The evidence about attainment in English language across primary and secondary education presents a very mixed and quite complex picture.

Overall attainment is:

• relatively strong from P1 to P4 and at S3/S4;
• in need of significant improvement from P5 to S2; and
• fair but improving at S5/S6.

Weaknesses in reading and writing were increasingly evident at P6/P7 and at the secondary stages. Overall, girls performed better than boys in assessments of reading and writing. The 2001 AAP survey results suggest that, in reading, appropriate national standards were reached by 63% in P4, by 41% in P7, and by 43% in S2. In writing, the figures are 80% in P4, 57% in P7 and 33% in S2. These results are broadly consistent with HMIE inspection findings.

Features of attainment at different stages

Pupils at P1 and P2 were generally making good progress in learning to talk, listen, read and write for a range of purposes. Increasingly, by the end of P1, they were able to name and use sounds and recognise rhymes, words and sentences. By the end of P2, they showed a basic awareness of the components of different types of stories.

Pupils were often ready at an early stage to move from having their work scribed for them to writing their own captions and sentences with support.

Pupils at P3 and P4 reached levels of attainment which were broadly in line with appropriate national standards. Pupils could:

• talk about their personal experiences and contribute to adult-led discussion;
• read, and listen to, stories and information with understanding; and
• produce short, lively pieces of writing for different purposes.

However, pupils sometimes had difficulties going beyond the literal meaning when reading texts. In written work, too many pupils could not spell or punctuate accurately even after checking their work.

At P5, and to some extent at P4, pupils sometimes lacked the necessary challenge to enable them to make good progress. As a result, some pupils' progress in developing English language skills was slowed.

From P6 to S2, although there were strengths, there were significant weaknesses in some aspects of pupils' attainment in around half of the schools inspected. By the end of both P7 and S2, pupils' skills in the following aspects were generally secure and in line with appropriate national standards:

• taking turns when listening and talking with one another;
• talking to convey information to an audience; and
• reading and listening to identify the gist of a message.

However, at the same stages, pupils' skills were often weaker and below appropriate national standards in the following aspects:

• talking and listening to identify other viewpoints, and to question and build on others' ideas;
• reading and talking to analyse texts, including the impact of genre and writer's craft, and providing evidence to support their answers; and
• producing well-structured, extended writing with accurate spelling and punctuation.

At S3/S4, standards of pupils' attainment had risen but at S5/S6 there had been relatively little overall improvement in recent years.

• Almost all candidates achieved a Standard Grade award at General level or above.
• There has been a steady increase in the proportion of pupils gaining a Standard Grade award at Credit level, up from 37% in 1995 to 43% in 2002.⁴
• 74% of pupils with a Credit award in 2001 gained a Higher award at A-C in 2002 (pre-appeal).
• The proportion of candidates with an A-C award at Higher ranged from 67% to 69% between 1995 and 1999; it rose in 2000 to 70% and in 2001 to 72% before falling back to 69% in 2002.
• New National Qualifications (NQ) courses at Intermediate 1 and 2 enabled more than 13,000 pupils to gain national awards at these levels in 2002.
• Most of the relatively small numbers presented for Advanced Higher and its equivalent gained an award at A-C.

There were some significant weaknesses in pupils' performance in national examinations.

• 11% of candidates who already had a Standard Grade award gained No Award for their NQ course of study.
• Around a quarter of pupils who had gained a Standard Grade award at Credit level failed to gain a Higher award at A-C in 2002.
• There has been a sharp rise in the numbers of compensatory awards at Higher, up from around 3000 (11%) in 2001 to around 4100 (15%) in 2002.
• The number of No Awards at Intermediate 1 rose from around 300 (36%) in 2000 to 2100 (48%) in 2002.⁵
• In 2002, SQA examiners drew attention to the significant increase in pupils being presented for NQ courses above their level of competence in reading and extended writing.

Main areas for improvement

Pupils generally had sufficient literacy skills to allow them to deal with the everyday work in class. However, their skills in more challenging aspects of language such as analysing the meaning, purpose and impact of texts were not sufficiently developed from the early primary stages. From P4/P5 onwards, this weakness limited their ability to tackle independently new and challenging oral and written communications.

Pupils' skills in checking and improving their own work were not always sufficiently developed. This had a particular impact in writing where, despite well-chosen vocabulary and bright ideas, pupils' weak spelling, punctuation and syntax often obscured what they wanted to say and stopped them going beyond a basic response.

