FINAL REPORT EVALUATION OF PHASE 2 OF THE KEY...

FINAL REPORT EVALUATION OF PHASE 2 OF THE KEY STAGE 2 MODERN FOREIGN LANGUAGES PILOT PROJECT April 2010

Final Report: Evaluation of Phase 2 of the Key Stage 2 MFL Pilot Project

2

CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY....................................................................................................................................... 3

1 INTRODUCTION TO THE EVALUATION....................................................................................................... 9 1.1. Purpose of the report ........................................................................................................................ 9 1.2. Background and context: Modern Foreign Languages in schools in Wales ..................................... 9 1.3. Overview of the Key Stage 2 Pilot Project ......................................................................................... 9 1.4. Aim, objectives and scope of the evaluation................................................................................... 11 1.5. Overview of research methods used............................................................................................... 12 1.6. Structure of the report .................................................................................................................... 14 1.7. Definitions and terminology used in this report ............................................................................. 14 1.8. Acknowledgements ......................................................................................................................... 14

2 PILOT PROJECT DELIVERY ARRANGEMENTS............................................................................................ 15 2.1. Delivery models ............................................................................................................................... 15 2.2. Hours of MFL delivered ................................................................................................................... 17 2.3. Year Groups taught.......................................................................................................................... 19 2.4. Development of clusters over time ................................................................................................. 20

3 IMPACT ON PUPILS .................................................................................................................................. 23 3.1. Skills and motivation ....................................................................................................................... 23 3.2. Building on prior knowledge ........................................................................................................... 23 3.3. Fast tracking of pupils...................................................................................................................... 24 3.4. Addressing a mix of pilot and non‐pilot pupils................................................................................ 24 3.5. Attitudes of pupils to MFL ............................................................................................................... 25 3.6. Additional benefits for pupils with SEN........................................................................................... 26 3.7. Impact on attainment at Key Stage 3 .............................................................................................. 27 3.8. Impact on participation at Key Stage 4 ........................................................................................... 33

4 IMPACT ON SCHOOLS AND PROVISION OF MFL ..................................................................................... 41 4.1. Support from Senior Management ................................................................................................. 41 4.2. Impact on the curriculum ................................................................................................................ 41 4.3. Languages and culture..................................................................................................................... 42 4.4. Delivering additional routes into MFL learning ............................................................................... 43 4.5. Impact on staff numbers ................................................................................................................. 43

5 WIDER IMPACTS OF THE PILOT PROGRAMME........................................................................................ 45 5.1. Transition......................................................................................................................................... 45 5.2. Professional development............................................................................................................... 46 5.3. Local Education Authority (LEA) support......................................................................................... 49 5.4. Triple literacy ................................................................................................................................... 51 5.5. Sustainability ................................................................................................................................... 52 5.6. Funding ............................................................................................................................................ 55

6 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ............................................................................................. 56 ANNEX 1: ADDITIONAL DATA ON TAKE UP OF MFL IN PILOT SECONDARY SCHOOLS.................................... 63 ANNEX 2: PILOT PRIMARY SCHOOL QUESTIONNAIRE .................................................................................... 65 ANNEX 3: PILOT SECONDARY SCHOOL QUESTIONNAIRE ............................................................................... 69


3

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1. This report presents the findings of the evaluation of Phase 2 of the Key Stage 2 Modern Foreign Languages (MFL) Pilot Project. The project was commissioned by the Department for Children, Lifelong Learning and Skills (DCELLS) of the Welsh Assembly Government and undertaken by Arad Consulting. The overall aim of the evaluation was to ‘assess the impact and effectiveness of the Key Stage 2 Modern Foreign Languages Pilot Project’.

METHODOLOGY

2. The study took place over a two‐year period between December 2007 and December 2009. The research involved collecting both qualitative and quantitative data from teachers and head teachers in primary and secondary schools, pupils, Local Education Authorities (LEAs) and a range of other partner organisations. The evaluation team also analysed national data on participation and attainment in MFL.

OVERVIEW OF THE MFL KEY STAGE 2 PILOT

3. The pilot took place in two phases: Phase 1 (Sept 2003‐July 2006) involved 96 primary schools as part of 21 primary‐secondary clusters; Phase 2 (Sept 2006‐July 2009) saw an expansion, with 118 primary schools and 18 secondary schools involved. CILT Cymru was funded to provide support and guidance to participating clusters. The overall objective of this initiative was "to develop experience of how foreign language learning can complement and enrich the statutory curriculum at Key Stage 2, and benefit pupils when they move on to Key Stage 3."

4. Guidance issued by the Welsh Assembly Government encouraged participating primary‐secondary clusters to “develop provision that suits [their] circumstances, to be imaginative, to experiment and to evaluate outcomes”. Schools were encouraged to take a flexible approach to the delivery of MFL provision.

5. Consequently, a variety of approaches and models were employed by the 18 clusters involved in Phase 2 of the pilot. Broadly the different models can be summarised as follows:

Peripatetic: A specialist MFL teacher employed collectively by the cluster to deliver provision in some/all feeder primaries.

Secondary‐led:

Provision delivered by specialist secondary MFL teacher(s), with staff timetabled to deliver lessons in KS2.

Primary‐led: Provision delivered by primary teachers, with secondary MFL departments providing support.

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

6. The study focused on a number of key areas where the pilot has had an impact. These include impact on pupils, schools, teachers and provision of MFL as well as wider themes such as


4

transition, funding and sustainability. The conclusions below address these key areas and wider themes and offer recommendations to build on the impact of the pilot.

EFFECTIVENESS OF DELIVERY MODELS

7. The cluster‐led approach promoted effective, progressive and sustainable partnerships between primary and secondary schools. The models enabled schools to take informed decisions about the most efficient and effective way of using their expertise to deliver MFL at Key Stage 2.

8. For the most part clusters considered that regular language learning throughout the school year was the most effective way of delivering the provision at KS2. The provision was largely concentrated in Years 5 and 6. The majority of schools delivered more than 19 hours of MFL at KS2 during the school year (the number of hours recommended in guidelines).

COMPLEMENTING THE NATIONAL CURRICULUM

9. MFL provision at KS2 has complemented and enriched the statutory curriculum and provided opportunities to develop greater international awareness in schools. The pilot also promoted incidental learning opportunities, linking MFL to statutory KS2 subjects. These links, along with whole‐school and extra‐curricular events, helped raise the profile of MFL within schools.

10. Schemes of work evolved over the lifetime of the pilot, reflecting the introduction of a skills‐based curriculum. MFL has been successfully introduced to complement the national KS2 curriculum, with great enthusiasm for language provision shown by primary schools.

11. Despite the opportunities presented by the pilot, there has been little progress in developing triple literacy.

Recommendations: i. The next curriculum review will decide whether MFL should be a statutory requirement at

KS2.The pilot has demonstrated that MFL at KS2 complement the existing curriculum, are popular among schools and can be delivered effectively, given sufficient resources. Until that time, MFL should be promoted as a non‐statutory subject at primary schools across Wales.

ii. There should be a more strategic focus on linking English, Welsh and MFL provision at KS2

and KS3 levels to promote triple literacy.

IMPACT ON PILOT PUPILS

12. The pilot had a beneficial impact on pupils’ motivation and attitudes towards language learning. Linking MFL to transition activities has benefitted pilot pupils’ progression from KS2 to KS3, building successfully on language skills and knowledge gained in primary school.


5

13. Partnerships between primary and secondary/peripatetic teachers reinforced learning and provided an enjoyable, interactive environment for pupils.

14. Quantitative data on attainment at KS3 suggests a notable impact on attainment levels among both boys and girls. Academic performance in MFL at the end of KS3 improved at a quicker rate in participating pilot secondary schools than in other schools in Wales. KS3 attainment levels for all pupils in participating pilot schools increased by 12.3 percentage points, compared to a 7.8 percentage point increase across all schools in Wales.

15. Boys’ attainment levels in pilot schools improved rapidly during the course of the pilot. The percentage of boys achieving the expected KS3 attainment levels increased by 14.8 percentage points, compared to the average 8.2 percentage point increase among boys in non‐pilot schools. This is notable given previous trends in boys’ attainment.

16. There have also been additional benefits for pupils’ literacy and oracy and increased confidence and self‐esteem among pupils with Special Educational Needs (SEN) and Additional Learning Needs (ALN).

17. The first group of pupils to have received MFL provision at Year 6 as part of the pilot reached the end of Year 11 in July 2009. Overall the validated data for boys and girls collectively shows favourable trends in GCSE attainment at pilot schools relative to non‐pilot schools. The percentage of pupils achieving A*‐C has remained broadly constant in pilot schools (at around 78 per cent) compared to a decline of some 1.7 percentage points at non‐pilot schools. Boys’ attainment at pilot schools has increased notably, with 78.7 per cent of entries achieving A*‐C in 2009, compared to 69.3 per cent A*‐C in 2004.

18. Entries in French and German at GCSE level have continued to fall over the six year period, however the rate of decline is less marked in pilot schools. For example, the proportion of all pupils studying French at GCSE fell by 2.9 percentage points in pilot secondary schools, compared to a decline of 5.8 percentage points in non‐pilot schools. In contrast, Spanish entries saw an increase: there was a 39 per cent increase in Spanish GCSE entries in pilot schools, slightly above the average across all other schools of 33 per cent.

19. Separate data collected from heads of MFL at participating pilot schools pointed to an increase in the number of pupils studying one MFL in year 10. This data also showed an increase in pupils studying more than one MFL in year 10.

20. Trends relating to entries and take‐up of MFL will, however, need to be monitored over time before any firm conclusions can be reached about the impact of MFL provision at KS2 on later take‐up at GCSE level.

Recommendations: iii. Over time, ongoing monitoring of attainment and participation data at participating

secondary schools will more fully reveal the impact of the pilot. The Welsh Assembly Government, working with CILT Cymru, should review available data over coming years as


6

successive cohorts who benefitted from the introduction to MFL at KS2 reach KS3 and KS4.

iv. Any future model for provision of MFL at KS2 should ensure continuity between Key Stages and enable pupils to build on previous knowledge and learning.

IMPACT ON SCHOOLS AND TEACHERS

21. The pilot led to the creation of effective partnerships between primary and secondary schools. Schools communicated well and took decisions collectively to enhance and improve MFL provision over the 6‐year period.

22. These partnerships led to the exchange and joint development of new teaching methods and tools as well as increasing the knowledge, confidence and skills of some primary teachers. This process was enhanced through structured training opportunities supported by CILT Cymru and some LEAs.

23. Senior management support for MFL – in both primary and secondary schools – was an important factor in maximising the impact and benefits of the pilot.

24. The pilot strengthened transition arrangements within clusters. The pilot’s focus on transition encouraged the joint development of teaching materials, which led to a quicker pace of learning in the majority of secondary schools to reflect pupils’ progress.

25. The development of these partnerships has been consistent with the philosophy of the School Effectiveness Framework in building ‘networks of professional practice’ and promoting a tri‐level approach to learning through partnership between the Welsh Assembly Government, LEAs and schools.

PROVISION AT KS4 AND OPPORTUNITIES FOR FURTHER MFL STUDY

26. Providing a continuum of learning and opportunities for students to study at least one MFL is an important factor if provision is to be further promoted and embedded. Some pilot schools introduced new languages through the adoption of the Welsh Bac and others are exploring the potential of additional routes into languages through 14‐19 Learning Pathways.

27. There are, however, a number of issues affecting the development of a continuum of learning for MFL in a few pilot schools. These schools reported timetabling pressures, lack of senior management support and issues relating to options choices as being the key factors in a lack of current provision for MFL at KS4 onwards.

Recommendation: v. If MFL are to be introduced on an all‐Wales level at KS2 then further attention has to be given

to ensuring a continuum of learning through the key stages and to wider forms of provision including the Welsh Bac and 14‐19 Learning Pathways.


7

SUSTAINABILITY

28. The pilot demonstrated that the secondary‐led and peripatetic models can be operated successfully, provided sufficient specialist MFL teachers are made available to the primary schools: there would be a considerable resource cost in offering this model across Wales.

29. The primary‐led clusters, alongside those that have developed a combination of delivery models involving primary‐led delivery, have also successfully delivered the pilot’s overall objectives. This particular model enhanced the skills and confidence of primary staff as well as encouraging partnerships between primary and secondary schools.

30. In terms of the primary‐led model any future roll‐out would require that primary schools have MFL specialists among their staff and a comprehensive (national) programme of training would be required. Whether approached through Initial Teacher Training or through specific INSET courses, this would require considerable additional funding.

31. The pilot appears to have been a catalyst for MFL provision at KS2 in other parts of Wales, with additional clusters being established outside the pilot using similar delivery models.

FUTURE PROVISION OF MFL IN SCHOOLS

32. The partnerships, expertise and momentum built up by the clusters over the six year period of the pilot can provide a range of good practice that can influence future MFL provision. This is illustrated in the success of the provision of MFL through the cluster model and also through the additional activities encouraged such as transition, pedagogical exchanges and skills development. The schools and teachers involved in the pilot also should be credited for their enthusiasm and hard work and they have played a major part in the pilot’s successes.

33. CILT Cymru has made the ‘unique contribution’ envisaged by Languages Count and its advice, support and expertise has greatly contributed to the overall success of the pilot. LEAs are also an important part of the collaborative working for developing and sustaining MFL and providing a continuum of learning. Nevertheless, LEA support for MFL across Wales remains uneven and can affect any further strategies for extending provision.

34. This expertise and momentum built through the pilot has been recognised by the Welsh Assembly Government and CILT Cymru through Innovator Schools funding being rolled out in 2010. This funding will enable pilot schools and other clusters to further improve existing provision and share their good practice with other schools.

35. The success of the pilot in meeting on its overall aims and objectives, as well as wider Welsh Assembly Government policy, provides a model through which extended provision of MFL at KS2 level can be delivered. This inevitably has to be linked to additional funding to ensure stability, assist strategic planning and further build momentum and partnerships.


8

36. Greater support at senior level within schools, LEAs and Welsh Assembly Government level is also vital for the continued development and promotion of MFL in order to allow Wales to ‘promote cultural understanding and play a role on the world stage’ as Languages Count originally envisaged.

Recommendations: vi. The findings of this report should be used to form part of the evidence‐base for the launch of

Making Languages Count.

vii. CILT Cymru have provided support of good quality for the implementation of the pilot and should be considered as a key supporting partner for any future roll‐out of the pilot alongside LEAs.

viii. Further partnership is necessary with LEAs to encourage a cohesive and pro‐active approach to developing MFLs at school level.

ix. MFL should be strategically linked to the provision of Welsh and English as well as initiatives to develop cultural awareness and global citizenship.


9

1 INTRODUCTION TO THE EVALUATION

1.1. Purpose of the report

Arad Consulting was commissioned in October 2007 to carry out an evaluation of Phase 2 of the Key Stage 2 Modern Foreign Languages Pilot Project. This report presents the findings of the evaluation, based on fieldwork carried out over an 18‐month period between February 2008 and July 2009.

1.2. Background and context: Modern Foreign Languages in schools in Wales

There is no statutory requirement in Wales for pupils to be taught a Modern Foreign Language (MFL) at Key Stage 2 (KS2). At Key Stage 3 (KS3) there is a statutory requirement for schools to teach MFL to pupils aged 11‐14 and at Key Stage 4 (KS4) pupils may choose whether to study a MFL. At the time of the publication of Languages Count1 in 2002 there were concerns about both attainment levels in MFL at KS3 and the continuing decline in the study of modern foreign languages at KS4 and beyond. In 2002 44% of pupils achieved Level 5, the expected level of attainment in MFL at the end of Key Stage 3. The proportion of young people continuing with a modern foreign language to GCSE had fallen from 49% to 39% during the previous 5 years. Languages Count included a commitment to reverse declining take‐up of MFL and improve attainment levels, with the then Education and Lifelong Learning Minister, Jane Davidson AM, underlining the importance of languages “economically, culturally and personally”. The Strategy cited a number of studies, including the Nuffield Report2 (2000), which supported early language learning and committed the Assembly Government to funding pilots of Modern Foreign Language learning at KS2, beginning in 2003‐04.

