sustainable.
Eighty-six per cent of schools were either ‘very’ or ‘quite’ confident of
sustainability, an increase of eight percentage points on 2006.
As in 2006, middle schools were most confident that current arrangements for
provision of language teaching at KS2 were sustainable (95 per cent were
either ‘very’ or ‘quite’ confident, see Appendix 2).
4.2
Transition from KS2 to KS3
Both schools and local authorities were asked what specific
arrangements/practices (if any) they had in place to support KS2/KS3
transition in languages5. This is a particularly timely and relevant question in
light of recent media interest (Ward, 2008), and Ofsted’s recent
recommendation that the DCSF should ‘promote links… especially in the key
area of primary-secondary transition’ (2008, p7).
Responses from LAs and schools tended to be couched in very general terms,
referring perhaps to transition arrangements which might include languages,
5
A multiple-response item
19
UNPUBLISHED INTERIM REPORT – DO NOT
CIRCULATE See www.dcsf.gov.uk/research for citable summary
but were not aimed specifically at language work. From LAs, the most
frequent responses were supporting clusters or networks of primary and
secondary schools (50 per cent) and facilitating collaboration/links (28 per
cent).
Schools referred to similar arrangements:
There is a transition unit for Y6 developed by the Local Authority. A
meeting has been arranged between local primary cluster schools and
the feeder secondary school to discuss arrangements in more detail for
the next intake.
Forty seven per cent of the responses by schools were positive, commenting
on areas such as the support received from their LA or local secondary school.
The types of support mentioned included: support from an advanced skills
teacher (AST) or LA advisory staff; provision of continuing professional
development by the local secondary school; the use of joint events; or use if
specific curriculum links to aid transition, such as use of a common primary
curriculum or of the QCA scheme of work. Below are some example
responses:
French is taught by the AST from the local feeder secondary school,
therefore transition support is a natural aspect of the teaching.
A high school teacher currently comes in and delivers teaching of
languages to years 5 and 6 to ensure that children have knowledge of
the transfer language.
A language outreach worker from the secondary school teaches ML to
all children. She works closely with other feeder schools and the
secondary language department and assesses all children at the end of
KS2 and teaches some of the children when they are in Year 7.
Children have a taster day with purely MFL teachers
There is a focused French day for Years 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9
Support is provided by the secondary school for a languages day as
one of the three days of induction in the summer term.
20
UNPUBLISHED INTERIM REPORT – DO NOT
CIRCULATE See www.dcsf.gov.uk/research for citable summary
Thirty-two per cent of the comments were about the types of contact being
made with secondary schools (although, once again, it should be noted that
these activities do not necessarily apply specifically to languages). For
example:

being part of a cluster group or network

video, telephone or email meetings

primary teachers or pupils visiting secondary schools (or vice versa)

pupil information being sent to secondary schools.
However, the overall pattern of school responses was less encouraging; 20 per
cent did not respond to the question on transition and 40 per cent of the
responses were negative. For example some schools commented that they did
not feel they were receiving enough support, and highlighted the difficulties
for both primary schools and their secondary counterparts in this area:
We are not doing a great deal as the secondary schools are reluctant
to engage in the transition process, mainly because they take children
in from many feeder schools. This is a great barrier to the development
of language learning as we are not confident that secondary schools
will not start pupils at the beginning again.
This is a great concern. We've made secondary schools aware, but
parents of children who have transferred to secondary school have
informed me that their children are being placed in classes with
beginners as the secondary schools are not equipped to deal with
children coming in with significantly high levels of language. This is
because they are taking in children with all different levels. This is an
area which needs to be addressed.
4.3
LA expansion plans
Local authorities were asked what specific plans they had to expand language
provision in the next 12 months. The most common response (55 per cent) was
that the LA was planning to continue provision of training (see Section 3.1).
Also common was that the LA was planning to recruit more schools to engage
with the Partnership for Learning (PfL) Programme (32 per cent). Other
responses included supporting headteachers and school leaders to continue
their provision (21 per cent) and, significantly, in light of the issue
surrounding transition, establishing networks between schools (25 per cent).