The evidence indicates that around a third of those pupils who had succeeded in assessments or tests undertaken in class could not replicate this success in more formal tests and examinations. When required to work independently, their skills were not secure enough for them to achieve good results.

A significant proportion of pupils who had already gained Standard Grade awards failed to achieve a course award at S5/S6. This represented a marked degree of under-achievement.

In recent years, teachers have been concentrating their efforts on strengthening support for early literacy at P1/P2, phasing in improved approaches to writing from P1 to S6, and implementing new S5/S6 courses leading to NQs.

Features of effective courses

Effective courses:

• went beyond minimum assessment requirements;
• developed pupils' skills in listening, talking, reading and writing from P1 to the end of schooling;
• gave well-planned attention to developing basic literacy;
• developed pupils' ability to enjoy and respond to a rich and balanced experience of literature and to make purposeful use of language;
• used listening and talking activities effectively to help pupils to clarify their ideas and reflect on their reading before undertaking extended writing or oral presentations; and
• were put in place systematically, equitably and consistently.

Effective schools and departments provided teachers with a clear set of agreed expectations and assessment criteria to share with pupils. Such practical arrangements helped to provide appropriately challenging activities and reading material. Courses in these schools took appropriate account of differences in attainment, prior learning and gender in order to help pupils make good progress.

Planning was used effectively to integrate language work, for example by talking about reading before writing. It also helped teachers to identify the best opportunities for language learning in different contexts across the curriculum. Good account was taken of other language learning within the school and of the language and culture of the local community and of Scotland as a whole. Practical advice and guidance on programmes helped staff to ensure consistency of teaching and learning approaches.

Features of effective courses at P1 to P5

Effective courses helped pupils make progress in all four outcomes: listening, talking, reading and writing. Due attention was given to basic skills. For example, programmes included talking clearly, listening to respond, learning to read, building words and sentences, and developing handwriting. Sufficient priority was also given to improving pupils' confidence and skills in exploring the meaning and impact of an appropriate range of simple texts. Increasingly, programmes took account of pupils' experiences before P1 and built on prior learning at all stages. Improvements were most evident at P1/P2. Writing courses had been improved through the adoption of more systematic approaches. Effective uses of phonics helped pupils to learn to read and write earlier. Well-chosen resources and carefully-deployed support staff often contributed to the success of these programmes.

Main areas for improvement in courses from P1 to P5

Where courses had weaknesses, there were often imbalances and fragmentation in the approach to the different aspects of language skills. Schools had often made timetabling or organisational changes in order to improve pupils' performance in one particular aspect such as spelling. However, clear links were not made with the other aspects of the overall course.

The quality of pupils' experiences was not always consistent, particularly at the middle stages.

• Often, schools did not build at P4/P5 on successful 'early intervention' approaches to sustain progress in pupils' learning.
• At P4/P5, pupils' experience was often not as rich, varied and challenging as it had been at the early stages. Sometimes there was an over-emphasis on basic literacy, with insufficient attention paid to developing pupils' awareness of the writer's craft and genre.
• At P4/P5, tasks were sometimes pitched too low to allow pupils to make good progress.
• As a result of weaknesses in courses at P4/P5, ground had to be made up at P6/P7 in order to help pupils to reach appropriate standards for their age.

Features of effective courses at P6/P7

Where P6/P7 courses were strong, pupils had enjoyable and challenging opportunities to develop their skills systematically in all four outcomes _ listening, talking, reading and writing. Features of effective courses included:

• analysis of the meaning, purpose and craft of different kinds of texts;

• attention to basic skills such as speaking clearly, listening to others, reading for understanding, and learning how to produce legible writing with accurate spelling, punctuation and grammar;
• tasks pitched at levels designed to enable pupils of different attainment levels to achieve to their potential; and
• approaches and standards, including assessments, used consistently across associated primary and secondary schools in preparing pupils well for success at S1/S2.

Main areas for improvement in courses at P6/P7

Where courses were weak, there were often gaps or imbalances making it more difficult for pupils to attain appropriate national standards. Weaknesses included:

• over-emphasis on basic comprehension and short written exercises;
• not enough planned attention to the skills needed for understanding the meaning of texts, identifying their purpose and evaluating their impact;
• insufficient opportunities for pupils to engage in sustained and extended dialogue;
• insufficient clarity about the school's expectations of standards of attainment and approaches, including assessment;

• tasks pitched at too low a level; and
• not enough co-ordination or consistency across classes and between associated primary and secondary schools.

