[eal-bilingual] EAL and assessment

I 've been thinking about this EAL assessment discussion for a few days [whilst in the middle of doing a lot of it myself at the start of term] 
  Surely LIC serves a useful purpose in providing a universal, national, summative statement about any child's ability in the skills of English. Of course it doesn't reflect all I need to know as an EAL teacher about a student's potential, development needs etc, but it's the best method we have for communicating to all teachers across a large secondary school what the general linguistic profile of a class or group is.  
  Our school Assessment Manager programme now automatically provides a recent English assessment [1T, 1S, 2c,  2b etc ] alongside all subject baseline data. So all teachers can plan for appropriate support without needing specialist advice all the time. 
  I can also monitor progress of students using the the sub levels just as other subject areas do. It gives me credibility as a HOD to be able to evidence progress just as they do, not using a separate system. I can also demonstrate to other HODs that EAL learners' rates of progress are usually at the upper end of the expected number of levels across a key stage. When they see the evidence, they raise their expectations and targets accordingly. With the old stages none of this was possible. Students stuck on stage 3 for ages and we couldn't show progress. 

  We deal with the issue of distinctive EAL needs through talk about grammar for writing, and formative assessment for advanced bilingual learners. This is done through looking at books, diagnostic marking frames, departmental discussions etc. I agree that Australian style band scales would also be useful here, but we manage without. 

  I am sure that the issue is different in Primary schools, but in my 80% EAL school I wouldn't have it any other way now. I'd certainly have no time for teaching if I had to provide an EAL stage for the whole school. By using LIC the English Dept can also share the burden of summative assessment [and we can discuss its limitations jointly too ]

  Catharine 

  Sara.Green at rbkc.gov.uk wrote:
  I do wonder why cost/expense and time taken to assess needs have become the issues rather than what is educationally justifiable and necessary for what is a hugely significant pupil population in UK schools, especially when we consider how much funding and time has been invested in other forms of
assessment and moderation for different groups of children since 1988? Surely the issue we ought to be considering is not just who EAL beginner and advanced learners are from how long they have been in the school system although this is a start, but what their distinctive/additional language
development needs are and how we can meet them. If you don't use an assessment mechanism that recognises/identifies these distinctive needs that we all know second language learners have, and take the time that would be allowed to ensure consistency in all other forms of assessment (NC, SEN, FS to
name a few...) then how on earth can teachers really know what EAL needs are and how best to support their learners ? 

Sara

Sara Green
Head of Language Development Service
Family and Children's Services Kensington and Chelsea
Isaac Newton PDC
108a Lancaster Road
London W11 1QS

Tel: 020 7598 4817
Fax: 020 7598 4808

Email: sara.green at rbkc.gov.uk
www.rbkc.gov.uk/eal14to19

-----Original Message-----
From: eal-bilingual-bounces at lists.becta.org.uk [mailto:eal-bilingual-bounces at lists.becta.org.uk] On Behalf Of Graham Smith
Sent: 06 September 2007 22:10
To: 'stuart.scott'; 'For practitioners involved in teaching pupils from ethnicandlinguistic minorities'
Subject: RE: [eal-bilingual] EAL and assessment

While we expect and encourage schools in Islington to use LIC (yes, I know
what its imperfections are but they are no greater than the many versions of
Hilary Hester I've seen in use), we no longer collect EAL data (of the stage
or level variety) centrally because we don't have a use for it.

EMAG is distributed to primary schools on the basis of ethnic minority
groups most at risk of underachievement and mobility and to secondary
schools on the basis of the prior attainment of ethnic minority pupils plus
a bit for mobility.

Neither stages of English nor LIC have ever given us very reliable
information across the borough about either progress or need. Collecting
them requires a lot of bureaucracy in schools and centrally. We decided it
was better to spend our time concentrating on teaching and learning.

What we do do is interrogate PLASC and our language census (included in
PLASC from next year) very rigorously and use all of that data when looking
at GCSE and SATs outcomes. 