1.3. Overview of the Key Stage 2 Pilot Project

The pilot took place in two phases: Phase 1 (between September 2003 and July 2006) involved 96 primary schools as part of 21 primary‐secondary clusters; Phase 2 saw an expansion, with 118 primary schools and 18 secondary schools involved. Two of the primary schools operated outside clusters as stand‐alone schools3. An original aim of the initiative had been to ensure that Key Stage 2 activity was piloted across all parts of Wales. Figure 1, below, illustrates a good spread of

1 Languages Count, The Welsh Assembly Government’s National Modern Foreign Languages Strategy (2002) 2 Languages: the next generation – the final report and recommendations of the Nuffield Languages Inquiry (2000), The Nuffield Foundation 3 These primaries decided to continue in Phase 2 and build on the good practice developed during the first three years, despite the fact that the secondary schools which they fed withdrew from the pilot.


10

activity during Phase 2 of the pilot with MFL provision introduced in 19 out of 22 local authorities at KS2 under the pilot4. Figure 1: Participating clusters, stand‐alone primary schools and their location Clusters Ysgol Gyfun Gwynllyw Fairwater Comprehensive Ysgol Gyfun Cwm Rhymni Ysgol Gyfun Glantâf Whitchurch High School Cyfarthfa High School Ysgol Gyfun Cymer Rhondda Bryn Celynnog Comprehensive Cowbridge Comprehensive Pencoed Comprehensive Ysgol Gyfun Ystalyfera Ysgol Gyfun Gwyr Ysgol Glan y Môr Ysgol Uwch. Tregaron Ysgol y Moelwyn Ysgol Syr Thomas Jones Ysgol John Bright Ysgol Bryn Elian

Stand‐alone primary schools Ysgol Tir‐y‐Berth Ysgol Frongoch

Secondary school

Stand‐alone primary school

While the Department for Children, Education, Lifelong Learning and Skills (DCELLS) oversaw the pilot project (and has commissioned this evaluation), CILT Cymru, the National Centre for Languages, was funded to manage and provide support to participating clusters. The overall objective of this initiative was described in the circular issued to local education authorities and schools as being:

"to develop experience of how foreign language learning can complement and enrich the statutory curriculum at Key Stage 2, and benefit pupils when they move on to Key Stage 3.5"

Guidance issued by the Welsh Assembly Government encouraged participating primary‐secondary clusters to “develop provision that suits [their] circumstances, to be imaginative, to experiment and

4 Ysgol Gyfun Gwynllyw includes feeder primary schools from 4 local authorities in the former county of Gwent. 5 Modern Foreign Languages at Key Stage 2: Invitation to submit proposals for pilot projects, Circular No 41/02 (December 2002) Welsh Assembly Government.


11

to evaluate outcomes6”. There was, therefore, an emphasis on enabling schools to respond to their own situations and to be as flexible as necessary in delivering MFL provision. The guidance also noted: ‘we are not prescribing any single set of learning outcomes or any single scheme of work’. An external evaluation of Phase 1 of the pilot was completed in 20067. The evaluation found that notable benefits had emerged from the introduction of MFL at KS2, including the enthusiasm for MFL demonstrated by pupils, parents and teachers involved in the initiative and the improved collaboration between primary and secondary schools. Following the evaluation of Phase 1, the then Minister Jane Davidson agreed to extend the funding for the pilots until the end of the 2008‐09 academic year. The reason for the three year extension was that the first pilot cohort (those entering year 6 in September 2003) would have reached the end of Key Stage 4 by the time the pilot ended. This would enable a fuller evaluation of the pilot’s impact. Greater emphasis in Phase 2 of the pilot project was placed on the role of the secondary schools both in terms of building on pupils’ prior knowledge and continuing to work with feeder primary schools to ensure the existence of effective transition arrangements. This is reflected in the Phase 2 evaluation objectives, below, which focus on understanding the deeper impact of the pilot through KS3 and KS4; the evaluation also considered the pilot’s broader strategic contribution to the Languages Count strategy, the sustainability and comparative strengths and weaknesses of the different models of provision introduced. Therefore this evaluation has sought to develop more concrete qualitative and quantitative evidence relating to the impact, effectiveness and quality of the programme.

1.4. Aim, objectives and scope of the evaluation

The aim of this evaluation was to ‘assess the impact and effectiveness of the KS2 Modern Foreign Languages Pilot Projects’.

The objectives of the evaluation were to:

1. Assess the extent to which the overall aim and objectives of the pilot project have been met;

2. Assess the extent that delivery arrangements are being put in place that provide for a

consistent, effective and sustainable approach to the delivery of MFL at Key Stage 2 with particular reference to the use of the Key Stage 2 non‐statutory framework for MFL and the effectiveness of partnership working between primary and secondary schools;

6 Modern Foreign Languages at Key Stage 2: General Guidance for Pilot Schools, (2002) Welsh Assembly Government 7 People and Work Unit – Evaluation of Phase 1 of the Key Stage 2 Modern Foreign Language Pilot Project (2006)


12

3. Determine the extent to which pupils were able to build quickly and effectively on the knowledge and skills in MFL developed in Key Stage 2 on transfer to Key Stage 3;

4. Examine the extent to which primary and secondary schools have effective systems in

place and work together to track pupil attainment in MFL and can produce evidence that the standards achieved by pupils have improved as a result of their involvement in the pilots;

5. Assess the impact of the pilot on provision at Key Stage 3 and the range of MFL options

offered at Key Stage 4 and as part of wider 14‐19 learning pathways;

6. Track the extent to which the pilot is impacting on take up of MFL in Key Stage 4 and the qualifications in MFL awarded to pupils on completion of compulsory education;

7. Identify the key strengths of the pilot and any constraints/issues that may have impeded

their effectiveness; 8. Provide details of good practice that might be used to improving provision of MFL in Key

Stages 2 to 4; 9. Assess the value for money of the Key Stage 2 Modern Foreign Languages pilot projects, in

particular in terms of impact on the learning outcomes of pupils included in the pilot programme; and

10. Identify the contribution(s) the programme has made to the vision and targets of

Languages Count, the Assembly Government’s National Modern Foreign Languages Strategy.

A number of these objectives were examined in an interim report, presented by Arad in October 2008. Further fieldwork has been undertaken since then, and each of the 10 objectives above is addressed in this evaluation report.

1.5. Overview of research methods used

The research methods used in this evaluation involved collecting both qualitative and quantitative data from teachers and head teachers in primary and secondary schools, learners, Local Education Authorities (LEAs) and a range of other partner organisations. There was an emphasis, throughout, on understanding the approaches taken to the delivery of the pilot project and its wider impact on pupils, on the provision of MFL and on the school more broadly. It was made clear to contributors that this was not an evaluation of the approach taken by any individual cluster or of the impact on any single school. While there was a need to consider the


13

experiences and outcomes from each cluster, the evaluation team’s primary concern was to identify the main impact of the pilot and consider what lessons could be drawn out to inform future approaches to the delivery of MFL in KS2. The specific methods used were: I. Desk research:

A review of policy and other background documentation; a review of relevant guidance and

documentation produced by the Welsh Assembly Government and by CILT Cymru.

II. Fieldwork:

The fieldwork took place between February 2008 and September 2009 and consisted of the

following:

a) interviews with a sample of participating primary schools (teachers and head teachers at

34 schools were interviewed during the evaluation);

b) survey of primary schools (see questionnaire used in Annex 2) – 78 responses were

received from the 118 schools involved in the pilot, a response rate of 66%;

c) observation of KS2 language lessons at primary schools. The evaluation team attended 4

classes between February and June 2009;

d) visits to all 18 secondary schools; e) focus groups with KS3 pupils; f) survey of secondary schools (see questionnaire used in Annex 3) – a 100% response rate

was achieved with questionnaires submitted by all 18 participating schools;

g) interviews with partner organisations; and h) interviews with a sample of four non‐pilot schools where MFL has been introduced at KS2.

III. Secondary data collection:

To boost the data collected from participating secondary schools, the evaluation team requested further data from the Education and Lifelong Learning Statistics Unit within the Welsh Assembly Government. We are thankful to the Unit for their support and assistance in providing the necessary data. These data have enabled an analysis of attainment and participation data between pilot schools and non‐pilot schools.

IV. Analysis and reporting:

In analysing the evidence collected, the evaluation team returned to the original study objectives, which have helped shape this report (see Section 1.6, below). One of the key evaluation objectives was to consider the impact of the pilot on provision and take up at KS3 and KS4. In analysing and reporting findings, the evaluators were conscious of the difficulties in seeking to identify direct causal links between KS2 provision and attainment and participation among pupils aged 14‐16.


14

While the pilot has introduced MFL provision to learners at an earlier age, instilling enthusiasm among KS2 learners, there are many complex and diverse factors which impact on attainment and participation at later ages. The data collected enables us to consider broad trends over time and to make some guarded conclusions about whether early exposure to languages has succeeded in reversing the decline in the take‐up of MFL.

The fuller impact of the pilot, however, also lies in the many individual stories and experiences that have occurred at primary and secondary schools across Wales. Therefore, as in any report which draws on a combination of qualitative and quantitative data, there is a balance to be struck in reporting the views and perceptions of participants and in identifying key quantifiable outcomes as evidenced in available data.

1.6. Structure of the report

The following sections of this report outline the qualitative and quantitative evidence collected during the evaluation. Section 2 reports on the project delivery arrangements developed by the clusters; Sections 3 and 4 illustrate the impact of the pilot on pupils and schools and include quantitative data for pupil attainment at KS3 and take‐up at KS4; Section 5 examines the wider impact of the pilot including on transition, partnerships and its potential sustainability over the longer term. Section 6 includes conclusions and recommendations for further actions for the future provision of MFL at KS2. Examples of the methodological tools used during the evaluation are enclosed as annexes.

1.7. Definitions and terminology used in this report

In summarising findings in this report, we have sought to reflect and represent evidence submitted

in an accurate and balanced way. When faced with data that is largely qualitative and descriptive

in nature, this can pose some challenges. We have followed the guidelines and terminology used

by Estyn, which are summarised below:

Nearly all = with very few exceptions Most = 90% or more Many = 70% or more A majority = over 60% Half = 50%

Around half = close to 50% A minority = below 40% Few = below 20% Very few = less than 10%

1.8. Acknowledgements

We would like to place on record our thanks to all those who contributed their time and effort to this evaluation. All contributions – both written submissions and contributions during interviews with the evaluation team – were greatly appreciated and provided the team with a substantial body of evidence and information upon which to base this report and its findings.


15

2 PILOT PROJECT DELIVERY ARRANGEMENTS

This section presents an overview of the structure of the KS2 pilot. It sets out the different approaches taken by clusters to delivering provision in feeder primary schools, including the variations in year groups taught and hours of MFL delivered. The section ends with some observations on the development of clusters over time, considering the overall effectiveness of different models of delivery and key messages to emerge during Phase 2 of the pilot.

2.1. Delivery models

The KS2 MFL Pilot was intended as a developmental initiative, aiming to test new approaches to delivering language provision in a range of settings. As such, while a broad framework of guidance was issued at the beginning of the pilot, there was a school‐led approach to planning and delivering activities, with decisions about the structure of provision taken by participating clusters.

Consequently, a variety of approaches and models were employed by the 18 clusters involved in Phase 2 of the pilot. Broadly the different models can be summarised as follows:

• Peripatetic A specialist MFL teacher employed collectively by the cluster to deliver provision in some/all feeder primaries. MFL lessons are delivered in the primary schools.

• Secondary‐led Provision delivered by specialist secondary MFL teacher(s), with staff timetabled to deliver lessons in KS2. In most cases, provision is delivered in the primary schools; in some clusters, primary pupils are invited to the secondary schools for lessons, linking MFL to transition activities.

• Primary‐led Provision delivered by primary teachers, with secondary MFL departments providing support. Table 1, below, summarises the approaches taken by different clusters. It reveals that in some cases, a combination of approaches was taken. Equally, clusters evolved over the lifetime of the pilot, with additional provision and models of delivery introduced. The secondary‐led approach was the principal form of delivery in 9 out of the 18 clusters, with specialist secondary school teachers’ allocated time to visit feeder primary schools. This secondary‐led model itself included variations in terms of year groups taught, languages delivered, the amount of hours of MFL delivered and the number of secondary school teachers involved in delivery. 5 clusters used a peripatetic model, with funding pooled to cover the costs of employing a designated MFL teacher.


16

One cluster, and two stand alone schools, adopted a primary‐led approach, drawing on the existing language skills of Key Stage 2 teachers while the MFL departments in the secondary schools provided support in preparing schemes of work. The remaining clusters offered a mixture of primary and peripatetic led provision with some secondary teaching support where required. These clusters’ models evolved over the pilot period to reflect the progress made by schools and teachers. Table 1: Overview of models employed in participating schools and clusters SECONDARY SCHOOL IN CLUSTER

PRIMARY SCHOOLS

LANGUAGE(S)

YEAR GROUP

MODEL

Ysgol Gyfun Gwynllyw

6 French 5 & 6 Peripatetic

Fairwater Comprehensive

4 French 5 & 6 Secondary‐led

Ysgol Gyfun Cwm Rhymni

9 French 4, 5 & 6 Peripatetic

Ysgol Gyfun Glantâf

5 French/German 5 & 6 Peripatetic

Whitchurch 9 French/German 5 & 6 Secondary‐led Cyfarthfa High School

7 French (some Spanish & Italian)

5 & 6 (some 3&4)

Secondary‐led

Ysgol Gyfun y Cymer 5 French 4, 5 & 6 Secondary‐led Bryn Celynnog Comprehensive

5 French 6 Secondary‐led

Cowbridge Comprehensive

7 French 5 & 6 A mixture: secondary‐led initially, with peripatetic and primary‐led elements

Pencoed Comprehensive

8 French 5 & 6 Primary‐led

Ysgol Gyfun Ystalyfera

6 French (some Spanish)

5 & 6 Secondary‐led

Ysgol Gyfun Gwyr 5 French 6 Secondary‐led

Ysgol Glan y Môr 4 French 6 Secondary‐led

Ysgol Uwch. Tregaron

8 French 6 A mixture: secondary‐led, with some primary‐led delivery

Ysgol y Moelwyn 6 French 6 Peripatetic Ysgol Syr Thomas Jones

8 French 6 Peripatetic

Ysgol John Bright 9 French 5 & 6 A mixture: peripatetic, with additional secondary delivery

Ysgol Bryn Elian 5 German 6 Secondary‐led, with some delivery by primary staff during Phase 2

INNOVATIVE SCHOOLS

Ysgol Tir‐y‐Berth 1 Spanish 5 & 6 Primary‐led Ysgol Frongoch 1 French 6 Primary‐led


17

Decisions about what particular model of delivery to adopt were taken at the beginning of Phase 1 of the pilot and appear to have been driven by a range of factors. Some secondary schools opted for arrangements that were most feasible or which suited their individual circumstances, in keeping with the guidance issued at the beginning of the pilot. Others reported that they had discussed the overall structure of the partnership with participating primary schools at the outset and had taken a collective decision on delivery arrangements as a cluster. In other cases, the secondary school had taken a clearer lead, setting out plans and presenting these to primary schools. The rationale for selecting a particular model varied from cluster to cluster. One common factor, and an issue to which we return in later sections of this report, is that clusters saw opportunities to link MFL provision to transition activities. The evaluation found that a number of schools had aligned MFL delivery with transition lessons and activities, with Year 6 pupils being invited to the secondary schools for language lessons delivered by KS3 teachers. Both the guidance issued by the Welsh Assembly Government and the support provided by CILT Cymru in overseeing the formation of the pilot encouraged schools to play to their strengths and take informed decisions about the most efficient and effective ways of using their capacity and expertise to deliver provision at KS2. Furthermore, the cluster‐driven approach promoted a strong sense of partnership working between primary and secondary schools from the outset which has characterised the work of the clusters over the full 6‐year period.

‘Because we have been responsible as a cluster for delivering the pilot, we have had to work closely as a team from the start... taking decisions together on our approach, schemes of work. Regular meetings have helped us to communicate well throughout.’ Primary school head teacher

2.2. Hours of MFL delivered

The development of a variety of different cluster models has resulted in different approaches and variations in both the amount of MFL provision delivered and the year groups receiving MFL lessons. The original aim of the pilot project was to deliver “the equivalent of at least 30 minutes per week within the ordinary school timetable8”. Based on data collected through the survey of participating primary schools (see Table 2, below), around half the schools timetabled approximately 30 minutes per week for MFL and 23% allowed 45 minutes. A further 19% reported spending one hour each week on language learning. This indicates that 1 school in 5 delivered approximately double the minimum amount required under the pilot. Table 2: Average MFL provision per week in participating primary schools

Amount of provision per week % of schools* Less than 30 minutes 4

8 Modern Foreign Languages at Key Stage 2: Invitation to submit proposals for pilot projects, Circular No 41/02 (December 2002) Welsh Assembly Government.