Features of effective S1/S2 courses

Productive use of links with associated primary schools enabled the most effective English departments to design courses in which pupils could build on their existing language skills. Well-planned experiences of reading and discussion helped pupils to extend their thinking and communication skills. Well-chosen texts often included works of pre-twentieth-century writers, Scottish literature, the media and pupils' own writing. Analysis of texts helped to provide pupils with good models for their own talking and writing.

Effective departments provided teachers and pupils with clear, practical advice on standards. They also developed a range of strategies aimed at promoting achievement and preparing for success at later stages. As a result, pupils had appropriately challenging opportunities to develop their skills and independence. Agreed departmental approaches covered aspects such as meeting pupils' different needs, homework and self-assessment, as well as planning and editing extended writing, note-taking and evaluative use of the internet and other sources for reading for information.

Features of effective S3/S4 courses

Effective courses went beyond the minimum SQA assessment requirements and provided all pupils with advice on how to improve their work. In particular, these courses not only provided thorough preparation for Standard Grade but prepared pupils well for more challenging work in S5/S6. Typically, they required all pupils to engage in analysing and responding to an appropriately rich range of language forms and types of literature. Such courses included appropriate techniques useful for examination situations. These elements were clearly located within a course structure designed to encourage critical thinking and to lead to high quality communication, as well as a good range and volume of assignments. Practical advice for pupils and teachers helped departments to take a consistent approach to assessing progress in order to plan learning and raise achievement. Areas where departments often made successful use of common approaches included using:

• homework to develop pupils' independent reading skills;
• grade-related criteria with pupils to improve key skills such as discussion and writing; and
• reading for information in partnership with librarians.

Features of effective S5/S6 courses

Departments across Scotland had introduced courses leading to NQs at various levels. In keeping with national arrangements, the best courses went beyond the minimum SQA assessment requirements. They continued to offer a rich experience of literature and language and to develop an appropriate range of communication skills.

In particular, well-planned courses at Access and Intermediate 1 and 2 levels often ensured better progression from Standard Grade, better pace and wider experience of literature than was commonly the experience with the previous National Certificate (NC) modular courses.

Schools were increasingly aware of the need for clearly understood arrangements for course admission, induction and presentation. Effective departmental and school arrangements took appropriate account of pupils' prior attainment in all three Standard Grade elements, that is reading, writing and talking. To succeed in NQ courses pupils had to commit themselves to attend regularly, undertake personal reading and to submit extended writing and other coursework within specified course deadlines. Effective departments had made these expectations very explicit to pupils and their parents.

In the best NQ courses, the development and assessment of oral skills were often well integrated with either the study of literature or the investigation of challenging ideas, topics and issues. In some cases, such investigations involved reading for information, critical discussion, oral presentation of a point of view, and extended writing.

Effective departments had taken careful account of recent changes in NQ assessment requirements such as the increase in the weighting given to reading and writing and the significant reduction in that for talking. These departments continued to use talking and listening to enhance pupils' skills in reading and writing and to support pupils' overall language development.

Main areas for improvement in courses at the secondary stages

Where courses were evaluated as having significant weaknesses, pupils often had insufficient opportunities to improve their work in line with their potential. Sometimes, there were gaps in coverage of language, literature and, particularly at S1/S2, of key skills such as talking. On occasion, the course structure was not clear enough to enable the consistent planning and review of pupils' progress. Too often there was insufficient rigour in consolidating and extending learning. Overall, links between primary and secondary schools were often not effectively used in planning pupils' future learning. At S5/S6, too many pupils were studying for NQ course awards at levels beyond their current competence. Their studies at Standard Grade had not prepared them well enough for the degree of challenge and independence required by NQ courses.

Courses with such weaknesses did not prepare pupils well for more challenging work at later stages, for example in group discussion, extended writing and redrafting, textual analysis, personal reading and responding to different genres. They also increased the pressure on individual teachers who had to devise their own strategies for meeting pupils' needs.