21
UNPUBLISHED INTERIM REPORT – DO NOT
CIRCULATE See www.dcsf.gov.uk/research for citable summary
5. Summary and conclusions
Overall, the picture painted by the 2007 survey shows a number of positive
developments in the progress being made by primary schools in implementing
the National Languages Strategy. More schools:

are offering pupils in key stage 2 the opportunity to learn a language
within class time;

have policies on language provision;

are monitoring and assessing language learning;

are undergoing training (and more training is being provided by the LA);

are confident that they are providing the national entitlement; and

are confident that current arrangements for language teaching at KS2 are
sustainable into the future.
In the detail of how primary schools are providing language provision, the
2007 school survey does not reveal any major changes. As in 2006, the
majority of schools deliver languages within class time and do so for the
whole year group. Schools provide around 30 minutes of language teaching
each week and most teaching is provided through discrete lessons. Language
lessons are normally provided by a class teacher with a background in
languages.
It remains the case that primary schools in more difficult circumstances tend to
be less likely to have language provision, and that schools catering for younger
pupils (i.e. infant and primary as opposed to junior and middle schools) seem
less likely to have policies on language provision or believe in its
sustainability.
Since 2006, there has been an increase in the number of LAs offering different
kinds of training, and in the proportion of schools taking part. LAs tend to
retain one third of their Standards Fund allocation, and spend this principally
on funding advisers/coordinators and training teachers. Schools use the
funding they receive mainly on teaching resources and training.
22
UNPUBLISHED INTERIM REPORT – DO NOT
CIRCULATE See www.dcsf.gov.uk/research for citable summary
There are some encouraging signs of progress when findings from the 2007
school survey are compared with those from 2006. The proportion of schools
with a written policy on primary language provision has increased, as has the
proportion confident that their arrangements for provision are sustainable, and
the number of schools reporting information about monitoring and assessment.
Transition to KS3 remains an issue, since more than half of the schools
surveyed failed to respond to the question, or stated specifically that nothing
was happening. Clearly there is scope for more networking and collaboration
between primary and secondary schools.
5.1
The next stage
During the summer of 2008, the third and final questionnaires will be
designed. They will be of similar length to the 2006 questionnaires, and will
include many of the same questions so that direct comparisons can be made
and progress during the two-year interval assessed.
All schools which responded in 2006, and all LAs, will be surveyed during the
autumn term of 2008. Responses will be analysed early in 2009, and a final
report submitted to DCSF by the end of March.
23
UNPUBLISHED INTERIM REPORT – DO NOT
CIRCULATE See www.dcsf.gov.uk/research for citable summary
References
Department for Education and Skills (2002). Languages for All: Languages
for
Life.
A
Strategy
for
England
[online].
Available:
http://www.dcsf.gov.uk/languagesstrategy/ [23 April 2008].
Ofsted (2008). Primary Languages in Initial Teacher Training [online].
Available:
http://www.ofsted.gov.uk/portal/site/Internet/menuitem.eace3f09a603f6d9c31
72a8a08c08a0c/?vgnextoid=f00bd532931c7110VgnVCM1000003507640aRC
RD [23 April 2008].
Ward, H. (2008). ‘Lost in transition: early taste for languages’, Times
Educational Supplement, 25 January, 14-5.
24
UNPUBLISHED INTERIM REPORT – DO NOT
CIRCULATE See www.dcsf.gov.uk/research for citable summary
Appendix 1
Q1.
School questionnaire:
Basic frequencies
Does your school offer pupils in KS2 the opportunity to learn a language/s
within class time?
%
Yes
No
No response
N=
93
7
0
2793
A single response item
Due to rounding percentages may not sum to 100
Q2.
Which languages are currently taught in your school?
% of N
French
Spanish
German
Italian
Other languages
Chinese
Japanese
Urdu
Bengali
No response
N=
89
23
9
3
3
1
1
<1
<1
<1
2586
A multiple response item
25
UNPUBLISHED INTERIM REPORT – DO NOT
CIRCULATE See www.dcsf.gov.uk/research for citable summary
Q2.
