PRIMARY SCHOOLS
1.1 THE CURRICULUM
Many of the schools inspected were at an early point in the introduction of a modern language into the curriculum, as part of the Modern Languages in the Primary School (MLPS) initiative. The majority had begun to teach pupils in P7 only and at the time of inspection had no plans for extending teaching to pupils in P6. A minority had introduced a modern language to pupils in P6 and in P7 in the same year, with the intention of building up to a two-year experience for P6 pupils. Some schools which had composite classes at the P5 and P6 stages included pupils from P5.
As in other areas of the curriculum, the exact content of what is taught in modern languages in schools is not prescribed. However, advice for teachers is provided through the contents of the MLPS training course documents and MLPS: Advice for Schools (published annually for teachers and schools entering the implementation stage of MLPS). Some education authorities have also issued guidance.
The time allocated to teaching a modern language varied. The most common arrangement was for pupils to be taught in two periods of 30-40 minutes each week. However, in some instances, longer periods were the norm and, where the pupils' classteacher was also the teacher trained in modern languages, elements also permeated other classwork, thus providing more effective exposure to the language and consolidation of learning.
Overall, pupils' experiences in modern languages were very patchy and many headteachers displayed uncertainty in their approach to introducing modern languages into the curriculum. All would benefit from clear national advice from an extended set of 5-14 Guidelines to cover the primary stages.
Quality of courses
While the quality of courses was judged to be good or better overall in 70% of schools, many significant weaknesses were also apparent. Where courses were very good, teachers provided a variety of activities, including reading and writing tasks. The context for work at times linked appropriately to other areas of the curriculum, such as mathematics, physical education, environmental studies, and English language. Where the trained teacher was not the classteacher, links with other areas of the curriculum were rare. Box 1 shows features of very good courses.
Weaknesses in courses generally related to limited content, too few opportunities for pupils to experience language in action and the lack of progressive development of skills and knowledge about language across the two-year course for pupils starting the modern language in P6. Some teachers were reluctant to allow pupils to read or write. At times courses focused too much on learning lists of words and too little on requiring pupils to link words into sentences. At times also some games-based activities, while highly motivating, had little real language content. Teachers often placed artificial limits on pupils' learning of numbers in the language and missed the potential of foreign language work to consolidate mathematics.
The majority of teachers were not confident in expanding the course they were offering and required further guidance on planning programmes.
HM Inspectors made two judgements about the quality of attainment in the schools inspected. The first related to the quality of pupils' attainment in the tasks set in their coursework. The second related to the overall quality of their attainment, taking into account attainment in coursework, the quality of their learning and the extent to which their needs were being met. In arriving at this second evaluation, HM Inspectors judged pupils' attainment against reasonable expectations based on the inspection of a wide range of schools.
Attainment in coursework
Most pupils in most schools performed well in the tasks they were set in their coursework. Attainment was judged to be very good or good in almost 85% of the schools. Many pupils showed good mimicking ability and quickly learned the new words to which they were introduced.
Overall quality of attainment
Overall, however, taking account of wider expectations of pupils' performance, HMI found the quality of attainment to be very good or good in only 55% of schools. Box 2 shows the percentage of schools in each category. Where attainment was found to be very good, pupils could understand sometimes considerable amounts of the foreign language spoken at speed and talk at some length. Some pupils could read aloud, with good accent, intonation and understanding, relatively long passages, such as modified fairy tales or stories which they had worked on in class. The most able pupils were also able to show a dexterity in working with numbers.
|
|
1.3 QUALITY OF LEARNING AND TEACHING
Quality of pupils' learning
Pupils generally responded very well to their work in the modern language, showing great enthusiasm and motivation, particularly in P5 and P6. In a minority of schools teachers provided appropriate summary sheets for pupils to record work covered, an arrangement which encouraged pupils' confidence in talking about what they had learned. Overall, the quality of learning was very good in 15% of schools. In 60% of schools HMI found learning to be good overall, but with weaknesses. It was fair in 20% and unsatisfactory in 5%. Pupils' progress was restricted where course content was limited, where teachers lacked confidence in the language and where pupils were not required to memorise what they had been taught.
Quality of the teaching process
The quality of teaching was very good in 15% of schools and good overall, with weaknesses, in 70%. Features of very good teaching are shown in Box 3. Teachers frequently had good command of the foreign language. Some had more restricted command but taught pupils well within the areas of their competence. Most teachers interacted well with pupils and used a good variety of approaches. Some taught infrequently in groups, particularly when they had not included reading or writing elements in courses. A common weakness was a failure to provide sufficient opportunities for pupils to use and re-use in different contexts the language they had learned. Some teachers were over-ambitious in using the foreign language to direct activities when their own knowledge was not adequate, leading to inaccurate use of language. In a very few cases teachers' competence in the foreign language was unsatisfactory to the extent that pupils were taught wrong elements or had an overall impoverished experience.