To improve pupils' experience and raise standards of attainment, courses needed to:

• go beyond basic literacy and minimum assessment standards;
• prepare pupils not only for the requirements of Standard Grade but also for the challenge and independence required for NQ courses;
• be well matched to pupils' levels of competence;
• develop pupils' skills in talking, listening, reading and writing to enable them to analyse and respond to complex ideas and texts and to communicate effectively;
• build consistently and evenly on prior learning;
• provide staff with practical advice on using information from assessment to plan learning; and
• identify and tackle pupils' learning difficulties at an early stage.

The overall quality of learning and teaching was generally strong. Where practice was effective, teachers had a clear picture of pupils' achievements, attainment and their learning needs. Teachers designed stimulating learning and teaching activities to help all pupils to make good progress. Where practice was less effective, there were often significant weaknesses in using assessment to support learning and meet pupils' different communication needs, particularly in primary schools and at S1/S2.

Features of effective learning and teaching

Effective learning and teaching encouraged pupils to enjoy learning and helped them to think for themselves. It occurred most often where teachers shared the purposes of lessons with pupils and took time to make sure that pupils knew what they were expected to achieve. Where pupils understood the purposes of tasks and the criteria for assessing them, they were more confident and ready to plan and improve their work. The most skilled teachers used a range of teaching approaches with their pupils, including questioning, explanation and demonstration.

Effective teachers used explanation, questioning and dialogue to consolidate and extend pupils' understanding. They involved all pupils in systematically exploring issues or responding to texts and did not rely on excessive use of short, closed 'question and answer' sessions, exercises in comprehension, or reading aloud. They were consistent in expecting and encouraging extended oral contributions from pupils. Pupils were expected to think through what they wanted to communicate through individual planning, taking notes and group discussion.

Demonstration was a powerful way of showing pupils how to reach high standards across a range of activities, from storytelling and debating to analysing reading and writing. When pupils had seen examples of what was required and had had enough thinking and discussion time to explore and reflect, they generally achieved improved standards. Well-chosen opportunities to analyse and adapt good models of talking and listening, as well as reading and writing, helped pupils to make progress as intelligent learners.

At all stages, pupils communicated best when they had something they wanted to say and when they had the skills to express themselves well. When shown how to explore relevant and motivating texts and how to apply these critical skills in improving their own work, they often responded very well. When pupils had acquired an appropriate knowledge of language, and were expected to apply this to editing their own work, they generally made good progress. These strategies were particularly effective in helping to bridge the gap in achievement between boys and girls.

Some enjoyable and challenging activities were increasingly in evidence from S3, but were also used to good effect at earlier stages. Such tasks included group discussion of the writer's choice of form to support meaning, as well as structured use of reading and writing for information in order to deploy ideas and argue a case. At S5/S6, there was some good use of seminars and tutorials to involve pupils in taking responsibility for independent study and in presenting their evaluations of their reading to their peers. At all stages, sharing deadlines in advance helped pupils to plan and work at a satisfactory pace.

Information and communications technology (ICT) was being used effectively in some schools. Pupils were often using presentation software such as PowerPoint to structure their work. Effective use of electronic databases of books of different levels of difficulty, genres, and areas of interest helped to encourage personal reading and build pupils' confidence in selecting texts. The less formal structures of e-mail were sometimes included in work on analysing language and choosing the medium best suited to the situation.

Features of effective assessment in supporting learning

When assessment was used effectively to support pupils' learning, schools went beyond collecting information, keeping examples of pupils' work and administering tests. Schools using assessment effectively made sure that they:

• identified what pupils had already achieved and what they needed to learn;
• shared task criteria with pupils, provided constructive feedback on their next steps in learning, and involved them in improving their own work;

• had a comprehensive and reliable system for monitoring pupils' progress in listening, talking, reading and writing;
• identified and put in place strategies for meeting pupils' specific communication needs;

• tracked the progress of all pupils;
• revised courses to ensure that pupils' progress was not constrained by gaps in coverage;
• formed and reconfigured classes and groupings as necessary to avoid limiting pupils' progress by inflexible pace or organisation; and
• provided parents with informative reports on the standards their children had achieved and what they needed to do next in order to make progress.

Good practice in tracking progress, record-keeping and targeting support and challenge was most in evidence at P1/P2 and at S5/S6. At P1/P2, schools frequently made productive use of information provided by pre-school centres and parents as a starting point for planning development in English language. From P1 to S2, there was some appropriate use of tests, including National Testing.