18

30 minutes 48 45 minutes 23 1 hour 19 2 hours‐morning session 3 Intensive blocks throughout academic year† 4

Source: Survey of pilot primary schools *based on responses to a survey of primary schools participating in the KS2 Pilot †estimated to be equivalent to 30 minutes per week

As is indicated in the above data, some schools saw opportunities to introduce additional MFL provision:

“We deliver between 35‐45 minutes each week and an additional 50 minutes every fortnight as part of transition lessons.” Primary school teacher

Overall, the amount of time allocated to MFL provision in primary schools has exceeded the Welsh Assembly Government’s guidelines. Quantitative data in section 3.6.5 of this report indicates that where additional provision (in this case one hour a week) has been provided for pupils at KS2 their attainments levels at KS3 are higher. A number of schools visited during the evaluation reported the joint planning and cooperation required to ensure that this additional level of provision was delivered. This was attributed largely to the fact that clusters had established close working relationships from the outset.

“The fact that we have been able to find time to deliver the best part of an hour of language learning per week in what was already a very busy curriculum gives an indication of how popular and successful we think the pilot has been.” Primary school head teacher

Clusters were encouraged to timetable provision in ways that best suited them, whether in shorter intensive blocks or on a regular weekly or bi‐weekly basis. As can be seen from the data above, it


19

appears that only a small proportion of schools (fewer than 5% based on survey data) opted to deliver in intensive bursts, usually towards the end of summer term. For the most part clusters considered that regular language learning throughout the school year was the most effective way of delivering the provision. Some schools reported that where classes take place once every two weeks pupils did not appear to retain what they had learned. A consistent approach across the teaching year was considered to be far more effective as it allows for more coherent provision and enhanced opportunities for incidental learning in partnership with other statutory subjects. This issue was also discussed with primary school teachers and head teachers who saw the benefits of regular lessons on a weekly basis, noting that French had become ‘an embedded part of the Year 6 timetable’.

“Regular weekly visits to primary schools enabled us to plan staff timetables across the whole school year…. Regular lessons helps give languages a sort of official status within the primary curriculum, even If it isn’t a statutory subject.” Head of MFL, secondary school

At a secondary school level there has been no change in many schools’ timetabled provision for MFL. A few schools reported that there had been a reduction in the amount of MFL delivered in KS3, with various timetabling and financial pressures given as reasons for these reductions. One secondary school has, however, increased MFL provision, a decision directly linked to the pilot: the top set in both Years 7 and 8 have been allocated an extra lesson a week in order to prepare the groups for GCSE at the end of Year 10 to reflect their accelerated progress as a result of their earlier introduction to MFL in KS2.

2.3. Year Groups taught

Of those primary schools providing MFL teaching, over half (59%) noted that MFL provision was limited to Year 6 pupils. However, a third of schools also offered provision to Year 5 pupils and a relatively small percentage delivered MFL lessons to younger year groups (including Years 2 and 3), although they acknowledged that only very basic language provision was delivered to the youngest year groups.

Table 3: Provision in schools, by year groups taught Years groups in which MFL lessons are delivered

% of schools

Year 6 59 Years 5 & 6 32 Years 4, 5 & 6 5 Years 2,3,4,5 & 6 4

Source: Survey of pilot primary schools The primary school survey also asked respondents to report in which year group they thought MFL should begin. There was a general view in favour of starting earlier, with the majority of those schools where MFL provision was delivered only to Year 6 expressing a view that lessons should


20

start at Year 5. The principal barriers to this were reported to be a lack of access to specialist MFL teachers and restrictions on time in an increasingly tightly packed curriculum. A number of primary and secondary teachers consulted pointed to the benefits of ensuring consistency or uniformity in terms of starting points / years for MFL. However, despite these issues, a considerable number of schools extended provision to other year groups during the lifetime of the pilot project, with broadly equal numbers of Welsh‐medium and English‐medium schools finding the time and resources to do this. Qualitative evidence collected points to MFL becoming a more embedded part of the school ethos in some schools. 20 out of 75 respondents reported new provision and this can be seen as another success factor of the pilot and an indication of commitment within primary schools towards building on the pilot’s success.

2.4. Development of clusters over time

Most of those consulted considered that the clusters have evolved over the six year period of the. Clusters reported that progress was made in aspects such as partnership working, pedagogical exchange and cross‐curricular activities. Examples of this cooperation include flexible partnerships between primary and secondary schools that have enabled schemes of work to be revised to reflect wider curriculum developments, including the introduction of the skills framework. MFL provision in these clusters has therefore been tailored to reflect and complement these broader developments.

‘The cluster has developed progressively over the course of the pilot. First the meetings were focused on budgets and resources but the partnership has moved onto more pedagogical aspects as well.’ Head of MFL, Secondary School

These developments are consistent with the philosophy and vision set out in the School Effectiveness Framework9 which has promoted collaboration between ‘families’ of schools as professional learning communities. The clusters established as part of the pilot have worked as ‘networks of professional practice’, sharing innovative and effective approaches in the delivery of MFL at Key Stage 2. Furthermore, the tri‐level approach in the development and delivery of the pilot, involving the Welsh Assembly Government (and CILT Cymru), local education authorities and schools is also a cornerstone of the School Effectiveness Framework. A majority of clusters reported that a key factor for the success of their partnership was the sense of joint ownership that has developed over the six year funding period. These clusters also outlined the importance of consistency in terms of approach that this joint ownership encouraged and its potential benefits for more effective transition activities. Other success factors that were reported include the creativity and flexibility that cluster partnerships inspire for the delivery of

9 School Effectiveness Framework: Building effective learning communities together (2008), Welsh Assembly Government


21

MFL. One cluster also pointed to a focus on wider community partnerships, including local employers, through MFL pilot spin‐off events. The evaluation found examples of clusters extending MFL provision, forging new links with other providers and introducing additional language courses as a result of accelerated learning. Of the schools that have extended provision, one school has developed links with a local further education college to deliver GCSE Spanish. In one secondary school, pupils took GCSE French at the end of Year 10 (the whole of Year 10 sat the exam) and then followed up with the Certificate in Business Language Competence (CBLC) in Yr 11 (level 2). Since September 2009 this school has been one of 16 schools piloting the NVQ business languages course, an indication that schools, working with CILT Cymru, are already looking towards other possible developments under the 14‐19 Learning Pathways agenda. Early feedback from these pilots suggests that learners are motivated by the course, which focuses on languages in the world of work. CILT Cymru have found that LEAs are supportive of these initiatives to develop additional routes into MFL, which present opportunities for schools to ensure a continuum of learning for pupils who want to study MFL outside the GSCE route. The pilot has also been a catalyst for the creation of other clusters (outside the pilot) to provide additional Key Stage 2 MFL provision. This can be considered as a positive additional outcome for the pilot and one that has particular consequences for any future roll out as well as other key themes such as sustainability, transition and partnership opportunities. By the academic year 2008/09 over 20 non‐pilot clusters had emerged across Wales since the pilot’s inception in 2003. These clusters have based their organisation and delivery on the models funded under the pilot, delivering MFL through a range of secondary, peripatetic and primary‐led provision. In several cases it was reported that pilot clusters provided support and materials developed during the Pilot to assist non‐pilot clusters in developing provision. The evaluation team carried out interviews with a number of non‐pilot secondary schools who are delivering MFL at KS2 in partnership with feeder primary schools. In one case, the head of MFL in the secondary school had been keen to apply for pilot funding but had failed to gain the support of local primary head teachers. Over time, the attitude of the primary schools to MFL had changed, largely as a result of successful after school French clubs. This, in turn, developed further to the point where provision was timetabled, supported through Better Schools Funding. One LEA MFL adviser considered that non‐pilot clusters had developed within the local authority through the enthusiasm of schools and that Better Schools Funding was an important factor in supporting these developments.

DELIVERY MODELS: key findings

• The cluster‐driven approach has promoted effective, progressive partnerships between primary and secondary schools;


22

• The cluster‐driven approach has enabled schools to play to their strengths and take informed, flexible decisions about the most efficient and effective way of using their expertise;

• Cluster partnerships have developed to include pedagogical exchanges and a focus on sustainability;

• Provision at KS2 has largely exceeded the Welsh Assembly Government guidelines given at the start of the pilot;

• Additional clusters have developed outside of the pilot using the same models to deliver MFL.


23

3 IMPACT ON PUPILS

One of the key initial goals of the pilot outlined in the Welsh Assembly Government’s general guidance for the clusters was to ‘enrich pupils’ learning and give them an enjoyable experience of MFL’. This section illustrates the impact of the pilot on pupils’ attainment and attitudes to learning MFL. Qualitative evidence details a very positive impact on motivation and enjoyment of languages with pupils also attaining highly and building successfully on prior knowledge gained at KS2. Quantitative data outlined in this section broadly supports this qualitative evidence, indicating higher attainment levels for all pilot pupils at KS3 and for boys at KS4.

3.1. Skills and motivation

The impact of the MFL pilot provision on pupils has been highlighted by primary and secondary teachers consulted as almost universally positive. Nearly all primary teachers surveyed considered that the pilot has had a positive impact on pupils’ language learning, reporting that pupils’ attitudes and motivation is excellent and that this bodes well for attitudes to work in KS3. Qualitative evidence from secondary schools confirmed this positive outlook, indicating major improvements in the ability and confidence of pupils in MFL classes at Year 7 since the pilot began.

‘All pupils have a more positive attitude to languages and language learning and feel they can obtain good results and enjoy the subject and they are no longer daunted by the prospect of a new subject.’ Secondary School teacher

It was also reported by nearly all secondary school teachers that the baseline skills in MFL of pupils from pilot schools are much higher, that they remain keen to participate in lessons at KS3 and that their confidence to do so has been enhanced through language learning at KS2. Positive impacts have also been reported by secondary schools relating to pupils’ understanding and appreciation of grammar and teachers outlined the additional benefits that this progress can have for oracy and literacy.

‘There is evidence of pupils being more confident in their ability to structure sentences and understanding grammar and there is resourcefulness in their attitude to languages now and this can be attributed to the pilot. Standards in pronunciation at Year 7 have improved markedly.’ Secondary School Teacher

3.2. Building on prior knowledge

Building on prior knowledge and maintaining the learning advantage of starting MFL at KS2 has also been an important focus for the pilot and there is qualitative and quantitative evidence of a quicker pace of learning in a majority of pilot secondary schools. For example, some secondary


24

schools have removed units from KS3 schemes of work and these are now delivered at KS2 to reflect the progress of the pupils. This has also allowed the opportunity for a smoother transition to work in KS3 by introducing themes and content that will progress onto units in KS3. These developments have, in turn, enabled wider coverage of newer units at KS3. Modules and schemes of work have been adapted for a quicker pace of learning.

‘We move much quicker through the first unit of work and this is seen as revision of work done in Year 6 and there is now more emphasis on the skills‐based curriculum and a focus on speaking and listening.’ Secondary school teacher

3.3. Fast tracking of pupils

Some pilot secondary schools reported that accelerated learning resulted in other impacts and benefits. Certain pilot pupils were being fast‐tracked and there was qualitative evidence that they were achieving highly. In addition, a majority of secondary schools reported that they were also able to carry out more creative and challenging work in Year 7 than previously and that this was a result of an improvement in standards achieved as a consequence of the pilot. In some cases, teachers considered that the fast‐tracking of pupils allowed for more detailed coverage of a language in KS3, leading to enhanced skills and improved levels of attainment. While accelerated learning was not typical across the pilot clusters, other schools noted that schemes of work at KS3 had been adapted, resulting in them becoming more challenging for pupils.

3.4. Addressing a mix of pilot and non‐pilot pupils

This was not the case in all schools, however, and some teachers in what started as ‘incomplete’ clusters reported that the numbers of non‐pilot pupils arriving in class meant more initial focus on revision of previous work. This caused initial problems in building on pupil progress. Secondary schools have, however, developed a variety of innovative approaches to deal with this influx of pilot and non‐pilot pupils at KS3 to enable all pupils to move forward at same speed and level. This is based on advice offered through the pilot guidance documents and supporting documents such as ACCAC’s Crossing Bridges10. These approaches include the provision of intensive catch up lessons, fast‐tracking pupils, taster courses, opportunities to visit MFL departments in advance of starting KS3 and encouraging the non‐pilot pupils to ‘buddy up’ with pilot pupils at the start of KS3. The ‘buddy’ approach, whereby non‐pilot pupils sit next to pilot pupils, was considered by secondary school teachers to be a particularly successful way of enhancing the language skills of pupils, as well as their general

10 Crossing Bridges Using languages to support transition from Key Stage 2 to Key Stage 3 (ACCAC, 2005)


25

communication and social skills and having a further beneficial impact on the successful transition of pupils to KS3. Additional activities reported included inviting non‐pilot pupils to language days in the school and, sometimes, to revision classes before the new term starts.

‘We have generally found that rather than non‐pilot pupils falling behind pilot pupils they catch up very quickly to the standard of the rest of the class through mentoring and additional support provided by teachers. By Christmas of Year 7 there is little difference between pilot and non‐pilot pupils.’ Secondary School teacher

3.5. Attitudes of pupils to MFL

Attitudes at KS2 towards languages appeared to be extremely positive. In a number of sessions, the evaluation team were present in the classroom prior to the beginning of the language lesson. Pupils were enthused and enlivened by the arrival of the language teacher, the switch to French and the nature of the provision. Discussions with KS2 pupils confirmed pupils’ positive attitudes towards languages and their enjoyment of the subject. Pupils particularly enjoy the focus on speaking and listening, the participative approach and the games and songs as well as the opportunities to show their knowledge of other subjects e.g. geography. Levels of motivation and interest among boys, who have traditionally lagged behind girls in MFL, were also reported to be high. This reflected in the data relating to attainment outlined in section 3.6.4 below. This is was considered to be a result of the opportunities provided to demonstrate knowledge as well as the element of competition involved in activities included in schemes of work such as games, quizzes and word puzzles. A number of secondary teachers observed that there were lessons to be learnt from the success of interactive approaches taken in terms of sustaining boys’ motivation and interest in MFL through into KS3 and beyond.

‘What works well for boys in KS2 should be incorporated into KS3 especially the emphasis on speaking and practical tasks.’ Secondary school teacher

Pupils’ enjoyment of MFL, which appears very high at KS2, is reported to continue at KS3 as schemes of work developed between primary and secondary teachers focus on speaking and listening, as well as role playing. There remains a common perception however, expressed during interviews with pupils, that MFL is a ‘difficult’ subject, relative to others. Some teachers also noted that the ‘fun and enjoyment’ aspects of languages at KS2 sometimes waned during KS3, with the subject becoming more challenging. Pupils nevertheless recognised languages as being important for a number of reasons, including: learning about other cultures and as a skill that can help with employment in certain occupations.

‘The games and songs in year 6 were fun. Although French has become more difficult over the last few years, we’ve also learnt more about other cultures and about how languages can help with jobs in the future. I still enjoy it.’ Year 9 pupil


26

Decisions about whether to continue with MFL at Key Stage 4 are based on multiple and often complex factors. While early introduction is valued and appreciated, this does not appear to be a very significant factor by the end of Key Stage 3 in decisions about GCSE options. Greater factors appear to be the way in which options choices are structured, pupils’ ability, career aspirations and views on teachers.

3.6. Additional benefits for pupils with SEN

It was reported that the pilot resulted in additional benefits for pupils with special educational needs (SEN) who, teachers described, enjoyed the emphasis on the spoken‐word and practical activities. Teachers also commented that a number of pupils with SEN were encouraged that they started at the same level as everyone else. Others commented on how pleased they are to see SEN pupils out at the front with the other members of the class and that their eagerness to take part surprises them.

' The all‐inclusive nature of the KS2 MFL project has allowed pupils with SEN to enjoy starting to learn another language, letting them have fun with language and increasing their self‐confidence.' Secondary Head of MFL Department

Teachers in a number of schools reported that the inclusiveness of the pilot had provided opportunities to integrate pupils with SEN into mainstream provision.