Other languages
Investigating Languages (General introduction)
Latin
Russian
Polish
British Sign Language
Punjabi
Arabic
Portuguese
Turkish
Swedish
Dutch
Esperanto
Welsh
Cornish
Danish
Estonian
Taiwan
Modern Hebrew
Afrikaans
Somali
Maori
Finnish
N=
N
12
10
7
7
6
5
3
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
72
A multiple response item
Q3.
Does your school have any written policy or statement on primary
language provision?
%
Yes
No
Don’t know
No response
N=
A single response item
Due to rounding percentages may not sum to 100
26
45
50
4
2
2586
UNPUBLISHED INTERIM REPORT – DO NOT
CIRCULATE See www.dcsf.gov.uk/research for citable summary
Q4.
Have you recruited any teaching staff that are graduates of the initial
teacher training languages programme?
%
Yes
No
Don’t know
No response
N=
7
89
3
2
2586
A single response item
Due to rounding percentages may not sum to 100
Q5.
Who is currently providing language teaching?
%
Primary class teacher with background in languages
Primary class teacher who has undergone language training
Peripatetic specialist language teacher
Teacher from another secondary school
Teaching assistant
Language teacher on school staff
Foreign language assistant
Teacher from a specialist language college
Headteacher
Native speaker
Volunteer/parent
External advanced skills teacher or local authority advisory teacher
Other
No response
N=
44
37
12
12
11
9
9
8
7
7
4
3
14
1
2586
A multiple response item
27
UNPUBLISHED INTERIM REPORT – DO NOT
CIRCULATE See www.dcsf.gov.uk/research for citable summary
Q5.
Other providers of language teaching
N
Class teachers take own classes
Class teacher without specific qualifications
Other/non class teacher employed by school
Foreign staff/teacher provided by Consulate
Secondary trained teacher employed by school
Private languages provider
Specific class teacher with support
Specialist language unqualified teacher
Student teachers/University students on placement
Deputy head
Specific Support Assistant
PPA cover teacher
Supply teacher
Unqualified teacher (unspecified)
Use of interactive course material
Foreign language students
Administrator/Secretary with language skills
All support staff
Primary teacher from another school
Retired language teacher
Use of published scheme
Governor with Secondary languages training
Secondary class teacher with language background
All school staff
Learning mentor
Teaching assistant from Specialist Secondary school
Lecturer in specific language
Qualified teacher from another primary
Pupils/Sixth form from secondary school
Use of internet/website programme
Adult education teacher
Local Authority MFL consultant
Pupils/teachers with IT competence
Family learning tutors
N=
A multiple response item
28
170
58
19
17
13
12
10
8
8
7
6
5
5
4
4
4
3
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
359
UNPUBLISHED INTERIM REPORT – DO NOT
CIRCULATE See www.dcsf.gov.uk/research for citable summary
Q7.
How is language teaching provided in class time for pupils in these year
groups?
In discrete lessons
Embedded across the
curriculum
Focused activities
No response
N=
Y3
%
81
24
Y4
%
82
23
Y5
%
78
20
18
11
2586
18
10
2586
18
14
2586
Y6
%
76
19
18
16
2586
A series of four multiple response items
Q8.
Approximately how much time is spent in class per week on languages in
the following year groups?
Year 3
Year 4
Year 5
Year 6
N=
Median
35
40
40
40
2586
A series of four single response items
Q9.
How confident are you that current arrangements for the provision of
language teaching at KS2 are sustainable in your school?
%
Very confident
Quite confident
Not very confident at all
Not at all confident
No response
N=
34
52
11
2
1
2586
A single response item
29
UNPUBLISHED INTERIM REPORT – DO NOT
CIRCULATE See www.dcsf.gov.uk/research for citable summary
Q10a.
Has your school received devolved funding for language teaching?
%
Yes
No
Don’t know
No response
N=
60
14
24
2
2586
A single response item
Q10b.
If yes, on what has the money been spent?
% of N
Providing teaching resources
Training teachers in using the KS2 framework or schemes of
work
Obtaining support and/or advice from external sources
Providing or training foreign language assistants
Training teaching assistants/higher-level teaching assistants
Other
No response
N=
84
52
28
8
6
10
1
1563
A multiple response item
Q11a.