At S3/S4, teachers frequently shared grade-related criteria with pupils and encouraged pupils to use them in strengthening their reading, writing and talking. At S5/S6, systematic arrangements for target-setting and moderating pupils' standards in reading, writing, listening and talking had been well used. Such rigorous approaches had helped teachers to confirm their professional judgements, share good practice, and apply consistent standards.

Features of meeting pupils' needs effectively to support learning

Effective schools intervened early to identify and tackle barriers to pupils' achievement. They took account of pupils' different starting points. Those with the narrowest experience of language and literature from home and earlier schooling were most dependent on the school's efforts to help them to achieve their full potential. In order to achieve success these pupils required a more co-ordinated and coherent approach to language development across the curriculum.

Effective schools co-ordinated language learning carefully. Some pupils were already skilled and confident in using language to discuss ideas, reflect on alternative viewpoints and plan before action. Schools needed to provide all of their pupils with suitable challenges.

Some schools had successfully tackled under-achievement in English language. For example, they had raised the standards of attainment of both boys and girls. In such schools, personal reading and response were often promoted systematically. Pupils were expected to use a wide vocabulary. They were shown how to become more confident and skilled in discussion, making and organising notes, planning to clarify their ideas, and redrafting. They learned how to use language more purposefully and accurately. Where pupils' needs were well met, teachers adapted tasks skilfully to help to provide appropriate pace and challenge for all pupils. ICT was often well used to consolidate work with individual pupils or groups.

At the primary stages, schools often used the good practice of varying the organisation of learning groups so that work could be pitched at appropriate levels to consolidate and extend learning. To achieve this, teachers frequently made good use of the support provided by classroom assistants.

At S1/S2 and S3/S4, differing task groupings based on attainment, gender or interest, were well used on occasion to cater for the wide-ranging needs within classes. Where broad attainment bands, sets or other attainment groupings were used, effective departments kept these groupings under review and enabled pupils to move between groups as appropriate. These departments ensured that work was well matched to pupils' prior learning.

The most effective schools and departments went well beyond class and group organisation as a means of meeting pupils' learning needs. They identified clear expectations and arrangements for challenging all pupils to achieve their potential, linked to the use of appropriate resources and teaching and learning approaches. Where necessary, they varied class size, adapted activities and involved learning support staff. Supportive approaches such as target-setting, debriefing after tests and study tutorials were all more commonly seen in the senior stages. At S3/S4, there was some good use of NQ material to support specialist study of personal reading and individual presentation. At S5, some of the most able Higher Grade candidates were using packages on writing initially designed for Advanced Higher courses.

Arrangements for designing tasks and approaches which would meet pupils' needs were increasingly well structured at S5/S6. A range of NQ courses was available with the potential to ensure progression for all pupils, regardless of their levels of prior attainment. The most effective departments ensured that pupils were involved in challenging but realistic decisions to enable them to make successful progress from S4. At the start of the course, admission interviews and formative use of induction units helped pupils and teachers to identify appropriate course targets based on existing strengths and agreed approaches to tackling barriers to success. Course tasks, such as the specialist study, tended to involve senior pupils in a much greater degree of independence and negotiation than they had experienced previously.

A few schools and departments had effective arrangements for pupils with specific communication needs. They provided appropriate challenge and support to enable pupils with English as an additional language to participate fully in activities such as group discussion and writing. They worked in partnership with other teachers, such as visiting teachers and teachers of modern languages, to equip pupils to achieve their potential in their first language as well as in English. In such departments, from S3/S4 onwards, pupils were able to have their achievement in their first language, as well as in English, accredited through the SQA or an equivalent Examining Board.

Increasingly, schools and departments were putting in place arrangements for meeting the needs of pupils with specific communication difficulties. For example, the appropriate use of ICT to enable pupils with motor difficulties to undertake extended writing. Pupils with dyslexia were often well supported by a co-ordinated school approach, for example to teaching spelling strategies and adapting reading tasks.

Main areas for improvement in learning and teaching

At all stages, but particularly from P5 to S2, there was a need to ensure that all pupils had sufficient challenge and pace of work to make appropriate progress. The main weakness was in identifying and meeting pupils' needs.

From P1 to S2, there were some key areas requiring improvement.