‘Year 6 pupils from the Additional Needs Unit attend the French lessons and this has helped with their re‐integration into the mainstream class. As most of the work is oral there is little demand for writing which can de‐motivate pupils with learning difficulties.’ Primary head teacher

A group of pupils with Additional Learning Needs in one school take part in MFL lessons and their learning support helpers learn together with them thereby providing an ideal opportunity for adults and children to be on ‘a level playing field’. ALN children are reported to welcome the chance to compete with and help the adults and it is a great confidence builder for them. It was reported by this school that SEN and ALN pupils recently took part in an assembly in the hall and they were very keen to show off their skills in what is normally for them a worrying environment and that speaking in a foreign language appears to make them lose their inhibitions. The benefits of the pilot to pupils with SEN and ALN have also been acknowledged by Estyn in inspection reports. One report, relating to a special school for pupils aged 4‐11 which has been a part of a pilot cluster, drew particular attention to the positive effects of language learning on communication skills.


27

‘Pupils in Years 5 and 6 enjoy their French lessons very much and show pride in their achievements. They make outstanding progress in their listening and speaking skills and good progress in their ‘reading’ of the French alphabet and common words… [language learning] not only benefits their general communication skills but is much enjoyed by the pupils as is evident in the delight they show in greeting their teachers in French.’

3.7. Impact on attainment at Key Stage 3

This section examines data relating to teacher assessments of MFL at KS3, comparing trends in participating pilot schools with average trends across all secondary schools in Wales. It seeks to complement the qualitative evidence presented in preceding sections, providing a further understanding of the impact of the pilot on pupils. The evaluation considered the extent to which secondary schools have effective systems in place to track pupil attainment in MFL. The information requested by the evaluation team through the secondary questionnaire (see Annex 3) was, in itself, a test of internal monitoring systems as it requested fairly detailed quantitative data over the six years of the pilot. The few schools that provided complete data have introduced tracking systems that distinguish between pilot and non‐pilot pupils, monitoring attainment and progression levels at KS3 and KS4. The majority of secondary schools, however, provided incomplete data relating to attainment at KS3 over time, suggesting that there is room for improvement in terms of tracking and monitoring. As a result, and in order to be able to compare more complete data from participating pilot schools with trends in attainment across Wales as a whole, additional data was sourced through the Education and Lifelong Learning Statistic Unit in the Welsh Assembly Government.

3.7.1 Background and context

It is important, in the first instance, to consider briefly the background and context to the data presented in this section. Historically, levels of attainment in MFL have lagged behind those in other non‐core subjects. In 1999, barely a third of pupils (34 per cent) achieved the expected level (level 5 or above), compared to 61 per cent in Geography. However attainment in MFL at KS3 has increased steadily during the past decade, as is illustrated in Table 4, rising to 64 per cent in 2009. MFL has seen the greatest increase in the percentage of pupils achieving the expected level at the end of KS3 and has therefore closed the gap between levels of attainment in MFL and other non‐core subjects.


28

Table 4: Percentage of pupils achieving the expected level or above at Key Stage 3, 1999 ‐ 2009

ART

*

DESIGN &

TECH

NOLO

GY

GEO

GRA

PHY

HISTO

RY

INFO

RMATION

TECH

NOLO

GY

MFL

MUSIC*

PHYSICAL

EDUCA

TION*

WELSH

2ND

LANGUAGE

1999 ‐ 61 61 60 57 34 ‐ ‐ 36

2000 ‐ 62 63 62 61 36 ‐ ‐ 40

2001 68 66 63 64 62 44 58 61 40

2002 71 68 64 65 64 46 63 65 42

2003 72 69 67 66 69 49 65 67 44

2004 74 70 68 68 69 52 69 68 44

2005 74 73 70 69 72 53 69 70 48

2006 76 73 71 70 73 56 71 71 49

2007 75 75 70 71 72 58 72 72 51

2008 75 75 72 72 76 62 71 72 54

2009 75 75 72 72 77 64 73 72 56

Source: Welsh Assembly Government Education Statistical Directorate *Data unavailable for Art, Music and Physical Education prior to 2001

Therefore this pilot has taken place at a time when attainment levels at Key Stage 3 were increasing fairly rapidly, albeit from a very low baseline. As in all other subjects (other than Physical Education) a higher percentage of girls than boys achieved level 5 or above. As can be seen from the data below, the gap between boys’ and girls’ attainment has remained consistent over the past decade. Table 5: Key Stage 3 Non‐Core Teacher Assessment results, 1999‐2009: Percentage of boys and girls achieving level 5 or above in MFL

Year Boys Girls

1999* 26.0 42.0

2000* 28.0 45.0

2001 34.5 54.3

2002 36.6 55.9

2003 40.1 58.7

2004 43.2 61.7

2005 44.4 62.9

2006 46.8 65.1

2007 49.1 67.5

2008 53.0 70.4

2009 55.0 72.6


29

Source: Welsh Assembly Government Education Statistical Directorate *In 1999 and 2000, level 4 was the expected level of attainment for MFL at the end of Key Stage 3.

3.7.2 Pilot school data – introduction

The data presented above represents averages across all secondary schools in Wales. In this section, we focus on data from secondary schools which participated in the pilot to consider whether there are any apparent differences in trends of attainment at KS3. The analysis is based on data from the 18 participating secondary schools over a six year period, from 2004 to 2009, the latest available attainment data. On the advice of DCELLS statisticians, we have examined data from three years prior to the first pilot cohort reaching the end of KS3, in order to take into account recent trends in attainment at the secondary schools in question. There are, understandably, limitations on what the data reveals and what can be interpreted from it. This is for three principal reasons:

• KS3 attainment data is only available for the first three cohorts, those who began their MFL provision when they were in Year 6 from 2003/04 onwards, when the pilot began. This equates to a sample size of some 3,000 pupils per academic year out of a total of approximately 35,000 pupils in each Year 9 cohort across Wales;

• This data relates to activity during Phase 1 of the pilot, at which time 6 clusters were incomplete (i.e. not all primary schools in each cluster were involved in the pilot and in receipt of MFL provision);

• In terms of baselines and starting points at the beginning of the pilot, levels of attainment at participating secondary schools were not representative of the all‐Wales situation; i.e. attainment levels at the 18 participating secondary schools were notably higher than the average across all schools in Wales (this is considered in greater detail below).


30

Table 6: Timeline for Pilot Project Pupils Academic year

2003/04 2004/05 2005/06 2006/07 2007/08 2008/09First

cohort in Year 6

First cohort in

Year 7

First cohort in

Year 8

First cohort in

Year 9

First cohort in Year 10;

First cohort in Year 11

Second cohort in

Year 6

Second cohort in

Year 7

Second cohort in

Year 8

Second cohort in

Year 9

Second cohort in Year 10

Pilot secondary schools

Third cohort in

Year 6

Third cohort in

Year 7

Third cohort in

Year 8

Third cohort in

Year 9 As such, the evaluation team advises some caution in interpreting attainment data and seeking to draw out a ‘pilot effect’. Establishing causality between the pilot programme and the attainment/ participation data outlined in this section is problematic. It is strongly advised that the findings be seen as indicative and further tracking and analysis is required in order to understand the longer term impact of the KS2 pilot on later attainment.

3.7.3 Key Stage 3 attainment at pilot schools In 2006, the year before the first pilot cohort reached the end of KS3, the percentage of pupils at participating secondary schools reaching the expected attainment level was 61.1 per cent. This compares with 55.8 per cent in all secondary schools in Wales (see Table 7, below). Over the two previous years, in 2004 and 2005, the percentage achieving the expected level of attainment had fallen slightly, from 62.7 per cent. Some headline findings, based on the data presented below, are as follows:

• Pilot schools had higher overall attainment at KS3 than at other non‐pilot schools at the beginning of the pilot. This does not indicate that schools with higher attainment at KS3 were selected to take part in the pilot; rather it is a reflection of the schools that applied to participate.

• Between 2006 (the year before the first pilot cohort reached the end of KS3) and 2009, the proportion of pupils achieving the expected attainment level at participating pilot schools increased by 12.3 percentage points. This compares with an increase of 7.8 percentage points in all schools in Wales.

Table 7: Percentage of pupils achieving expected level of attainment in MFL at end of KS3 (level 5 and above)

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009Pilot pupils %

Pilot secondary schools 62.7 62 61.1 66.4 68.7 73.4All secondary schools 52.2 53.4 55.8 58.1 61.6 63.6


31

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

2003/04 2004/05 2005/06 2006/07 2007/08 2008/09

Pilot secondary schools

Non‐pilot schools

Pilot pupils received MFL

at KS2

Source: Survey of pilot secondary schools, Welsh Assembly Government Statistical Directorate

3.7.4 Attainment data by gender

The data below suggests attainment levels at pilot schools among boys have increased at a greater rate than among girls.

• Between 2006 and 2009 the proportion of boys achieving the expected level in MFL at the end of KS3 increased from 50.5 per cent to 65.3 per cent, an increase of 14.8 percentage points. At all schools in Wales over the same period, there was a corresponding increase of 8.2 percentage points.

• Among girls at participating pilot schools, the figure rose from 71.7 per cent to 81.5 per cent (an increase of 9.8 percentage points). At all schools in Wales, the proportion of girls achieving the expected level rose by 7.5 percentage points.

Table 8: Percentage of boys and girls achieving expected level of attainment in MFL at end of KS3 (level 5 and above)

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009Pilot pupils %

Boys at pilot schools 54.0 52.5 50.5 57.9 61.5 65.3

Girls at pilot schools 71.5 71.3 71.7 74.8 75.9 81.5

Boys at all schools 43.2 44.4 46.8 49.1 53.0 55.0

Girls at all schools 61.7 62.9 65.1 67.5 70.4 72.6


32

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

2003/04 2004/05 2005/06 2006/07 2007/08 2008/09

Boys Pilot schools

Girls Pilot schools

Boys All other schools

Girls All other schoolsPilot pupils received

MFL at KS2

Source: Survey of pilot secondary schools, Welsh Assembly Government Statistical Directorate

Qualitative evidence relating to the impact of the pilot on boys may explain, in part, the increased levels of attainment indicated above. Pinpointing specific ways in which the pilot has improved attainment among boys is difficult however primary and secondary teachers commented on the particular levels of enthusiasm for MFL demonstrated by boys.

‘The role‐playing activities appeal to pupils, especially the boys.’ ‘The fun activity approach is particularly well‐suited to boys as well as the emphasis on communication rather than an abundance of written French.’ ‘They [boys] particularly enjoy the ‘detective’ element, discovering similarities between Welsh, English and French words.’ They take part with great enthusiasm in "critical skills" lessons when we can often join up with other year groups and do learning activities in the hall or outside in the summer and they love the competitive elements. They also enjoy the self and peer assessment work.

The evaluation heard evidence that the increased motivation at Key Stage 2 results in sustained benefits. One head of MFL at a secondary school noted:

‘Boys now see learning a language as being useful and cool ‐ 50% of pupils studying an MFL at GCSE are male.'


33

3.7.5 Differences in impact on attainment based on hours of MFL delivered at Key Stage2

As has been noted in earlier sections of this report, delivery models for KS2 provision varied between clusters. Analysis has been carried out of data relating to two individual pilot schools. In one case, the secondary school, working with feeder primaries, delivers 1 hour MFL per week at KS2. The other cluster delivers approximately 30 minutes per week. Although isolated examples, this reveals that attainment levels had increased far more sharply over the six year period of the pilot programme where additional provision has been provided. Table 9: Key Stage 3 attainment levels at two secondary schools, whose pupils had received different amounts of MFL provision at Key Stage 2

2003/04 2004/05 2005/06 2006/07 2007/08 2008/09%

1 hour MFL per week 60.1 58.4 76.1 73.5 74.2 83.6

30 mins MFL per week 63.6 60.6 62.3 67.8 64.6 73.6

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

1 hour MFL per week

30 mins MFL per week

Source: Survey of pilot secondary schools

3.8. Impact on participation at Key Stage 4

3.8.1 National trends in take‐up of MFL at Key Stage 4

Participation in MFL at KS4 has been in steady decline for approximately 10 years, a trend which has been well documented in recent years. The percentage of 15 year olds entering at least one GCSE in a modern foreign language has fallen each year, from 41 per cent in 1999 to 28 per cent in 2007 (table 10).


34

Table 10: Percentage of 15 year olds entering GCSE MFL

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

% pupils entering one GCSE in MFL

Source: Welsh Assembly Government Statistical Directorate

Languages Count (2002) outlined the Welsh Assembly Government’s aim to reverse this decline; Making Languages Count (2009), the consultation document on a new national Modern Foreign Languages strategy also focused on this issue, emphasising the importance of the quality of provision and innovative approaches in earlier Key Stages:

We want to build on this innovation so that the experience in secondary schools is motivating, challenging and encourages pupils to continue with their study of a modern foreign language into Key Stage 4 and beyond. (Making Languages Count: Welsh Assembly Government consultation document 2009)

The early introduction of MFL in KS2 is clearly one such innovation, and the evaluation has considered the impact of the pilot on participation in MFL at KS4 in the sections below, beginning with an analysis of GCSE entries.

3.8.2 GCSE entries in MFL at pilot and non‐pilot schools, 2004‐2009 Analysis of data relating to GCSE entries in MFL found a slower decline in pilot schools than nationally and an increase in entries in French between 2008 and 2009 (Table 12). Entries in French fell by 18 per cent in pilot schools between 2004 and 2009, compared to a 28 per cent drop in all other secondary schools in Wales. There was, however, a 7.5 per cent increase in overall numbers of GCSE entries in French in pilot schools in 2009, which contrasts with a continued fall in all other schools (12.4 per cent in 2009). Trends in numbers of entries will need, however, to be monitored over time before any firm conclusions can be reached about the effect of primary MFL provision on take‐up at GCSE level.


35

Table 11: Total GCSE entries in French, German & Spanish at pilot and non‐pilot schools 2004‐2009 PILOT SCHOOLS French German Spanish Boys Girls All Boys Girls All Boys Girls All 2004 278 445 723 116 162 278 35 65 100

2005 286 469 755 65 89 154 32 59 91

2006 235 432 667 98 140 238 25 60 85

2007 288 473 761 51 67 118 35 83 118

2008 214 335 549 75 118 193 55 101 156

2009 235 355 590 48 47 95 49 90 139

change 04 ‐09 (%)

‐15.5 ‐20.2 ‐18.4 ‐58.6 ‐71.0 ‐65.8 +40.0 +38.5 +39.0

NON‐PILOT SCHOOLS French German Spanish Boys Girls All Boys Girls All Boys Girls All 2004 3196 5099 8295 982 1264 2246 313 636 949

2005 2916 4629 7545 929 1186 2115 332 714 1046

2006 2866 4613 7479 797 1098 1895 368 696 1064

2007 2620 4381 7001 812 1005 1817 382 760 1142

2008 2626 4259 6885 735 996 1731 400 662 1062

2009 2302 3723 6025 714 1016 1730 382 880 1262

change 04 ‐09 (%)

‐28.0 ‐26.9 ‐27.4 ‐27.3 ‐19.6 ‐23.0 +22.0 +38.4 +33.0


In German, however, (Table 13) the decline in entries at pilot schools was more marked than in non‐pilot schools. Entries fell by 66 per cent, compared to a decrease of 23 per cent nationally. Reductions in German provision had been reported during interviews with Heads of MFL. By 2009 GCSE provision in German was discontinued in 2 of the 9 secondary schools where it had been delivered in 2004; in the other 7 schools, provision declined. In addition, there was a strong focus on French in most of the pilot secondary schools as outlined in Table 1 in section 2.1 of this report. Spanish, on the other hand, continued to rise in popularity, in line with the trend nationally (Table 14). Entries in Spanish increased by 39 per cent in pilot schools between 2004 and 2009 which was higher than the 33 per cent increase across Wales. However, there was a slight decline in the number of entries between 2008 and 2009. One issue that can be seen from the data relating to total numbers of entries (above) is the fluctuation in French and German entries at pilot schools. This may be largely due to the approach taken in some pilot secondary schools where MFL provision at Key Stage 3 alternates between French and German for successive year groups. This, in turn, determines the way in which MFL are presented in options choices for Year 10 i.e. year groups that studied German in Years 7, 8 and 9 are presented with the option of studying German at Key Stage 4 in two option columns, while French is presented in one ‐ and vice versa for year groups who study French in Key Stage 3. This


36

is reflected further in the tables below and in Figure 2, which presents entries in MFL as a proportion of all Year 11 pupils.