Meeting pupils' needs
Pupils' needs were very well or well met in 55% of schools. In the best instances a rich, well-paced and challenging experience provided pupils of all levels of ability with a substantial and worthwhile start to their learning of a foreign language, on which specialist teachers in secondary schools could quickly and effectively build. In a significant minority of schools, however, the extent to which pupils' needs were met was fair or unsatisfactory. In most such cases, restricted courses or a limited amount of teaching and learning time left most pupils under-challenged. In a very few instances the quality of teachers' foreign language was not at a sufficient level to provide meaningful foreign language experiences for pupils. The range in the extent to which pupils' needs were being met is shown in Box 4.
|
|
Assessment as part of teaching
Twenty per cent of schools were judged to be good in this respect; none was very good. In the good cases teachers took care to encourage correct responses from pupils without dampening enthusiasm. A few teachers left errors uncorrected or had such limited foreign language competence that they were unaware that mistakes were being made.
Few schools had a system for recording pupils' progress. Some were devising appropriate arrangements, often in collaboration with other schools in their area and sometimes with education authority staff. However, most teachers made no evaluative comment on pupils' work, were unclear about expected standards and uncertain as to whether foreign language performance should be assessed at all. Clear national guidance is needed on assessment approaches and expected standards in the primary stages.
Provision of resources was very good in 15% of schools and good in almost 60%. Most teachers had shown considerable skill in gathering resources from a range of sources, including their own links with the foreign country. Some education authorities provided a sum of money for schools when they entered the programme, which allowed for the purchase of materials, including video programmes, early readers recaptioned in the foreign language and, occasionally, CD-ROMs.
A number of education authorities, prior to the reorganisation of local government, had provided foreign language materials for schools in the form of activity sheets. While some of these materials gave good support for teachers, quality varied considerably. Some were based on low-level blank-filling or colouring-in activities, and wasted opportunities to stimulate pupils to use language and work with larger passages of text. In a few instances no additional funding or materials had been provided by the authority, or by school management, leaving the teachers trained in the foreign language to procure resources as best they could, to mixed effect.
The organisation and use of resources and space were very good or good in most schools. However, some teachers did not use the broad range of resources they had gathered to support work in the foreign language. The quality of display was very good or good in most classrooms, with a mixture of pictures, maps, pupils' work, learning support charts and captioned drawings and posters. A few teachers were reluctant to label displays, in the mistaken belief that pupils should not be exposed to the written word in the foreign language.
1.5 MANAGEMENT AND QUALITY ASSURANCE
Management of modern language provision
HM Inspectors developed a specific performance indicator to evaluate the quality of management of modern languages in the primary school. Two themes were addressed, one relating to aims, policy and quality assurance and the other to the management of staff.
In just under 10% of schools management was very good, with a further 55% displaying enough strengths to be judged good. Features of very good management are shown in Box 5. In some instances the modern language had become a vibrant part of provision in P6/P7, linking with other work and at times forming a key element of successful links with schools abroad. Where there were weaknesses, too little thought had been given by the school to the introduction of the modern language, or the trained teacher had been left to make all the necessary arrangements without adequate support from senior management.
Most headteachers were aware of the need to monitor provision but were uncertain about what should be covered in the foreign language, the standards of pupils' performance expected or their own capacity to judge pupils' foreign language performance. They were also uncertain about the relevance of guidelines developed for S1/S2. A few headteachers had not given enough consideration to modern language provision and were treating it as an optional extra rather than an integral part of pupils' learning at P6/P7. In some instances the school's modern language-trained teachers had moved away from the school, but no arrangements had been made to replace them.
Liaison
HM Inspectors also drew up a specific performance indicator to evaluate the quality of liaison. It addressed themes relating to liaison with other primary schools, with the associated secondary school and with the education authority.
The overall quality of liaison was very good in 25% and good in 35% of the schools inspected. The remaining 40% displayed important weaknesses. Best practice was characterised by effective lines of communication with other schools and shared values with the secondary school.
Where liaison was very good, teachers from the primary schools and the secondary school in an area met occasionally to discuss curriculum arrangements and come to a general agreement on syllabus content. In the best instances an education authority representative was also present. Arrangements were most effective when the secondary teacher had a clear understanding of the potential range of primary work and did not propose artificial barriers to what pupils might learn. Some secondary teachers were supportive of their primary colleagues, often providing specialist advice on modern languages, while recognising their colleagues' specialist expertise in teaching in their own primary sector.
In a few cases primary teachers experienced poor support from the secondary school. Some secondary teachers sought no information on the primary school syllabus or pupils' attainment. In some extreme cases the secondary school directed pupils into a different foreign language from the one they had brought with them from primary.
Good features of liaison with education authorities are shown in Box 6. The quality of support from authorities varied. Following the introduction of unitary authorities and related staff changes, some authorities had left much to the enthusiasm of individual teachers and headteachers. Recent signs, however, were that a number of authorities were making moves to provide better quality support for schools.