Have you heard of the Primary Languages Training Zone website?
%
Yes
No
No response
N=
A single response item
Due to rounding percentages may not sum to 100
30
29
71
1
2586
UNPUBLISHED INTERIM REPORT – DO NOT
CIRCULATE See www.dcsf.gov.uk/research for citable summary
Q11b.
If yes, have you or anyone in the school used the Primary
Languages Training Zone website?
%
Yes
No
Don’t know
No response
N=
52
28
18
2
739
A single response item
Due to rounding percentages may not sum to 100
Q12.
Does your school use any of the following tools to monitor and
assess progress in language learning?
Language ladder
European language
portfolio
E-learning profiles
Assessment materials
designed by the school
Other
No response
N=
Y3
% of N
6
6
Y4
% of N
5
6
Y5
% of N
5
6
Y6
% of N
6
6
1
20
1
20
1
20
1
20
10
63
2586
10
63
2586
10
63
2586
10
63
2586
A series of four multiple response items
31
UNPUBLISHED INTERIM REPORT – DO NOT
CIRCULATE See www.dcsf.gov.uk/research for citable summary
Appendix 2
School questionnaire:
Questions cross-tabulated
by key variables
Q1. Opportunity to learn a language/s within class time by school type
(weighted)
Type of school
Infant/First
Primary/Combined
Junior
Middle
Other type
Yes
No
No
Response
%
%
%
82
83
90
99
100
18
17
10
0
0
0
<1
<1
1
0
N
154
2327
260
51
2
2794
A single response item
Due to rounding, percentages may not sum to 100 across the rows
Q1.
Opportunity to learn a language/s within class time by school funding
type (weighted)
Type of school
Yes
No
Community School
Foundation School
Voluntary Aided School
Voluntary Controlled School
Other
%
83
80
84
84
100
%
16
20
16
15
0
No
Response
%
1
0
<1
<1
0
N
1602
95
640
457
1
2795
A single response item
Due to rounding, percentages may not sum to 100 across the rows
32
UNPUBLISHED INTERIM REPORT – DO NOT
CIRCULATE See www.dcsf.gov.uk/research for citable summary
Q1.
Opportunity to learn a language/s within class time by GO Region
(weighted)
Government Office Region
North East
North West/Merseyside
Yorkshire & The Humber
East Midlands
West Midlands
Eastern
London
South East
South West
Yes
No
%
%
No
Response
%
91
88
85
86
72
80
77
85
88
9
11
15
14
28
19
22
15
12
<1
<1
<1
0
1
1
1
<1
0
N
157
431
346
257
289
335
247
410
321
2794
A single response item
Due to rounding, percentages may not sum to 100 across the rows
Q1.
Opportunity to learn a language/s within class time by school size
(weighted)
School size
Yes
No
Small
Medium
Large
%
83
83
85
%
16
17
14
No
Response
%
<1
<1
1
N
1233
830
723
2785
A single response item
Due to rounding, percentages may not sum to 100 across the rows
Q1.
Opportunity to learn a language/s within class time by % EAL (weighted)
Proportion of EAL pupils (2005)
None
1-5%
6-49%
More than 50%
Yes
No
%
%
13
15
20
33
87
84
80
66
No
Response
%
<1
<1
<1
<1
N
977
1172
488
148
2785
A single response item
Due to rounding, percentages may not sum to 100 across the rows
33
UNPUBLISHED INTERIM REPORT – DO NOT
CIRCULATE See www.dcsf.gov.uk/research for citable summary
34
UNPUBLISHED INTERIM REPORT – DO NOT
CIRCULATE See www.dcsf.gov.uk/research for citable summary
Q1.
Opportunity to learn a language/s within class time by % statements of
SEN (weighted)
Proportion of pupils with statements
Yes
No
None
1-2%
3-29%
%
86
82
85
%
14
17
15
No
Response
%
<1
<1
<1
N
521
1649
615
2785
A single response item
Due to rounding, percentages may not sum to 100 across the rows
Q1.