3.8.3 Entries as a proportion of all students In order to consider the above data in a wider context, it is necessary to examine entries as a proportion of all Year 11 pupils. As is explained above, the data fluctuates from year to year in relation to pilot schools. However over the 6 year period there has been a decline in the number of entries in French and German as a proportion of all Year 11 pupils. As can be seen in Table 12, below, the rate of decline in French in pilot schools (a fall of 2.9 percentage points) was half the rate in non‐pilot schools (5.8 percentage points). While encouraging, this data again only takes into account one ‘pilot cohort’ and therefore does not provide any conclusive evidence of the impact of the pilot programme in arresting the decline in take up of MFL at GCSE level. Table 12: Entries in French as a proportion of all Year 11 pupils

Pilot schools All non‐pilot schools

Boys Girls All pupils Boys Girls All pupils 2004 16.5 28.5 22.3 18.4 30.1 24.1

2005 17.6 30.7 24.0 17.1 27.9 22.4

2006 14.6 27.0 20.8 16.6 27.5 21.9

2007 17.8 28.8 23.4 14.9 25.7 20.2

2008 13.8 22.1 17.9 15.2 25.2 20.1

2009 15.3 23.6 19.4 13.8 23.0 18.3


While entries in MFL as a proportion of all Year 11 pupils continues to decline in both French and German across all schools in Wales, the data in relation to boys at pilot schools is of interest and should be monitored further over successive years. The rate of decline between 2004 and 2009 (1.2 percentage points) is again, far slower than in all non‐pilot schools (4.6 percentage points). Conversely, the rate of decline in relation to German (Table 13) is far more rapid in pilot schools than in non‐pilot schools: 5.5 percentage points in pilot schools compared to 1.2 in all other schools. As noted above, this may be due to many pilot primary and secondary schools focusing on French. Table 13: Entries in German as a proportion of all Year 11 pupils

Pilot schools All non‐pilot schools Boys Girls All pupils Boys Girls All pupils

2004 6.9 10.4 8.6 5.6 7.5 6.5

2005 4.0 5.8 4.9 5.4 7.2 6.3

2006 6.1 8.8 7.4 4.6 6.5 5.6

2007 3.2 4.1 3.6 4.6 5.9 5.3

2008 4.8 7.8 6.3 4.2 5.9 5.1

2009 3.1 3.1 3.1 4.3 6.3 5.3



37

Figure 2 Entries in French and German in pilot and non‐pilot schools 2004‐09


Entries in Spanish as a proportion of all Year 11 pupils in pilot schools increased from 3.1 per cent to 4.6 percent between 2004 and 2009 (Table 14). This is largely consistent with the national picture, where increases have also been recorded among boys and girls.

Table 14: Entries in Spanish as a proportion of all Year 11 pupils Pilot schools All non‐pilot schools


2005 2.0 3.9 2.9 1.9 4.3 3.1

2006 1.6 3.8 2.6 2.1 4.2 3.1

2007 2.2 5.1 3.6 2.2 4.5 3.3

2008 3.5 6.7 5.1 2.3 3.9 3.1

2009 3.2 6.0 4.6 2.3 5.4 3.8


Additional data relating to take up of MFL in Year 10 has been provided by participating pilot schools and has been included in Annex 1 of this report. This data, which is based on responses from 16 out of 18 participating pilot schools, points to an increase in take up of MFL at year 10.

3.8.4 Impact on attainment at Key Stage 4 The first group of pupils to have received MFL provision at Year 6 as part of the pilot reached the end of Year 11 in July 2009. An analysis of GCSE attainment data in all MFL combined11 indicates better attainment at pilot schools than nationally, particularly among boys (Table 17). Boys’

11 In both pilot and non‐pilot schools, this data is drawn primarily from attainment at GCSE in French, Spanish and German, which collectively account for over 98% of all MFL entries.


38

attainment at pilot schools has increased notably, with 78.3 per cent of entries achieving A*‐C in 2009, compared to 69.3 per cent A*‐C in 2004. This compares with a slight fall in boys’ attainment at a national level, from 68.3 per cent achieving A*‐C in 2004, to compared to 67.6 per cent A*‐C in 2004. Table 17: Percentage of GCSE entries in Modern Foreign Language achieving grades A*‐C.


Boys Girls All pupils Boys Girls All pupils 2004 69.3 83.7 78.0 68.3 80.3 75.6 2005 69.4 81.0 76.6 70.3 80.8 76.7 2006 74.8 81.4 79.0 68.0 79.9 75.3 2007 75.4 79.7 78.1 68.8 77.6 74.2 2008 74.9 79.2 77.6 68.4 76.1 73.1 2009 78.3 79.1 78.7 67.6 77.8 73.9 Source: Welsh Assembly Government Statistical Directorate

This is in contrast with trends among girls at pilot schools, for whom there has been a gradual decline in the proportion of entries achieving A*‐C grades, from 83.7 per cent to 79.1 per cent between 2004 and 2009. In non‐pilot schools girls’ attainment has also fallen from 80.3 per cent to 77.8 per cent between 2004 and 2009. Overall the data for boys and girls collectively shows favourable trends in attainment at pilot schools relative to non‐pilot schools. The percentage of pupils achieving A*‐C has remained broadly constant (at around 78 per cent) compared to a decline of 1.7 percentage points at non‐pilot schools. When considering the above data, it is important to bear in mind the sample size at participating pilot schools, which is subject to larger fluctuations than national averages. (In 2009 the total number of MFL entries at GCSE level in pilot schools was 828, which represents 8.3 of all MFL entries in that particular year). These fluctuations become clearer when one examines patterns in achievement at individual subject level. Tables 18 to 20, below, reveal that the increased proportion of A*‐C grades at pilot schools in 2009 is predominantly due to better achievement (particularly by boys) in Spanish and German. Attainment in French, the MFL most commonly delivered at Key Stage 2, improved by 2 percentage points overall, compared to 0.6 percentage points at all non‐pilot schools. Boys’ attainment in French fell slightly at pilot schools, although at a slower rate than nationally. Girls’ attainment in French increased by 3.5 percentage points, compared to 1.2 percentage points at all other schools.


39

Table 18: Percentage of entries in GCSE French achieving A*‐C



2005 68.2 81.9 76.7 70.4 80.8 76.8

2006 75.7 84.5 81.4 66.4 78.2 73.7

2007 74.3 79.1 77.3 67.8 77.2 73.7

2008 74.8 77.6 76.5 67.4 76.1 72.7

2009 74.5 81.1 78.5 66.8 77.3 73.3


There was a notable increase in boys’ attainment in both Spanish and German at pilot schools in 2009, which was not typical of boys’ attainment nationally. Again, it is worth noting that the numbers involved are relatively small which goes some way to explaining the fluctuations. For example, in German 46 out of 48 boys at pilot schools who entered GCSE examinations achieved grades A*‐C. This equates to 96 per cent of all entries, compared to 70 per cent of boys at all other schools who achieved the same grades. Similarly in Spanish, 78 per cent of boys achieved A*‐C, a significant increase on the previous year’s levels of attainment at the same pilot schools; this also contrasts with attainment at all other schools where boys’ attainment fell between 2008 and 2009. Attainment by girls in Spanish at pilot schools declined between 2008 and 2009, while, nationally, the proportion of girls achieving A*‐C increased slightly. In German, the proportion of girls achieving A*‐C increased slightly from 84.7 per cent to 85.1 per cent. At all other schools, there was a sharper increase of over 3 percentage points. Table 19: Percentage of entries in GCSE Spanish achieving A*‐C



2005 53.1 70.4 63.7 63.3 75.1 71.3

2006 72.0 66.7 68.2 65.5 78.9 74.2

2007 77.1 84.3 82.2 63.6 72.1 69.3

2008 63.6 78.2 73.1 70.3 72.5 71.7

2009 77.6 67.8 71.2 63.4 74.8 69.7



40

Table 20: Percentage of entries in GCSE German achieving A*‐C



2005 84.6 88.8 87.0 71.5 83.6 78.3

2006 72.4 77.9 75.6 73.8 85.8 80.7

2007 80.4 77.6 78.8 72.3 81.3 77.3

2008 82.7 84.7 83.9 69.8 77.8 74.4

2009 95.8 85.1 90.5 70.4 81.1 76.7


IMPACT ON PUPILS: key conclusions

• Positive impact on pupils’ skills, attitude and motivation;

• Reported additional benefits for oracy and literacy;

• Positive participation in lessons and increased confidence;

• Positive impact on pupils with SEN and ALN;

• Qualitative and quantitative evidence of improved performance and attainment of pilot pupils at KS3;

• Data on attainment at KS3 suggests a notable impact on attainment levels among both boys and girls. The proportion of boys achieving the expected attainment level at KS3 increased by almost 15 percentage points in participating secondary schools;

• Data also suggests an overall increase in take‐up of MFL at KS4 in pilot secondary schools, although this varies considerably by school.

• Over a six period there has been a decline in the number of entries in French and German as a proportion of all Year 11 pupils. The rate of decline in French at pilot schools was, however, half the rate in non‐pilot schools;

• Overall the data for boys and girls collectively shows favourable trends in attainment at pilot schools relative to non‐pilot schools. The percentage of pupils achieving A*‐C has remained broadly constant compared to a small decline at non‐pilot schools;

• Boys’ attainment at KS4 in pilot schools has increased notably, with 78.7 per cent of entries achieving A*‐C in 2009, compared to 69.3 per cent A*‐C in 2004.


41

4 IMPACT ON SCHOOLS AND PROVISION OF MFL

One of the key strategic aims of the MFL KS2 Pilot was to encourage and ‘support clusters that want themselves to teach a foreign language at Key Stage 2’. The creation and subsequent progress of the clusters as a result of the pilot has been an important aspect of the programme. Evidence of a number of benefits for the individual primary and secondary schools participating in the pilot project has been reported during this evaluation. These benefits include the development of new partnerships within schools to promote cross‐curricular learning activities, cluster‐wide partnerships to develop and promote provision, and involvement in international projects. Extra‐curricular and whole school activities developed as a result of the pilot are also contributing to embedding MFL within the ethos of many pilot schools at both primary and secondary level. From the evidence received, it appears that there is a pattern between the delivery of these benefits and the level of support the MFL departments and individual teachers receive from senior management within schools.

4.1. Support from Senior Management

Nearly all heads of MFL departments in pilot secondary schools either strongly agreed or agreed to some extent that there is strong support from senior management for modern languages within their schools. This support has been one of the essential factors for the successful implementation of the pilot and is part of the process of embedding MFL within school development and transition plans. Many teachers emphasised the value of the support received from senior staff, which in a number of cases grew over the six year period. This has generated more awareness and support for MFL at an all‐school level as well as between individual departments.

‘The continued support of the Head Teacher has encouraged us to develop links with departments ranging from history to home economics. The MFL department is also developing links with the English and Welsh departments.’ Secondary School Teacher

One primary head teacher noted that governing bodies also have an important leadership role to play. With head teachers, governors can ‘set the tone and provide a clear steer for schools to provide opportunities to pupils to embrace languages and cultures’.

4.2. Impact on the curriculum

The development of the cluster partnerships over the pilot period is considered by many secondary schools to have impacted on the schemes of work and learning materials developed for delivery of the pilot at KS2 and KS3 levels. There was a range of comments from secondary school teachers suggesting that the learning programme has become more skills based over the six year


42

pilot period to reflect changes in the national curriculum and that MFL classes also now reflect the need for creative and problem‐solving skills. Some secondary school teachers additionally saw that the introduction of the new skills framework as providing further opportunities to promote MFL within the curriculum. As Languages Count notes, there is ‘plenty of scope for synergy between language learning and other aspects of the school curriculum’ and a range of examples has been provided to illustrate these synergies being put into practice. A number of activities were illustrated by the pilot secondary schools as additional curricular and school‐related activities that had either been initiated by the pilot or which had been enhanced or continued as a result of the pilot. These include the involvement of schools in European Language Awareness Days and cross‐curricular activities with Physical Education, Geography, Music and Home Economics departments. At a primary level, it was considered that the pilot had impacted on the KS2 curriculum in line with the pilot guidelines aimed at ‘enriching the KS2 curriculum in a worthwhile way’. Examples reported include social situations for Personal and Social Education (PSE) during whole‐school French breakfasts, links with the community through inter‐school cluster events, promoting global awareness and citizenship though exploration of different cultures and languages and linking MFL to knowledge of countries and cities in geography.

‘On a cross‐curricular level, it is possible to combine Mathematics, PE and geography with many of the skills that the children have learned through their French lessons. This is something we have actively sought to do and reinforces the learning.’ Primary School teacher

In one school, MFL was also an important part of a football competition where teams represented different European countries and participants were encouraged to use their language skills in communicating with team‐mates. Pupils are reported to have taken a central role in the preparation of these events through prepared presentations and also helped out on European Language Days which offer further opportunities to use their language skills. It was considered that this range of activities has contributed to raising the profile of MFL within these schools as well as encouraging cooperation between primary teachers, therefore increasing awareness of the potential to include MFL across the statutory KS2 curriculum. As indicated in previous sections, joint schemes of work have been developed through the cluster partnerships and these have addressed changes in the curriculum at both secondary and primary levels across the pilot funding period.

4.3. Languages and culture

The pilot also appears to have contributed to a greater awareness of, and interest in, other European languages and cultures within schools. This can be illustrated through the organisation of language days and clubs and the display of multi‐lingual signs throughout schools. Participation


43

in the pilot has resulted in a range of international activities such as visits to France by groups of pupils in KS2, KS3 and KS4, involvement in exchanges with France and Germany, and trans‐national projects under the European Commission’s Comenius and Grundtvig programmes. These exchanges are seen as being not only important in their own right by contributing to the ‘internationalising’ of schools, but also something that is relevant to curriculum development in specific areas, notably global citizenship.

‘Children now have a far greater awareness of the importance of languages and of other cultures.’ Secondary School Teacher

4.4. Delivering additional routes into MFL learning

Schools involved in the pilot recognised the need for transition routes from KS3 through 14‐19 Learning Pathways and also to link to the languages component in the Welsh Bac. Broadening and sustaining opportunities to study languages was considered essential, if schools are going to take advantage of the foundations established through KS2 provision. A majority of pilot secondary schools offer the potential for students to study more than one language, illustrating that there is a range of opportunities available for learners to progress and specialise in languages. As noted in section 2.4, additional vocational routes (back) into language learning are being piloted and the 14‐19 agenda and the Welsh Bac present opportunities for local networks to build on this over the coming years. Almost half of the pilot secondary schools surveyed strongly agreed that pupils were provided ‘with sufficient opportunities to study MFL at GCSE’. However a minority of schools either disagreed or strongly disagreed with this statement. These schools reported timetabling pressures, lack of management support and issues with options choices as being the key factors in this lack of choice. Estyn also acknowledge that in a crowded, competitive curriculum, ‘school option systems have a strong influence on pupils’ choices for key stage 4’ and even schools where senior management support for MFL is strong have reported pupil recruitment issues when MFL is paired with other popular subjects at KS4 level.

4.5. Impact on staff numbers

Sustainability of staffing is another key factor for successful delivery of MFL provision. While the pilot was not specifically charged with addressing this issue, the project has inevitably had some influence on staff numbers in certain schools. While in the majority of secondary schools the MFL staff numbers have stayed the same, in the few schools where numbers have increased this is a direct result of the pilot. One school had increased its staff as more pupils had opted to study MFL at KS4, and in another school where setting pupils for MFL had been introduced new teachers were required to teach the lower sets in MFL. In those very few pilot schools that have witnessed


44

a decrease in staffing, reasons given include financial constraints and falling numbers taking MFL at KS4.

IMPACT ON SCHOOLS: key findings:

• Most benefits are experienced where support exists at senior level;

• Growing synergy between MFL and other parts of the curriculum at primary and secondary level;

• Partnerships between departments and development of incidental learning opportunities;

• Additional language related activities and extra‐curricular activities;

• Some success in developing international ethos within schools;

• Options choices can impact on take up of MFL at KS4;

• Staff numbers have largely stayed the same at secondary level.