• Many schools had still to put in place a comprehensive range of agreed assessment arrangements covering all four key outcomes. At S1/S2, there was often insufficient use of information from assessment in planning the development of key skills, such as group discussion.
• Many schools had still to identify how talking, listening, reading for information, and understanding of writer's craft and genre were to be taught and assessed.
• In some cases, the teaching of reading at the middle and upper primary stages had been unwisely narrowed to focus on basic reading comprehension.
• At all stages, there were often key features requiring improvement.
• Many schools had not provided staff with adequate practical advice on using assessment to confirm their professional judgements and plan pupils' learning.
• Sometimes tests and formal assessments were being administered before pupils were secure at the relevant level.
• More use of information on pupils' attainments needed to be made in reviewing groupings, including setting, and adapting provision in line with pupils' different attainments and rates of progress.
• There was sometimes too much focus on preparing for tests and not enough on the overall quality of pupils' learning.
• Some schools did not involve pupils enough in reviewing their progress and taking decisions about how to improve their work.
• At all stages, but particularly at S3/S4, excessive attention was often given to superficial proof-reading of writing.

In taking forward improvement, further attention should to be given to providing:

• teaching approaches which clearly demonstrated how and what pupils needed to do to learn and improve;
• learning approaches which gave pupils the purposes, criteria, discussion and thinking time to produce work of a high standard;
• opportunities for pupils to deepen and extend their learning through dialogue and reflection;
• careful diagnostic assessment giving pupils constructive feedback on all key learning outcomes and their next steps in learning;
• approaches to identifying and tackling learning difficulties at an early stage; and
• sustained challenge for all pupils.

The quality of relationships between pupils and teachers continued to be an evident strength in most primary schools and English departments. The most effective schools had established clear, motivating and achievable expectations for positive behaviour and high quality in pupils' work. Their teachers and pupils took part in ongoing constructive dialogue about what had been achieved and how they planned to improve.

Features of an effective ethos

Some strategies were effective at all stages. These included sharing task criteria, regular presentations and readings of pupils' writing at assembly, and newsletters for parents about pupils' successes in competitions. Displays were often well used, not only to remind pupils of task criteria but also to interest them in reading and to show skilful writing in different genres. Memorable literary quotations from professional writers were sometimes on display alongside best work from male and female pupils at all stages.

Many schools used storytelling, readings, and workshops with professional communicators to promote pupils' personal reading and to involve their young writers in stimulating master classes. Book clubs and fairs, certificates and awards, for example for the 'writer of the week' or the 'personal reader of the month', were also productive, particularly up to S3.

In primary schools, the same teacher was usually responsible for co-ordinating pupils' learning across the curriculum and was able to provide pupils with a consistent set of expectations and support for their language development. Only a few secondary English departments were working with colleagues in other subjects to offer pupils complementary opportunities for developing their communication skills. In the best practice, teachers agreed to take a common approach to matching the reading difficulty of texts to pupils' attainment, introducing new vocabulary, teaching functional writing and responding to weaknesses in presentation, spelling and punctuation. Such consistent support helped pupils with communication difficulties to access the whole curriculum more effectively.

Effective schools had established productive partnerships with parents to support their children's language development. This often included promoting personal reading and supporting homework. Some schools worked well with parents and other agencies, such as community librarians. The most effective schools respected linguistic and cultural diversity and ensured that pupils whose first language was not English had well-structured opportunities to develop their bilingual skills. They provided access to bilingual resources, including multi-cultural literature and storytelling.

Teachers of older pupils, particularly in secondary schools, often selected tasks, print and media texts which offered a stimulating context for challenging stereotypes and reflecting on issues. The choice of texts for class study and personal reading, including literature from other countries, was sometimes very well used to address specific equality issues, such as gender or prejudice or human rights.

Good practice in offering motivating classroom and extra-curricular activities included debates, theatre and film visits, and clubs. School magazines, public speaking and writing competitions were also enjoyable and productive ways of helping pupils to extend their language and social skills. In some schools, participation rates in such activities were high and contributed significantly to pupils' overall learning and achievement.

Main areas for improvement in ethos

Where there was not a consistent or constructive approach to improving pupils' work and behaviour, schools struggled to raise standards. When there were weaknesses in staff teamwork or weak partnership with parents, for example on homework, it was difficult to create equitable opportunities for all pupils to succeed. Although many pupils would have benefited from a consistent approach to language across the curriculum, schools were often not ready to put this in place. Committed, individual teachers alone could not achieve this important goal.