Opportunity to learn a language/s within class time by % FSM
(weighted)
Proportion of pupils eligible for
FSM
Lowest 20%
Second lowest 20%
Middle 20%
Second highest 20%
Highest 20%
Yes
No
%
89
89
83
79
75
%
11
11
16
21
24
No
Response
%
0
1
<1
<1
<1
N
669
575
571
492
478
2785
A single response item
Due to rounding, percentages may not sum to 100 across the rows
Q1. Opportunity to learn a language/s within class time by attainment
(weighted)
KS2 overall performance
Yes
No
Lowest band
Second lowest band
Middle band
Second highest band
Highest band
%
72
80
84
87
90
%
27
20
15
13
10
No
Response
%
<1
1
1
<1
<1
N
421
479
498
527
561
2485
A single response item
Due to rounding, percentages may not sum to 100 across the rows
35
UNPUBLISHED INTERIM REPORT – DO NOT
CIRCULATE See www.dcsf.gov.uk/research for citable summary
Q3.
Policy on language provision by school type
Type of school
Infant/First
Primary/Combined
Junior
Middle
Other type
Yes
No
Don’t
know
%
%
29
41
45
75
50
58
47
48
14
0
%
4
3
2
7
50
No
response
%
N
9
9
6
4
0
151
2311
271
57
2
2792
No
response
%
N
9
9
8
8
1603
92
639
458
A single response item
Due to rounding, percentages may not sum to 100 across the rows
Q3.
Policy on language provision by school funding type
Type of school
Community School
Foundation School
Voluntary Aided School
Voluntary Controlled School
Yes
No
Don’t
know
%
%
42
45
40
42
46
42
49
47
%
3
4
3
4
2793
A single response item
Due to rounding, percentages may not sum to 100 across the rows
Q3.
Policy on language provision by GO Region
Government Office Region
Yes
No
North East
North West/Merseyside
Yorkshire & The Humber
East Midlands
West Midlands
Eastern
London
South East
South West
%
53
42
45
38
33
38
36
49
37
%
40
49
45
51
51
47
45
40
52
A single response item
36
Don’t
know
%
No
response
%
N
2
3
2
3
3
5
5
3
3
5
6
7
8
14
10
14
8
7
165
444
348
261
266
329
238
413
328
2792
UNPUBLISHED INTERIM REPORT – DO NOT
CIRCULATE See www.dcsf.gov.uk/research for citable summary
Due to rounding, percentages may not sum to 100 across the rows
Q3.
Policy on language provision by school size
School size
Yes
No
Small
Medium
Large
%
37
42
49
%
51
45
41
Don’t
know
%
No
response
%
N
3
3
3
9
9
8
1228
824
732
2784
Don’t
know
%
No
response
%
N
A single response item
Due to rounding, percentages may not sum to 100 across the rows
Q3.
Policy on language provision by % EAL
Proportion of EAL pupils
(2005)
None
1-5%
6-49%
More than 50%
Yes
No
%
40
43
43
34
%
49
46
45
48
4
3
3
2
7
8
10
17
1000
1178
475
131
2784
A single response item
Due to rounding, percentages may not sum to 100 across the rows
Q3.
Policy on language provision by % statements of SEN
Proportion of pupils with
statements
None
1-2%
3-29%
Yes
No
%
41
43
39
%
48
45
49
Don’t
know
%
No
response
%
N
3
3
4
8
9
8
530
1633
621
2784
A single response item
Due to rounding, percentages may not sum to 100 across the rows
37
UNPUBLISHED INTERIM REPORT – DO NOT
CIRCULATE See www.dcsf.gov.uk/research for citable summary
Q3.
Policy on language provision by % FSM
Proportion of pupils eligible
for FSM
Lowest 20%
Second lowest 20%
Middle 20%
Second highest 20%
Highest 20%
Yes
No
%
45
43
44
35
37
%
46
47
44
51
46
Don’t
know
%
No
response
%
N
3
3
3
3
4
6
7
9
10
13
690
597
569
477
451
2784
Don’t
know
%
No
response
%
N
3
4
3
4
2
14
10
9
7
5
388
467
501
539
585
2480
A single response item
Due to rounding, percentages may not sum to 100 across the rows
Q3.