45

5 WIDER IMPACTS OF THE PILOT PROGRAMME

5.1. Transition

One of the key aims of the pilot was to ‘develop experience in Wales of how teaching and learning a foreign language can benefit pupils when they move on to Key Stage 3.’ Nearly all primary schools surveyed during the evaluation considered that the pilot has had a beneficial effect on transition of primary school pupils to secondary schools. This view was reinforced by secondary schools. A range of practical and pedagogical benefits was reported by teachers in both sectors. The pilot was considered by many schools to be the most successful transition project they had experienced; the pilot had succeeded in breaking down barriers for pupils between primary and secondary schools because pupils already knew some of their secondary teachers from the provision at KS2. It was reported by many secondary teachers that this factor (as well as previous knowledge of site, routine and location of support) means that confidence in their ability to learn languages is higher among pilot pupils.

‘Feedback from KS3 teachers indicate that our former pupils have shown continued enthusiasm for language learning.’ Primary School Teacher

Teachers also reported positive attitudes amongst pilot pupils that are reflected in class participation and their continued motivation to learn a language at KS3. This fostering of positive attitudes towards MFL learning and maintaining a continuum of learning for pupils has been an important element of the development and progress of the pilot over its six year period. It was considered that the pilot project has allowed what one senior management figure in a pilot secondary school described as ‘true’ transition to take place, enabling pupils to make a seamless move from KS2 to KS3 and have confidence in their abilities to undertake MFL lessons.

‘There’s a comfort factor in pupils knowing they can speak another language by the time they get to comprehensive ‐ this takes away the fear of language learning.’ Secondary School Teacher

5.1.1 Practical benefits of transition

Secondary teachers reported that they felt they knew about pupils and their abilities before they arrived as well as having knowledge of their achievements in MFL. They reported that this helped the development of schemes of work for KS3 as well for more practical issues such as classroom management. The pilot’s focus on transition between KS2 and KS3 also allowed the joint development of teaching materials, which, as reported in Section 3.2, has led to a quicker pace of learning a majority of secondary schools. Primary and secondary teachers have reported better


46

management and coordination of pupils through the sharing of information at cluster meetings and also through individual contact between teachers.

5.1.2 Planning transition through MFL MFL has become established as a core aspect of schools’ transition planning over the six year period of the pilot. Some clusters have progressed over the six year cycle from a situation where only half of the primary schools were originally involved to one where the clusters are now complete. This progress has had benefits in terms of the effectiveness of the cluster and for transition arrangements. Nearly all pilot secondary schools now include MFL as part of their transition plans and a third of these schools indicated that the inclusion of MFL within these plans has come about as a result of the pilot. This illustrates the pilot’s additional sustainable impact in some schools while also demonstrating that MFL is an integral part of transition plans in many schools already. IMPACT ON TRANSITION: key findings:

• Successful transition process throughout the MFL pilot;

• A range of benefits for the clusters, teachers and pupils;

• Assists in developing and reinforcing cluster partnerships;

• Sharing of information and resources between clusters.

5.2. Professional development

The pilot has delivered a range of benefits relating to the professional development of teachers at both primary and secondary level through the cluster model. These include the mutual development of new skills for primary and secondary teachers; opportunities for training; confidence and esteem building; the development of more effective partnerships between teachers and creating additional enthusiasm and awareness of MFL. These developments have clearly benefited individual schools and teachers and contributed to the successful development and progress of the clusters. There has, however, been little evidence of the development of structured training opportunities for primary teachers. The majority of secondary schools reported that no structured training had been offered to primary schools although a number of informal links have been developed during the period of the pilot and these are outlined below. This lack of progress therefore has consequences for the potential for primary teachers to deliver any future provision and, therefore, the sustainability of the pilot model over the longer term.


47

5.2.1 Skills development at primary school level A majority of primary schools surveyed reported additional benefits for the professional development of their staff. It was reported that the exchange of teachers promoted by the cluster through the secondary led model has been beneficial both to primary and secondary teachers who have developed new teaching methods and tools as a result of their interactions. Some primary schools involved in the clusters where provision is delivered through a peripatetic teacher also reported benefits for their staff through the introduction of a clear role for primary teachers in the delivery of lessons.

‘The peripatetic teacher is full of enthusiasm which translates over into the classroom and other primary colleagues.’ Primary School Teacher

‘The pilot means that primary teachers are receiving the ‘education’ alongside Year 6 and this is then cascaded down to Year 5.’ Primary School Head

Some primary teachers have also attended additional foreign language courses, either under their own initiative, as part of the training courses organised by CILT Cymru or through In‐Service Education and Training (INSET) courses. The primary teachers involved in these courses reported that the enhanced skills they developed contributed to a greater sense of awareness of MFL and encouraged additional confidence and self‐belief. They considered that this has resulted in their taking a more active role in delivering the lessons alongside the secondary or peripatetic teachers.

5.2.2 Skills development at secondary school level Many of the secondary schools either strongly agreed or agreed to some extent that the pilot has allowed them ‘to enhance the professional development of staff.’ The exchange of pedagogical ideas between primary and secondary teachers and the development of joint schemes of work as a cluster has been reported to have been of benefit to secondary teachers’ understanding of primary learning and teaching strategies. Secondary school staff have also benefited from additional courses funded by certain LEAs as well as CILT Cymru.

There is strong and regular liaison between KS2 and 3 teachers. The primary school teachers are a real asset for the success of this initiative Secondary School teacher

5.2.3 Informal training developments

It was reported that some informal language training for primary teachers has taken place through individual contacts between primary and secondary teachers. Email addresses have been


48

exchanged to help primary staff with any queries and some schools now have a MFL team leader to work in tandem with their secondary colleagues. In addition other primary school teachers reported visits to secondary schools MFL lessons (once every half term) which acted as refresher courses and an opportunity to discuss new initiatives and progress made in MFL teaching. These activities have all contributed to delivering new ideas and methodologies for language learning as well as increasing the knowledge and latent skills of primary teachers.

‘We have had in‐house ‘cluster’ discussions with subject related departments as part of the whole‐school INSET on Learning in Action Programme and the new Skills Framework.’ Secondary School teacher

Where this formal and informal training has had an impact, there is qualitative evidence to suggest that a small number of primary teachers are able to deliver the lessons themselves and are more confident teaching a language than before the pilot started. Guidelines issued to pilot schools encouraged ‘primary teachers incorporating simple MFL activities which can reinforce and support work being done by a visiting MFL teacher’ and where this has been undertaken by schools there have been clear benefits to the relations built within the clusters and for the effective, sustainable delivery of provision. The pilot guidelines proposed that non‐specialist primary teachers should play an active role in MFL lessons and this appears to have taken place in the majority of clusters. Some primary and secondary teachers have reported that these types of partnerships have allowed them to accelerate learning at KS2 level and reinforce learning at KS3. It was reported that some primary teachers chose not to participate in the lessons however this appears to be only in a very few cases. In those lessons observed by the evaluation team one of the most effective elements of the lesson was the interaction between the secondary or peripatetic teachers and the primary schools teachers. These classroom partnerships between primary and secondary teachers have reinforced learning and provided an enjoyable interactive environment for pupils.

5.2.4 Reservations about impact of the pilot A minority of primary schools surveyed considered that the pilot had had no impact on the professional development of their staff and highlighted the need for formal training processes from the secondary sector. There were thus calls from both primary and secondary schools for the development of more structured processes to enhance skills and offer a more sustainable approach to developing MFL provision in primary schools. The inclusion of MFL in future Initial Teacher Training courses was considered to be one potential option alongside further CILT Cymru and LEA funded INSET courses.


49

IMPACT ON PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT: key findings:

• Mutual development of skills for primary and secondary teachers;

• Positive impact on confidence and esteem of teachers involved in the pilot;

• Effective pedagogical partnerships;

• Some primary teachers taking up further training opportunities and developing additional MFL skills;

• Lack of structured training opportunities developed through pilot, this can impact on future sustainability of provision;

• Provision most effectively delivered through partnership between primary and secondary teachers in class.

5.3. Local Education Authority (LEA) support

Local Education Authority (LEA) support was identified in Languages Count as an essential aspect of supporting MFL provision throughout the pilot project and beyond. LEAs are also considered in the CILT Cymru Getting Started document as ‘vital for collaborative working for developing MFL in KS2 across schools, support to establish expertise to sustain MFL and providing a continuum of learning.’ Individual clusters and schools were therefore expected to work with their respective LEAs to deliver the pilot project. A recent Estyn report notes, however, that ‘in half of the 22 authorities, schools do not receive any kind of regular visit from a modern foreign languages adviser.’ This situation reflects the current uneven nature of LEA support for MFL development and provision across Wales and the low priority given to it. While some clusters have delivered the pilot successfully without LEA support, in some cases this lack of LEA involvement illustrates a missed opportunity to develop partnerships with both the primary and secondary sectors to deliver further provision of MFL.

5.3.1 LEAs and the MFL pilot Half of pilot secondary schools have reported receiving assistance from their LEAs. Those that have received support from their LEAs have given examples including MFL training courses relating to KS2‐3 transition; regular INSET meetings every year and additional meetings with their LEA representatives to discuss the progress of the pilot; opportunities for Continuous Professional Development in MFL and advice related to supporting MFL through Better Schools Funding. This support, combined with that received from CILT Cymru throughout the pilot, has allowed these schools and clusters to build upon the development of MFL and explore further funding options such as Better Schools Funding. The other half of the secondary schools surveyed reported


50

receiving no assistance at all from their LEAs in developing and delivering the pilot, reflecting the situation outlined by Estyn above. Some pilot primary schools also noted the importance of LEAs in providing impetus and encouragement for schools to engage in MFL, particularly at KS2. However, the majority of primary schools reported that there has currently been very little support offered to primary schools in terms of developing and funding provision from their LEA. A minority also reported that further potential support activities such as the facilitation of networks and raising awareness across schools had also not been forthcoming. One LEA representative stated it had offered additional training courses for primary teachers however take up was sporadic and while some primary teachers have embraced MFL others still lack the confidence to do so.

5.3.2 Additional LEA activities to support MFL One Local Education Authority has supported the development of a number of new clusters within its boundaries. An LEA representative stated that it has taken a central role in this development as a result of no county‐based clusters being funded under the initial pilot. MFL have also become part of the LEA’s strategic planning for the county. BSF and Transition funding have been used to support the development of five clusters, based on the original pilot models. Some funding was held back centrally to support events and training to encourage Primary teachers and Heads of MFL to work together to embed MFL within schools. The rest of the funding was diverted to schools to make their own arrangements according to local circumstances, as in pilot clusters. Another LEA MFL adviser reported that a consortium of LEAs had developed to coordinate MFL provision across four local authorities. This consortium also employed FTEs to deliver across a number of schools and well as produce teaching and learning resources, advice and support relating to MFL activities. The LEA MFL advisers consulted during the study recognised the necessity of LEA taking a more strategic role in the promotion and delivery of MFL, helping to coordinate and deliver national strategies and providing training and support. They also considered, however, that it is the Welsh Assembly Government that should ultimately take the lead in strategically supporting the delivery of MFL at KS2 at a national level.

‘Better Schools Funding is a positive step forward however making MFL at KS2 an entitlement, as in England, would be a really radical step.’ LEA MFL Adviser

5.3.3 Role of CILT CYMRU

The primary and secondary schools involved in the pilot were unanimous in their praise of the support that CILT Cymru has provided during the six year pilot period. Many of these schools noted that much of the advice and assistance that they have received has come from CILT Cymru. CILT Cymru support has included advice on provision, new initiatives, models for delivery of MFL in


51

primary schools, opportunities for CPD training – including residential language courses abroad – general advice and MFL training courses related to KS2‐3 transition. Such support has greatly contributed to the overall success of the pilot. This reflects the vital role CILT Cymru has played over the six‐year cycle of the pilot and all of the cluster partnerships have acknowledged its efforts.

LEA SUPPORT: key findings:

• Uneven nature of LEA support for MFL across the clusters, and Wales in general;

• Where LEA support has been received it has been beneficial;

• Lack of LEA support has not impacted on success of some clusters;

• LEAs can play an important strategic role in the future development of MFL; • CILT Cymru has played a major role in supporting the clusters and their progress

over the six year pilot period.

5.4. Triple literacy

Languages Count called for activities to ‘ensure that foreign language learning builds on the learning of English and Welsh and brings learners to value diversity and gain understanding of other culture.’ Overall, however, there has been a lack of progress and understanding of the concepts of triple literacy despite the opportunities that the pilot has encouraged. While the majority of schools and clusters reported that there was recognition of the common factors and structures that exist between the three languages there is very limited evidence of any concerted effort to make these links and to develop common delivery tools across clusters.

5.4.1 Developing triple literacy in schools Progress has only been reported in some individual secondary and primary schools, largely in the English‐medium sector. Of those schools that have undertaken activities, most are aimed at establishing links between the three departments, sometimes through a team leader and developing suitable learning activities and approaches. A small number of additional schools, including some Welsh‐medium schools, reported that they were in the planning phases of developing links between the three departments.

‘We have had in‐house cluster discussions with Welsh and English departments as part of a whole‐ school INSET Learning in Action Programme and the new Skills Programme.’ Head of MFL, secondary school

5.4.2 Embedding MFL through triple literacy


52

These links to Welsh and English departments could potentially be a key aspect of developing progress towards triple literacy as well as associated benefits for oracy, general literacy and a broader understanding of how languages work. This process can also be a key element of reinforcing language learning and embedding MFL further within the curriculum as well as within schools’ development plans. Some informal links and use of the three languages in lessons to illustrate patterns have been evidenced during the evaluation team’s visits to schools. One Head of MFL commented:

‘We haven’t [promoted triple literacy] officially. I have used Welsh and English to show cognates or similar grammatical patterns in both languages.’ Head of MFL, Secondary School.

However, in general, triple literacy developments in the pilot can be seen as a current missed opportunity to promote a wider focus on languages in Wales.

TRIPLE LITERACY: key findings:

• A missed opportunity to develop triple literacy on the back of cluster partnerships;

• Some individual initiatives and partnerships reported;

• Potential development of joint schemes of work in the future;

• Use of three languages to illustrate patterns in some schools visited.

5.5. Sustainability

The sustainability of the pilot is a key factor especially in terms of developing a continuum of MFL provision across primary and secondary schools, increasing its impact and building on the momentum generated. The cluster model was considered by nearly all of those schools consulted as the most effective way of delivering the pilot. The partnerships created, the expertise now involved and the teaching materials developed and disseminated through clusters were all considered to be important aspects for future sustainability of provision introduced through the pilot.

5.5.1 Creating Sustainable Partnerships Most pilot schools either agreed strongly or agreed to an extent that the pilot has created new partnerships between the primary and secondary sector and that these will continue after the end of the project. The benefits of these partnerships have included better transition arrangements between primary and secondary schools; on‐going links between secondary school MFL departments and wider clusters; and organising further opportunities to swap develop and


53

exchange ideas for curriculum and CPD. These activities have all contributed to building a network of expertise that has provided momentum for the pilot over the six year funding period.

5.5.2 Partnerships between school departments Around half of pilot secondary schools either agreed strongly or agreed to a certain extent that the pilot had encouraged additional partnerships within schools. A few schools reported growing cooperation between English, Welsh and MFL departments (with the potential associated benefits for triple literacy detailed elsewhere in this report) and other schools reported partnerships to develop additional cross‐curricular activities with Geography, History and Physical Education departments. Based on responses from a minority of schools, it is clear that in some cases the pilot has had little impact on the cross‐departmental working, although this was not a specific requirement of the pilot. This was generally linked to a lack of support at senior level for MFL.

5.5.3 Embedding MFL in schools There were reservations about how deeply MFL were becoming embedded in schools despite the growing awareness and partnerships that the pilot has developed. The crowded curriculum was reported to pose problems at primary level, with some pilot primary schools reporting difficulties in finding time to fit in the classes. A third of primary schools include MFL in their School Development Plans (SDPs) which is encouraging and suggests a commitment to developing the subject. Given MFL is not a statutory subject at KS2 it is unsurprising that two‐thirds of schools do not include MFL in their SDPs, however it also illustrates that there is still some way to go in promoting MFL at a primary level.