Schools where staff and parents worked in partnership helped pupils to:

• set themselves high but realistic expectations in order to improve the quality of their work;
• establish productive work habits, including regular personal reading and positive attitudes to others;
• consolidate learning, across the curriculum and at home;
• participate in enjoyable and enriching after school activities; and
• identify and reach challenging but achievable learning goals.

Most principal teachers of English and staff with overall responsibility for English language in primary schools continued to provide strong leadership. They had taken forward improvements in areas such as early literacy and new NQ courses. However, there were often weaknesses in self-evaluation and planning for improvement.

Effective education authorities provided schools with a clear lead together with practical support and challenge for developing and monitoring pupils' progress in English language at all stages.

Features of effective leadership

Effective leaders had a strategic understanding of how the English language course could develop all pupils as learners and provide them with a broad, balanced and enriching experience. These leaders were able to develop a shared vision with colleagues and translate this vision into action, through their own skilled teaching and practical advice. Staff expertise in areas such as children's literature, storytelling and assessment was systematically identified and shared. These approaches helped to create a strong professional team. Team priorities were clear and emphasised learning, teaching and achievement. All team members were regularly involved in reflecting on practice, evaluating plans, and using assessment of pupils' progress in all four key outcomes to strengthen courses, approaches to learning and teaching, and pupils' overall achievement.

Main areas for improvement in leadership

Where there were weaknesses, staff tended to manage in an unco-ordinated way rather than provide clear leadership. They concentrated too much on separate initiatives without extending good practices consistently across the stages and aspects of language work. For example, rigorous approaches to using assessment and self-evaluation had often been put in place for early literacy and NQ courses but were not applied sufficiently to other stages. Systematic approaches to writing were often not extended to talking and listening and the full range of reading skills.

Sometimes those responsible for giving a lead in English required to give more attention to:

• promoting professional dialogue, staff development and evaluation of learning, teaching and attainment;
• developing strategies to strengthen pupils' attainment whilst ensuring courses were not narrowly focused on minimum assessment requirements;
• reaching an agreed understanding across the staff team of key priorities in English language courses which included appropriate attention to critical literacy, talking and listening, as well as basic skills in reading and writing;
• co-ordinating and monitoring pupils' work in English language to ensure that pupils had a coherent and consistent learning experience; and

• balancing competing priorities, phasing in improvements and integrating these within the overall English course.

Although there was much good practice in evidence in many Scottish schools, it was not evenly shared across stages and education authorities. To improve provision further, schools and education authorities needed to:

• provide a clear lead and practical support for the consistent and balanced development of English language skills across stages and classes;
• establish and capitalise on good teamwork by identifying and sharing staff expertise and sustaining progress towards agreed priorities;
• ensure that staff with additional responsibilities were clear about their roles, particularly in promoting improvement in English language;
• carefully phase in and monitor new initiatives to integrate them with existing good practice; and
• provide all staff with appropriate opportunities for professional review and continuing professional development.

Main strengths

The main strengths in the provision of English language were as follows.

• Successful strategies for improving early literacy.
• Well-judged action under way in many schools and education authorities to improve standards in writing.
• Good practice in learning and teaching in individual schools and classes.
• Some successful partnerships with parents in improving pupils' achievements.
• Some effective provision for more able pupils to reach high standards.
• Successful individual initiatives to help pupils with specific communication needs.
• Wider access to SQA awards due to the use of new NQ courses at S5/S6.

Main areas for improvement

Schools and education authorities need to take steps to:

• build more effectively on successful early intervention strategies to ensure that appropriately high expectations are set for all pupils, particularly from P5 to S2;
• improve pupils' writing and ability to read and analyse texts, particularly at P5 to S2;
• ensure that courses in English language build evenly within and across stages and sectors on all four outcomes, listening, talking, reading and writing and take better account of pupils' prior learning;
• put in place a more co-ordinated approach to pupils' language development across the curriculum and in partnership with parents, for example for supporting pupils' personal reading and extended writing;
• ensure that courses go beyond minimum assessment requirements;
• identify and tackle pupils' specific communication needs at an early stage and thereby ensure that all pupils have access to the wider curriculum and improved opportunities for success at school and in future life;
• carefully phase in, monitor and evaluate new initiatives to improve pupils' language development more systematically and coherently from P1 to the end of schooling; and
• use assessment more consistently to support learning in all four key learning outcomes of English language and to involve pupils in using constructive feedback to improve their communication skills.