Policy on language provision by attainment
KS2 overall performance
Yes
No
Lowest band
Second lowest band
Middle band
Second highest band
Highest band
%
35
42
43
43
47
%
49
43
46
45
46
A single response item
Due to rounding, percentages may not sum to 100 across the rows
Q9.
Current delivery arrangements sustainable by school type
Type of school
Infant/First
Primary/Combined
Junior
Middle
Other type
Very
confident
%
46
29
33
91
0
Quite
confident
%
38
50
48
4
100
Not very
confident
%
7
11
13
2
0
A single response item
Due to rounding, percentages may not sum to 100 across the rows
38
Not at all
confident
%
No
Response
%
N
2
2
1
0
0
8
8
5
4
0
151
2311
271
57
2
2792
UNPUBLISHED INTERIM REPORT – DO NOT
CIRCULATE See www.dcsf.gov.uk/research for citable summary
Q9.
Current delivery arrangements sustainable by school funding type
Type of school
Community School
Foundation School
Voluntary Aided
School
Voluntary
Controlled School
Very
confident
%
Quite
confident
%
Not very
confident
%
Not at all
confident
%
No
Response
%
N
32
36
47
48
11
7
2
1
8
9
1603
92
31
50
10
1
8
639
33
49
10
2
7
458
2793
A single response item
Due to rounding, percentages may not sum to 100 across the rows
Q9.
Current delivery arrangements sustainable by GO Region
Government Office
Region
North East
North
West/Merseyside
Yorkshire & The
Humber
East Midlands
West Midlands
Eastern
London
South East
South West
Very
confident
%
Quite
confident
%
Not very
confident
%
Not at all
confident
%
No
Response
%
N
32
48
14
1
5
165
30
54
9
2
6
444
35
47
9
1
7
348
32
23
39
28
33
32
47
47
40
50
47
52
13
13
9
9
12
9
3
2
1
2
1
1
6
14
10
12
7
6
261
266
329
238
413
328
2792
A single response item
Due to rounding, percentages may not sum to 100 across the rows
39
UNPUBLISHED INTERIM REPORT – DO NOT
CIRCULATE See www.dcsf.gov.uk/research for citable summary
Q9.
Current delivery arrangements sustainable by school size
School size
Small
Medium
Large
Very
confident
%
Quite
confident
%
Not very
confident
%
Not at all
confident
%
No
Response
%
N
30
31
37
48
50
46
13
9
8
2
2
1
8
9
8
1228
824
732
2784
No
Response
%
N
A single response item
Due to rounding, percentages may not sum to 100 across the rows
Q9.
Current delivery arrangements sustainable by % EAL
Proportion of EAL
pupils (2005)
None
1-5%
6-49%
More than 50%
Very
confident
%
Quite
confident
%
Not very
confident
%
Not at all
confident
%
33
31
34
22
50
49
44
45
10
10
11
12
1
2
2
3
6
8
10
18
1000
1178
475
131
2784
A single response item
Due to rounding, percentages may not sum to 100 across the rows
Q9.
Current delivery arrangements sustainable by % statements of SEN
Proportion of pupils
with statements
None
1-2%
3-29%
Very
confident
%
Quite
confident
%
Not very
confident
%
Not at all
confident
%
No
Response
%
N
29
33
32
52
47
48
11
10
11
0
2
2
7
9
7
530
1633
621
2784
A single response item
Due to rounding, percentages may not sum to 100 across the rows
40
UNPUBLISHED INTERIM REPORT – DO NOT
CIRCULATE See www.dcsf.gov.uk/research for citable summary
Q9.
Current delivery arrangements sustainable by % FSM
Proportion of pupils
eligible for FSM
Very
confident
%
Quite
confident
%
Not very
confident
%
Not at all
confident
%
Lowest 20%
Second lowest 20%
Middle 20%
Second highest 20%
Highest 20%
36
34
33
31
24
49
51
46
44
49
9
8
11
13
12
1
1
1
2
3
No
Response
%
5
6
9
10
12
N
690
597
569
477
451
2784
A single response item
Due to rounding, percentages may not sum to 100 across the rows
Q9.