Half of the pilot secondary schools have included MFL in their SDPs. Of the nine schools which have included MFL in their SDPs, three stated that this was as a direct result of the pilot. This illustrates the impact that the pilot has had on some schools and how it has contributed to the sustainable development of MFL. These schools, encouraged by senior management, and in some cases LEA support, have made MFL an integral part of the school’s provision, embedding the subject within the school’s ethos through cross‐curricular activities and a broader, international outlook. Half of the pilot schools still do not have MFL as part of their SDP. Reasons given for this include a lack of opportunity to raise the profile of MFL and a lack of senior management and wider LEA support to embed MFL within the ethos and culture of the school. While these schools have successfully delivered the pilot, this situation could potentially contribute to hampering opportunities to develop or indeed sustain provision, encourage cross‐curricular cooperation and enhance awareness of the subject over the medium to longer term.


54

5.5.4 Future sustainability of the cluster model The majority of clusters have indicated that they have built in sustainable partnerships and structures to continue the cluster as required by the Welsh Assembly Government guidelines now that the pilot is complete and there is potential to roll out the model on a national level. It was considered by many cluster schools that sustained investment will allow further time and resources to be devoted to MFL provision. This investment could potentially increase its impact over time and build on the current quality, momentum and progress that have been illustrated in this report. It was also considered that if funding for MFL was ring‐fenced there would be the potential for more activities as well as providing money for staff and materials that would enable schools to embed languages. The current shortage of opportunities to study MFL at further education and the fact that MFL are not a statutory subject at KS4 mean that the progression developed through the pilot can be halted. Providing this continuum of learning alongside the development of the pilot is therefore an important aspect for the sustainable provision of MFL. Future options could therefore include extra language training for primary teachers through ITT and INSET courses run by the LEAs to complement and enhance the support already developed by CILT Cymru.

5.5.5 Disseminating good practice Disseminating the outcomes from the pilot clusters is another key longer term approach to the issue of sustainability. The knowledge and momentum built up over the six year period of the pilot has generated a range of good practice that can influence future MFL provision. This good practice can also be disseminated in related activities such as transition, curriculum development and the promotion and development of triple literacy. This is already happening in practice between some pilot and non‐pilot schools and clusters and through the dissemination of Getting Started, CILT Cymru’s support guide for schools introducing MFL provision at KS2. These findings and examples of good practice could additionally be disseminated through LEA advisers when liaising with other schools. The importance of this process has also been recognised by the Welsh Assembly Government and CILT Cymru through the Innovative Schools Initiative due to start in early 2010.The progression and structured learning processes created between the primary and secondary sectors by the pilot need therefore to be supported by strategies at other levels, including continued opportunities to study MFL at GSCE, the Welsh Bac and 14‐19 Learning Pathways.


55

SUSTAINABILITY: key findings

• Cluster model considered to be the most effective way of delivering pilot;

• Development of partnerships between primary and secondary sector that can be built upon;

• Some development of cross‐departmental partnerships in pilot secondary schools;

• Expertise and good practice developed within the clusters over six year period that can be further disseminated;

• Half of pilot secondary schools now include MFL in their School Development Plan;

• ITT and CPD required for future training of staff;

• Continued provision linked to funding and support at senior level as well as more strategic development of MFL;

• Funding is considered important to ensure stability, assist planning and sustain momentum.

5.6. Funding

A range of additional funding sources were reported by schools as contributing towards activities linked to the pilot. One cluster secured matched funding for the pilot from a LEA, one school was the recipient of a British Council grant to embed French in the curriculum and several pilot schools reported participation in projects funded by the European Union with a range of partner schools across the EU. The sourcing of additional funding can be seen as a further beneficial impact of the pilot. A majority of schools reported, however, that without CILT Cymru Support and Welsh Assembly Government funding, the pilot would be in danger of either stopping (for a minority) or lacking the quality and opportunities to develop at a national level.

FUNDING: key interim findings and conclusions:

• Additional funding sources secured in a few pilot clusters;

• Further funding considered essential to ensure progression and quality.


56

6 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

i. Scope of the evaluation The overall aim of the KS2 MFL pilot has been to "to develop experience of how foreign language learning can complement and enrich the statutory curriculum at Key Stage 2, and benefit pupils when they move on to Key Stage 3.12" In considering the extent to which this aim has been met it has been necessary to focus on a number of key areas where the pilot has had an impact. These include impact on pupils, teachers, schools and provision as well as wider themes such as transition, funding, support and sustainability. The conclusions below reflect these areas as well as the additional questions for the evaluation to consider that are outlined in section 1.4. ii. Complementing the statutory curriculum

The provision of MFL at KS2 over the six‐year period of the pilot has complemented and enriched the statutory curriculum in a number of ways. It has also provided opportunities to develop greater international awareness in schools through a range of activities linked to aspects of the global citizenship and PSE curricula. The pilot has promoted incidental learning opportunities in statutory KS2 subjects including Maths, Geography, ICT, Welsh and English. The links created between language learning and other curriculum areas, along with whole‐school and extra‐curricular events, has helped raise the profile of MFL within schools. The pilot has also encouraged sharing of information and ideas about teaching methods and practice, which has benefitted curriculum delivery more broadly. In addition, teaching staff at primary and secondary level have reported that the learning programme has developed across the six year pilot period to address changes in the curriculum and become more skills‐based. The development of joint schemes of work to reflect this has involved close cooperation between secondary schools and feeder primary schools, creating sustainable partnerships and momentum for the pilot. MFL has been successfully introduced to complement the national Key Stage 2 curriculum and the pilot has shown that there is enthusiasm for language provision among primary schools.

Recommendation: The next curriculum review will decide whether MFL should be a statutory requirement at KS2. The pilot has demonstrated that MFL at K S2 complement the existing curriculum, are popular among schools and can be delivered, given sufficient resources. Until that time, MFL should be promoted as a non‐statutory subject at primary schools across Wales.

12 Modern Foreign Languages at Key Stage 2: Invitation to submit proposals for pilot projects, Circular No 41/02 (December 2002) Welsh Assembly Government.


57

iii. Benefiting Pupils Based on evidence submitted to this evaluation, the overwhelming majority of teachers and head teachers involved in the pilot considered it to have delivered benefits to pupils as they progress between KS2 and KS3. These benefits have been reported through qualitative evidence (e.g. impact on self‐confidence) and in quantitative data (e.g. levels of attainment at KS3). The pilot has had a beneficial impact on the motivation and attitudes towards languages learning of boys and girls as they move into secondary education. Academic performance, as measured by teacher assessment in MFL and Welsh Assembly Government data at the end of KS3, has improved at a quicker rate in participating pilot secondary schools than in others. The pilot has contributed to breaking down barriers for pupils between primary and secondary schools as a result of pupils getting to know their MFL teachers. In some cases, where some MFL learning has taken place in the secondary school, pupils have benefitted from familiarity with the site and an insight into routines at the school. This has enabled pupils to make a smooth transition from KS2 to KS3 in respect of their language learning. They are reported to be keen to participate in lessons at KS3 and their confidence to do so has been enhanced through language learning at KS2. There have also been benefits for pupils’ literacy and oracy and for pupils with SEN and ALN.

Recommendation: Over time, ongoing monitoring of attainment and participation data at participating secondary schools will more fully reveal the impact of the pilot. The Welsh Assembly Government, working with CILT Cymru, should review available data over coming years as successive cohorts who benefitted from the introduction to MFL at KS2 reach KS3 and KS4.

iv. Delivery of MFL at Key Stage 2

The clusters involved in the pilot were free to adopt the model of delivery of their choice, having been encouraged in guidance issued at the beginning of the pilot to take the approach that best suited their individual circumstances. For the most part clusters considered that regular language learning throughout the school year was the most effective way of delivering the provision at KS2. The provision was concentrated in Years 5 and 6, with a small minority of schools delivering provision to Years 3 and 4. There was a strong tendency towards providing more than the 30 minutes of timetabled teaching expected by the Welsh Assembly Government guidelines – for example, over two‐fifths of schools offered 45 minutes or more. v. Building on knowledge and skills in MFL at Key Stage 3

Pupils’ previous experience of learning MFL in primary schools has resulted in accelerated language learning at KS3, with pupils building quickly on their skills and knowledge. This faster progress, coupled with interaction between the secondary and primary teachers and the manner in which they reinforce the learning experience, has also benefited pupils. Between 2005/06 (the year before the first pilot cohort reached the end of KS3) and 2008/09 the proportion of pupils


58

achieving the expected attainment level at KS3 in participating pilot schools increased by 12.3 percentage points. This compares with an increase of 7.8 percentage points in all other schools.

Recommendation: Any future model for provision of MFL at KS2 should ensure continuity between Key Stages and enable pupils to build on previous knowledge and learning.

vi. Provision at Key Stage 4 and options for further study

Providing a continuum of learning and opportunities for students to study at least one MFL is an important factor if provision is to be further encouraged at GCSE and A‐level, at HE level and to promote careers using MFL. There are opportunities for pupils to continue with language learning beyond KS3 in all pilot schools and a commitment to expand provision where demand exists. A few pilot schools have also introduced new languages (including French, Spanish, German and Italian) through the adoption of the Welsh Bac as part of the curriculum. Other schools are exploring the potential of 14‐19 Learning Pathways and both these routes present an additional opportunity to further embed MFL provision within schools. There are, however, a number of issues affecting the development of a continuum of learning for MFL in a few pilot schools. These schools reported timetabling pressures, lack of senior management support and issues relating to options choices as being the key factors in a lack of current choice for MFL at KS4 onwards. Options choices are considered to have a major impact on take up of MFL at KS4 and even in successful pilot schools there were examples of recruitment issues when MFL was placed in the same options column as more popular subjects.

Recommendation: If MFL are to be introduced on an all‐Wales level at KS2 then further attention has to be given to ensuring a continuum of learning through the key stages and to wider forms of provision including the Welsh Bac and 14‐19 Learning Pathways.

vii. Partnerships between schools Through the collaborative approach taken by clusters, the pilot has promoted and delivered effective partnerships between primary and secondary schools. Delivery arrangements have been put in place that provide for a consistent and effective approach to the delivery of MFL at KS2 and KS3. These arrangements have ensured a common understanding of the roles of each partner. Evidence reveals that partners communicated well and took decisions collectively on ways of enhancing and improving provision over the 6‐year period. These primary‐secondary school partnerships have also provided a catalyst for strengthened transition arrangements within clusters and this has benefited MFL teaching and learning in Year 7 more widely. These partnerships grew stronger as the pilot progressed and have been complemented, in many cases, by senior management support and effective support from CILT Cymru and some LEAs. They have led to the exchange and development of new teaching methods and tools as well as


59

increasing the knowledge, confidence and skills of a number of primary teachers. The mutual development of skills for teachers has also been enhanced in certain cases by opportunities for structured training supported by CILT Cymru and some LEAs. Effective partnerships between primary and secondary schools typically enjoy the support of head teachers and senior management. LEA advisors also have a central role to play in ensuring sustainable and coherent development of MFL. The development of these partnerships has been consistent with the philosophy of the School Effectiveness Framework in building ‘networks of professional practice’ and promoting a tri‐level approach to learning through partnership between the Welsh Assembly Government, LEAs and schools themselves. viii. Strengths/Weaknesses The pilot project is considered to be a great success by many of the individuals involved in its delivery at primary and secondary level. Many of the programme’s strengths have been illustrated in previous sections, however some weaknesses have been identified. At secondary level, in cases where there is weaker support from senior management teams, there has been little focus on developing a continuum of learning for MFL and this can work against the successful outcomes of an early start at KS2 . Despite the opportunities the pilot has presented, there has also been little progress in developing triple literacy and this is a missed opportunity for schools

Recommendation: There should be a more strategic focus on linking English, Welsh and MFL provision at KS2 and KS3 levels to promote triple literacy.

ix. Sustainability

The partnerships created, the expertise and the teaching methods developed over the six years are examples of the added value the pilot has generated. The success of the cluster model and its outputs can provide the basis upon which to develop further MFL provision. Over a quarter of primary schools surveyed reported new provision – an indication of commitment within primary schools towards building on the pilot’s success. Additional clusters have also developed outside the pilot using similar models to deliver MFL and therefore the pilot appears to have been a catalyst for MFL provision at KS2 in other parts of Wales. The secondary‐led and peripatetic models have each successfully delivered the requirements of the pilot. The secondary‐led model has, however, delivered substantial additional benefits through its impact on pupil transition between KS2 and KS3. The pilot shows that the secondary‐led model can be operated successfully and sustainably provided sufficient specialist MFL teachers are made available to the primary schools: there would be a considerable resource cost in offering this model across Wales. The primary‐led clusters, alongside those that have developed a mix of delivery models involving primary‐led delivery, have also successfully delivered the pilot’s overall objectives. This particular


60

model has generated informal skills development and confidence building that has benefited both primary and secondary teachers through knowledge exchanges as well as encouraging partnerships between primary and secondary schools. There has, however, been a lack of structured training opportunities for primary teachers to allow them to take on teaching MFL themselves. Guidance issued to pilot primary schools did acknowledge that ‘sustainable MFL provision in primary schools is only likely to be possible if class teachers can deliver at least some of the language teaching.’ In terms of the primary‐led model any future roll‐out would require that primary schools have MFL specialists among their staff and a comprehensive (national) programme of training would be required. Whether approached through Initial Teacher Training or through specific INSET courses, this would require considerable additional funding. x. Contribution to the objectives of Languages Count

Languages Count was launched by the Welsh Assembly Government in 2002 to improve the take up and standard of foreign language learning, particularly beyond ages 14 and 16; to increase recognition by schools, pupils and parents of the importance of language learning; and to ensure that foreign language learning builds on the learning of English and Welsh and brings learners to value diversity and gain understanding of other cultures. Making Languages Count, a refreshed languages strategy went out to consultation in 2009 and any strategies to further develop MFL in Wales should consider how the pilot model can contribute to future strategies to deliver MFL provision in Wales. The pilot has contributed to these overall aims in a number of different ways. Quantitative evidence from the evaluation illustrates that pilot pupils have achieved highly at Key Stage 3. Qualitative evidence from teachers supports this and also notes an improvement in literacy and oracy skills and in the self‐confidence of pupils. The development of provision at KS2 also ties in with Languages Count’s commitment to ‘give our children a flying start when it comes to language capability’. Provision of MFL has enriched the statutory curriculum at KS2 and allowed pupils to develop awareness and skills and build on them at KS3. At KS4 level quantitative data for boys and girls collectively shows favourable trends in attainment at pilot schools relative to non‐pilot schools. The percentage of pupils achieving A*‐C has remained broadly constant at around 78 per cent in these schools compared to a decline of some 1.7 percentage points at non‐pilot schools. Boys’ attainment at pilot schools has increased notably; with 78.7 per cent of entries achieving A*‐C in 2009, compared to 69.3 per cent A*‐C in 2004. This bucks the trend nationally, where there has been a slight decrease in A*‐C grades over the same period of time and illustrates how the pilot is delivering for a target group specifically identified by Languages Count. As Languages Count also states:


61

‘Raising levels of attainment and achievement of qualifications is one part of the challenge. Working to build positive perceptions and enjoyment of language learning is equally important.’

In this respect, the pilot is an unqualified success with both teachers and pupils reporting high levels of enthusiasm and motivation for language learning and related activities through cross‐curricular work at both KS2 and KS3 levels. Quantitative data has also illustrated that boys’ motivation levels in pilot schools has improved rapidly and this is a significant impact of the pilot given previous low attainment and interest levels reported by Estyn13. Activities undertaken by the pilot clusters have demonstrated that there is plenty of scope for synergies between language learning and other aspects of the school curriculum. Examples of good practice include linking MFL to personal and social education; ideas of citizenship; literacy and thinking skills as well as statutory subjects. Languages Count also called for activities to ‘ensure that foreign language learning builds on the learning of English and Welsh and brings learners to value diversity and gain understanding of other cultures.’ However, there has been a lack of progress and understanding of the concepts of triple literacy despite the opportunities presented through the pilot. CILT Cymru has made the ‘unique contribution’ envisaged by Languages Count and its advice, support and expertise has greatly contributed to the overall success of the pilot. LEAs are also an important part of the collaborative working for developing and sustaining MFL and providing a continuum of learning. Support such as training, advice, INSET meetings and opportunities for continuous professional development has been provided to some pilot clusters. Nevertheless, LEA support for MFL across Wales remains uneven and can affect any further strategies for extending provision. The schools and teachers involved in the pilot also should be credited for their enthusiasm and hard work and they have played a major part in the pilot’s successes. The expertise and momentum built up by the clusters over the six year period of the pilot can provide a range of good practice that can influence future MFL provision in the future. This good practice is illustrated in the success of the provision of MFL through the cluster model and also through the additional activities encouraged such as transition, pedagogical exchange, curriculum development and mutual skills development. This expertise has been recognised by the Welsh Assembly Government and CILT Cymru through Innovator Schools funding being rolled out in early 2010. This funding will enable pilot schools and other clusters to further improve existing provision and share their good practice with other schools. The success of the pilot in meeting on its overall aims and objectives as well as wider Welsh Assembly Government policy provides a model through which extended provision of MFL at KS2 level can be delivered. This inevitably has to be linked to additional funding to ensure stability,

13 Improving modern foreign languages in secondary schools in Wales: advice and guidance on good practice for schools and local authorities, Estyn (July 2009).


62

assist strategic planning and further build momentum and partnerships. Greater support at senior level within schools, and from LEAs and the Welsh Assembly Government is also vital for the continued development and promotion of MFL. This will allow Wales and its population to ‘promote cultural understanding and play a role on the world stage’ as Languages Count originally envisaged.

Recommendations: The findings of this report should be used to form part of the evidence‐base for the launch of Making Languages Count. CILT Cymru have provided support of good quality for the implementation of the pilot and should be considered as a key supporting partner for any future roll‐out of the pilot alongside LEAs. Further partnership is necessary with LEAs to encourage a cohesive and pro‐active approach to developing MFLs at school level. MFL should be strategically linked to the provision of Welsh and English as well as initiatives to develop cultural awareness and global citizenship.


63

ANNEX 1: ADDITIONAL DATA ON TAKE UP OF MFL IN PILOT SECONDARY SCHOOLS The survey of the secondary schools participating in Phase 2 of the pilot set out to collect data relating to numbers of pupils studying MFL in Year 10. The objective was to provide two years’ data relating to pupils who had received MFL at KS2. Data on take‐up at KS4 was provided by 16 of the 18 pilot schools. Table 1, summarises the data collected through this survey – it reveals that:

• The arrival in Year 10 of the first cohort of ‘Pilot pupils’ in 2007/08 saw a 3 percentage point increase in pupils studying at least one MFL in participating pilot schools;

• The following year, 2008/09, saw a further increase, with 37.2 per cent studying at least one MFL in Year 10, compared with 29.5 per cent two years earlier;

• Survey data revealed no significant differences between Welsh‐medium and English‐medium schools in overall patterns of take‐up at KS4.

It is important to note that this data is not directly comparable to that presented in section 3.8.1 and 3.8.2 of the main report, which relates to the percentage of GCSE entries. Furthermore, the data is subject to the same qualifications set out in that section in respect of the limitations of having only two years data to analyse. Nevertheless, the figures do reveal that, across pilot schools as a whole, heads of MFL reported increases in take up of MFL at KS4 among pupils who were introduced to languages in primary school. There were, however, variations in the take up of MFL among Year 10 pupils within individual pilot schools. Ongoing monitoring of trends over time will provide a fuller picture, and the Welsh Assembly Government, in partnership with CILT Cymru, should review available data from schools which participated in the pilot over coming years as successive cohorts reach KS4. Table 1: Percentage of pupils at pilot secondary schools studying at least ONE MFL in Year 10

2004/05 29.7

2005/06 31.1 PRE‐ PILOT 2006/07 29.5

First Yr 6 cohort 2007/08 32.6 PILOT

Second Yr 6 cohort 2008/09 37.2


64

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

2004/05 2005/06 2006/07 2007/08 2008/09

% pupils studying MFL at KS4 in Pilot schools

Pupils received MFL at KS2

Source: Survey of participating secondary schools

Data from 12 out of the 18 secondary schools indicates that there has been an increase in the number of pupils studying more than one MFL in Year 10, rising from 63 in 2006/07 to 89 in 2008/09. While this represents a substantial increase between 2006/07 and 2008/09, the sample size and total numbers involved are small. Once again, it would be interesting to monitor data from pilot schools over time. However, the way in which options ‘columns’ are structured in schools has the greatest influence on this: in some schools it is not currently possible to study more than one MFL. Table 2: Numbers of pupils at pilot secondary schools studying more than one MFL

Year Total Change on

previous year

2004/05 n/a ‐

2005/06 n/a ‐ PRE‐ PILOT 2006/07 63 ‐

First Yr 6 cohort 2007/08 74 +17.5% PILOT

Second Yr 6 cohort 2008/09 89 +20.3%

Source: Survey of pilot secondary schools


65

ANNEX 2: PILOT PRIMARY SCHOOL QUESTIONNAIRE

NAME OF SCHOOL

YOUR NAME

[Your responses will remain confidential and your name will not be used in reporting research findings] METHOD OF DELIVERY Q.1 Which of these models of provision are being used in your school? (tick relevant box)

A visiting secondary school teacher

A peripatetic specialist MFL teacher

An ‘in‐house’ primary teacher with in‐depth knowledge of MFL

Other method (please describe)

Q.2 Why did you opt for this model of provision?

Q.3 Are lessons delivered...? (Please tick)

In intensive ‘blocks’ at the end of Year 6

Once a fortnight

Once a week

Other (please specify)

Q.4 Approximately how much time is set aside per class for the delivery of MFL? Please note in the space below (e.g. 30 minutes weekly,)

Q.5 Which year group(s) in your school currently receive(s) MFL provision as part of the pilot?

Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6

Q.6 Have you extended MFL provision to any other year groups since the pilot began?

Yes No

If yes, which year group(s)?

Q.7 Given the choice, in which year group do you think MFL should start?

Year: ………..

Q.8 What would enable you to do this?

IMPACT ON PUPILS Q.9a) Based on what you know through your work with cluster partners, what impact has involvement in the pilot had on pupils’ language learning at Key Stage 3? (Please tick appropriate box)


66

A positive impact

Neutral impact

Don’t know

Q.9b) Please provide any examples or brief reasons for your answer in the space below.

Q.10a) Has the pilot project resulted in additional benefits in terms of promoting pupils’ attainment in literacy?

Yes No Don’t know

Q.10b) Please provide any relevant evidence or comments in support of your answer?

Q.11a) Has the pilot project resulted in additional benefits in relation to pupils’ levels of motivation?

Yes No Don’t know


Q.12a) Has the pilot project had a beneficial impact on transition to secondary school?

Yes No Don’t know


IMPACT ON THE SCHOOL Q.13 In your opinion what aspect(s) of the MFL Pilot project have worked particularly well in the context of the Key Stage 2 Curriculum? (Please offer your responses in the box below)

Q.14 In your opinion are there any aspect(s) of the MFL Pilot project that could have worked better in the context of the Key Stage 2 Curriculum? (Please offer your responses in the box below)

SUSTAINABILITY Q.15 Please note whether you agree or disagree with the following statements by ticking the appropriate box and inserting any relevant comments.

1 = Strongly agree; 2 = agree to an extent; 3 = neither agree nor disagree;

4 = disagree to an extent; 5 = strongly disagree

1 2 3 4 5 Notes / comments

i) The project has created new partnerships between primary and secondary schools that will continue after the end of this project

ii) The Pilot has enhanced existing partnerships between schools


67

iii) The Pilot has enabled the school to embed modern language provision into the curriculum

iv) The Pilot has enabled us to develop a strategy that will ensure the continued provision of MFL after the Pilot

v) The MFL Pilot has allowed us to enhance the professional development of our teaching staff

vi) Current provision cannot be sustained without ring‐fenced funding for MFL at KS2

Q.16 Has your school secured any additional funding in support of MFL from any of the following during the duration of the project? Please provide any relevant additional comments or details.

Yes No Details / comments

Better Schools Fund

LEA or other public sector funding (please give details)

European Union Funding

Other (please give details)

Q.17 Please indicate whether your school has developed any of the following activities to enhance MFL learning at Key Stage 2?


Cross‐curricular activities

Extra‐curricular activities

International school exchanges

Involvement in EU (or other international) projects or networks


Q.18a) Are modern foreign languages included in the following? (please tick appropriate boxes)

Yes No

Your School Development Plan

Your Transition Plans

GENERAL MANAGEMENT Q.19 Please note whether you agree or disagree with the following statements by ticking the appropriate box and inserting any relevant comments.

1 = Strongly agree; 2 = agree to an extent; 3 = neither agree nor disagree; 4 = disagree to an extent; 5 = strongly disagree


Communication with other partners in the cluster has been good throughout

The project has been managed effectively by the Welsh Assembly Government and CILT Cymru

Project monitoring processes have been clear and straightforward

We have received Advisory support from our LEA


68

OVERALL IMPACT OF THE PROJECT

Q.20 Using the same approach as above, please respond to the following statement:


The funding enabled us to develop MFL provision that would not otherwise have been possible

Q.21 Do you have any views on how this pilot programme could be improved were it to be rolled out nationally across all primary schools in Wales? If so, please note in the space below.

Q.22 If you have any other views or opinions relating to MFL Pilot Project that you would like to offer please include them in the box below or attach an additional sheet.


69

ANNEX 3: PILOT SECONDARY SCHOOL QUESTIONNAIRE

NAME

SCHOOL

POSITION

SECTION 1: RANGE AND NATURE OF MFL PROVISION 1a) Which of the following modern foreign languages are taught at your school? (Please tick relevant box)

French Spanish German

Other (please note)

1b) Have any changes taken place to the range of languages taught at your school during the course of the KS2 pilot?

Which language(s) / detail

No, the range of languages taught has not changed (Please go to question 1d)

Yes, the introduction of a new language(s)

Yes, the discontinuation of a language(s)

New courses/qualifications that include MFL (e.g. vocational courses, Welsh Bac)

1c) Please use the space below to provide reasons for any changes to the languages delivered at your school, indicating whether these are linked to the Key Stage 2 pilot.

1d) Have there been any changes to the number of hours of MFL delivered during Key Stage 3 over the lifetime of the Pilot Project?

Yes (please provide details and reasons for any changes in the space below)

No (go to Section 2)

Report: Evaluation of Phase 2 of the Key Stage 2 MFL Pilot Project

70

SECTION 2: ATTAINMENT AT KEY STAGE 3 2a) How many pupils achieved the following levels in modern foreign languages at the end of Key Stage 3? PLEASE NOTE:

• Include separate numbers for boys (B) and girls (G) for each column;

• For 2006/07 and 2007/08, respondents are asked to record separately levels achieved by pupils who were part of the Key Stage 2 Pilot (who studied languages at primary school for at least a term and levels achieved by those who were not. Therefore there are two rows for each of these academic years.

LEVEL AT END OF KEY STAGE 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8+ Total Yr 9 MFL

pupils END YEAR Boys Girls Boys Girls Boys Girls Boys Girls Boys Girls Boys Girls Boys Girls Boys Girls Boys Girls

2003/04

2004/05 PRE‐PILOT

2005/06

2006/07 KS 2 PILOT PUPILS 2007/08

2006/07 NON‐KS 2 PILOT PUPILS 2007/08

Final

SECTION 3: PARTICIPATION AT KEY STAGE 4 3a) How many pupils have chosen modern foreign languages at Year 10 during the past 5 years?

YEAR 10

Numbers studying ONLY ONE foreign

language

Numbers studying MORE THAN ONE foreign

language

Total number of ALL PUPILS in Year 10

2004/05

2005/06 PRE‐ PILOT 2006/07

2007/08 PILOT

2008/09

SECTION 4: TEACHING STAFF IN MFL

i. Increased [Go to 4b]

ii. Decreased [Go to 4b]

4a) During the course of the pilot project has the number of MFL teachers at your school... (please tick relevant box)

iii. Remained the same [Go to Section 5]

Yes 4b) Are these changes as a direct result of the pilot project?

No

4c) Please provide further details / reasons behind any change in staff numbers in your department.

SECTION 5: LEA SUPPORT 5a) Has your school received the following support from your LEA in relation to the Key Stage 2 pilot? (Please tick appropriate boxes)

Yes No

General advice relating to MFL provision

Planning

Continuous Professional Development

Other (please note)

5b) Please indicate the nature of the support you received and how it benefitted the delivery of the pilot/MFL in general?

Yes 5c) Is there any additional advisory support that you would like to receive from your LEA or from CILT Cymru? No

[Go to Q6a]

5d) If ‘Yes’, please provide details.

Draft Final Report: Evaluation of Phase 2 of the Key Stage 2 MFL Pilot Project

SECTION 6: SUSTAINABILITY 6a) Please note whether you agree or disagree with the following statements by ticking the appropriate box and inserting any relevant comments.

1 = Strongly agree; 2 = agree to an extent; 3 = neither agree nor disagree; 4 = disagree to an extent; 5 = strongly disagree

1 2 3 4 5 Notes comments / vii) The Pilot has created new partnerships between secondary

and primary schools that will continue after the end of this project

viii) The Pilot has enhanced existing partnerships between departments within the school

ix) The MFL Pilot has allowed us to enhance the professional development of our teaching staff

x) There is strong support among senior management for the development of MFL in my school

xi) Options choices at our school provide sufficient opportunities for pupils to study MFL at GCSE.

xii) Option choices allow students to study more than one MFL 6b) Has your school secured any additional funding in support of MFL from any of the following during the project? Please provide any relevant comments or details.


Better Schools Fund

LEA or other public sector funding (please give details)

European Union Funding

GTCW


6c) Please indicate whether your school has developed any of the following activities to enhance MFL learning at Key Stage 3 / 4 as a result of the Pilot?


Cross‐curricular activities

Extra‐curricular activities

International school visits and /or exchanges

Involvement in EU (or other international) projects or networks


6d) Has the Pilot resulted in any changes to schemes of work for MFL in Key Stage 3

Yes

No

Please use this space to provide examples of changes to schemes of work.

72


6e) Are modern foreign languages included in the following?

Yes No (go to 6f)

Your School Development Plan

If yes, please tick here if MFL have been included as a result of the Pilot Project

Your Transition Plans If yes, please tick here if MFL have been included as a result of the Pilot Project

Please use this space to add any comments in relation to the questions above.

6f) What impact has involvement in the pilot had on pupils’ modern foreign language learning at Key Stage 3? (Please tick appropriate box)

Boys Girls Pupils with SEN

A positive impact

Neutral impact

A negative impact

Don’t know

6g) Please provide any examples or brief reasons for your answer in the space below.

SECTION 7: TRANSITION 7a) Has the Pilot Project had a beneficial impact on transition to secondary school?

Yes No Don’t know

7b) Please provide any relevant evidence or comments in support of your answer?

SECTION 8: TRIPLE LITERACY 8a) Have any links been made in the school between Welsh, English and MFL Departments as a result of the KS2 Pilot Project in order to develop triple literacy?

Yes

No

Please use this space to add any comments in relation to the question above.

73


SECTION 9: PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT OF STAFF AT KEY STAGE 2 9a) Have primary schools in your cluster requested any form of modern foreign language training with the secondary school during the Pilot Project?

Yes No

9b) If yes, what training has been delivered?

9c) What impact has this had on the delivery of the Pilot?

SECTION 10: DIFFERENTIAL LEVELS AT KEY STAGE 3 10a) How have you addressed the differing levels of Pilot and non‐Pilot pupils at KS3?

Additional language classes for non‐pilot pupils during the summer break

Additional language classes for non‐pilot pupils at the beginning of Year 7

A mentoring or ‘buddying’ system to assist non‐pilot pupils

Providing a different MFL from the one learnt in primary schools

Additional support provided by teachers during usual classes

Other (please describe)

10b) If your school has introduced additional provision for non‐pilot pupils, what impact has this had on your teaching/delivery of MFL?

SECTION 11: FUTURE OF PROVISION AT KEY STAGE 2

11a) Do you have any views on how this pilot programme could be improved were it to be rolled out nationally? If so, please note in the space below.

11b) If you have any other views or opinions relating to MFL Pilot Project that you would like to offer please include them in the box below or attach an additional sheet.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR COMPLETING THIS QUESTIONNAIRE DIOLCH YN FAWR IAWN AM GWBLHAU’R HOLIADUR HWN

74

FINAL REPORT EVALUATION OF PHASE 2 OF THE KEY...

Documents

Transcript of FINAL REPORT EVALUATION OF PHASE 2 OF THE KEY...