Current delivery arrangements sustainable by achievement
KS2 overall
performance
Lowest band
Second lowest band
Middle band
Second highest
band
Highest band
Very
confident
%
Quite
confident
%
Not very
confident
%
Not at all
confident
%
No
Response
%
N
28
29
30
42
47
50
12
13
11
4
1
1
14
10
8
388
467
501
31
51
9
2
7
539
35
52
9
1
4
585
2480
A single response item
Due to rounding, percentages may not sum to 100 across the rows
41
UNPUBLISHED INTERIM REPORT – DO NOT
CIRCULATE See www.dcsf.gov.uk/research for citable summary
Appendix 3
Local Authority
questionnaire:
Basic frequencies
Responses were received from 106 local authorities. In tables showing data
from all local authorities, responses are shown in percentages. In cases where
a filter question reduced the number of respondents, the numbers of responses
are shown.
Q1.
What proportion of schools within your authority currently
provide some language teaching at KS2 within class time?
21-40%
41-60%
61-80%
81-100%
N=
%
2
8
43
48
106
A single response item
Due to rounding percentages may not sum to 100
Q2b. On what is any centrally retained Standards Fund allocation for
learning languages at KS2 spent
%
Training teachers in using the KS2 framework or schemes of
work
Funding a coordinator/advisor who works with local schools
Providing or training foreign language assistants
Training teaching assistants/higher level teaching assistants
Providing or training advanced skills teachers
Providing or training lead teachers
Providing teaching resources for schools to draw on
Funding for networks
Other
N=
A multiple response item
42
86
93
38
44
28
50
71
54
41
106
UNPUBLISHED INTERIM REPORT – DO NOT
CIRCULATE See www.dcsf.gov.uk/research for citable summary
43
UNPUBLISHED INTERIM REPORT – DO NOT
CIRCULATE See www.dcsf.gov.uk/research for citable summary
Q2b.
Other spending
Languages courses for staff
Partnership links
Training/Support agreement with schools
Primary MFL conference
International linking
Supply cover for staff on courses
Providing enrichment events
Methodology training for teachers
Buying additional AST support
Employing language specialists
Providing brochures/newsletters
Training/resources/FLAs funded from school allocation
Supporting transition projects
Observation of good practice in hub school
Planning with PMFL consultant
Steering group to develop PMFL in area
Subject coordinator training
CUL project
Supporting regional trainers
Training in intercultural understanding
Local Authority coordination
Monitoring/Evaluation
Administration
N=
A multiple response item
44
N
10
5
5
4
3
3
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
43
UNPUBLISHED INTERIM REPORT – DO NOT
CIRCULATE See www.dcsf.gov.uk/research for citable summary
Q3.
What specific arrangements/practices (if any) do you have in place to
support KS2/KS3 transition?
%
Supporting clusters/networks between primary and secondary
Facilitating collaboration/links
Including in training programmes
Focus for the SLN
Reports/Updates for secondary MFL HoDs
Transition steering group
Work with secondary language college
Regional conference
Transition document/booklet
Joint events (e.g. Y6 join Y7 in a European Day of Languages)
Cross phase AST support
Development of case studies
Nothing specific
Facilitating the sharing of data
Providing appropriate materials
LA transition unit
Focus has been to set up the language provision
Providing written guidance
Secondary schools provide internet link support
Asset languages scheme/accreditation
Cross phase FLAs
Use of existing subject transition plans
Transition mentors
No response
N=
50
28
23
20
19
15
14
12
11
8
6
6
5
4
4
4
4
3
3
2
1
1
1
2
106
A multiple response item
Q4a. Has your authority provided any training for teacher, support staff
and/or other adults working in primary schools to teach languages in the
past 12 months?
%
Yes
No
No response
N=
98
1
1
106
A single response item
45
UNPUBLISHED INTERIM REPORT – DO NOT
CIRCULATE See www.dcsf.gov.uk/research for citable summary
Q4b. What types of training has your authority provided in the past 12
months?
%
Training in languages pedagogy for primary teachers
Training about appropriate teaching resources/schemes of work
Training to improve language proficiency
Training in primary pedagogy for secondary teachers
Subject management
Training to support teachers who are new to teaching KS2
Training in a range of languages
Training in assessment of language learning
Training for senior leaders in primary schools
Other
N=
95
95
89
59
57
52
51
49
49
35
104
A multiple response item
Q4b. Other training
N
Networking days
Language conference
Training in KS2 Framework
Training in developing foreign links
Funded immersion courses abroad
Training for foreign language assistants
Training for teaching assistants/HLTAs
Training in using ICT for languages
Cross curricular linkage
ITT
Training lead teachers
Training for NQTs
Training in partnership working
Training in use of FLA in primary classroom
Training for AS/IB students to support primary language teaching
Creativity in languages
Training materials on the Internet
Free language lessons provided by SLC
Governor training
NQT support
Training for Special schools
Work shadowing project
Staff INSET days
Tailored CPD provision
Degree module
N=
46
6
6
5
4
3
2
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
36
UNPUBLISHED INTERIM REPORT – DO NOT
CIRCULATE See www.dcsf.gov.uk/research for citable summary
A multiple response item
Q4c.
What proportion of KS2 schools in your authority have been involved in
some kind of training in relation to languages in the past 12 months?
%
0-20%
21-40%
41-60%
61-80%
81-100%
N=
2
10
27
27
33
106
A single response item
Q5. ` What specific plans does your authority have to expand language
provision in the next 12 months?
%
Continue provision of training
Recruit remaining schools to engage with PMFL programme
Establish networks between schools (including Secondary/out
Support for head teachers/school leaders
Expand provision to all KS2 year groups
MFL training for existing class teachers
MFL advisors to work with schools
Transition project
Increase funding/financial support to schools for MFL
Increase access to specialised language colleges/Additional
MFL conference (Getting Started/Moving On)
Expand number of languages available
Effective assessment to support KS2/3 progression
Develop International partnerships
Monitor quality of MFL teaching and learning
Increase provision of languages through ICT
Training for MFL coordinators
MFL training for support staff
Trial our schemes of work
Further development of quality provision
Support with identifying/accessing resources
Development of leading teacher role
Expand use of Asset Languages Breakthrough tests
Raising its status/making it a focus/ priority
Expand provision at KS1
European Languages Day in schools
MFL website to share good practice
N=
55
32
25
21
15
13
11
11
9
9
7
6
6
6
5
4
3
3
3
3
3
3
2
1
1
1
1
106
47
UNPUBLISHED INTERIM REPORT – DO NOT
CIRCULATE See www.dcsf.gov.uk/research for citable summary
A multiple response item
48
UNPUBLISHED INTERIM REPORT – DO NOT
CIRCULATE See www.dcsf.gov.uk/research for citable summary
Appendix 4
Q1.
Local authority
questionnaire:
Key questions crosstabulated by LA type
Schools providing languages in class time by LA type
Proportion
of schools
21-40%
41-60%
61-80%
81-100%
N
London
Boroughs
Metropolitan
Authorities
%
%
15
40
45
20
9
9
35
48
23
English
Unitary
Authorities
%
3
27
70
33
Counties
N
%
7
67
27
30
2
8
45
51
106
A single response item
Due to rounding, percentages may not sum to 100
Q4a. Training for teachers/support staff in past 12 months by LA type
Yes
No
No response
N
London
Boroughs
Metropolitan
Authorities
%
%
100
96
20
4
23
English
Unitary
Authorities
%
97
3
33
Counties
%
100
30
N
104
1
1
106
A single response item
Due to rounding, percentages may not sum to 100
49
UNPUBLISHED INTERIM REPORT – DO NOT
CIRCULATE See www.dcsf.gov.uk/research for citable summary
Q4c.
Proportion of schools involved in training in past 12 months by LA type
London
Boroughs
Metropolitan
Authorities
%
0-20%
21-40%
41-60%
61-80%
81-100%
%
0
25
25
25
25
4
13
26
22
35
English
Unitary
Authorities
%
3
3
24
24
45
N
20
23
33
A single response item
Due to rounding, percentages may not sum to 100
50
Counties
N
%
0
7
33
37
23
2
11
29
29
35
30
106