The one thing I've always worried about is having accurate figures and the
number and location of beginners. I found in all the boroughs I've worked in
that Hester and LIC are too inconsistently interpreted or that the
bureaucracy involved in gaining a degree of consistency is too expensive.
What we now do in Islington is use a combination of language data and UPNs
from PLASC to pinpoint beginners. UPNs are increasingly reliable (i.e., you
no longer get a new one every time you use school). The ninth and tenth
digit of each one say when the pupil started UK schooling. So we know, for
example, which Lingala speakers have been in UK schooling for one year, two
years, three years etc. At school level you need to know about months not
just years, but at LA level years are fine. I think you get better quality
information and do less work to get it this way.

Graham Smith

-----Original Message-----
From: eal-bilingual-bounces at lists.becta.org.uk
[mailto:eal-bilingual-bounces at lists.becta.org.uk] On Behalf Of stuart.scott
Sent: 06 September 2007 09:47
To: eal-bilingual at lists.becta.org.uk
Subject: [eal-bilingual] EAL and assessment

Many of you will probably remember the article in the EMAU newsletter 
and will have read Nicola Davies's response in the new section of the 
NALDIC website. I have pasted it here to jog your memories since this 
all happened just before the summer break.

"The recent EMAU Newsletter from the Department for Children, Schools 
and Families (DCSF)contains a rather odd article entitled 'EAL 
Assessment Reminder'. This article notes that Recent feedback from 
local authorities and EAL practitioners suggests differences in 
approach when assessing pupils learning EAL. Whilst the majority of LAs 
have adopted the QCA steps, we're told that others are still using 
other scales as the basis for EAL assessment.

Rather than question why, nearly eight years after the publication of 
A language in common and despite considerable pressure to adopt the QCA 
steps, many EAL practitioners still question whether these are 'fit for 
purpose' and continue using EAL stages, the EMAU has chosen instead to 
remind practitioners that they 'do not support alternative scales'.

The Summer 2007 EMAU newsletter can be downloaded from http://www.
standards.dfes.gov.uk/ethnicminorities/resources/emaunewsletterjuly07.
pdf "

I mulled over this, and here are some thoughts I want to share, and 
will welcome your comments.

I have never been an enthusiastic supporter of Language in Common, and 
like Nicola doubt it fitness for purpose for several groups of EAL 
learners, but be that as it may, I think there are other pressures 
around which are likely to make it difficult for EMAG teachers who are 
using Language in Common with the pupils it may be best suited for to 
use it effectively. I think these pressures may be skewing EAL 
assessment.

LIC steps are not welcomed by the folk, who do the counting for LAs. 
(I am reminded of the Count in Sesame Street here!). They use Excel 
type software and need numbers not words. Currently these 'Counters' 
are pressuring heads for numbers because the DCFS is pressuring LAs for 
numbers. This is tied into all the work going into Raise on Line and 
online target setting.

DCFS are promoting P scales heavily at the moment and providing lots 
of data software support to back this up. P scales as you well know are 
specifically designed for children with special needs. They break down 
development into very small chunks cross a wide range of indicators to 
help to identify specific special needs eg autistic children. P scales 
are numbers and fit on spreadsheets. They are not suitable for 
assessing bilingual learners unless of course the bilingual learners 
also have special needs.

Currently there is not a clear correlation between Foundation levels 
and NC levels.

What is the result of all this pressure?

LAs are pressuring schools to use P scales for any child pre level 1. 
So very young summer born children who are not yet working at level 
one, and would be best assessed on foundation stage levels are having P 
scales attached to them to satisfy the 'Counts'. 

And so are pupils learning English.

Is this happening in your school/authority? 

Best wishes, Stuart

Collaborative Learning Project, 17 Barford Street, London N1 0QB
Supporting a cooperative network of teaching professionals to develop and
disseminate accessible teaching materials in all subject areas and for all
ages.
Telephone: 0044 (0)207 226 8885
Website:http://www.collaborativelearning.org
..

*********************************************************** 
The Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea.
This e-mail may contain information which is confidential, 
legally privileged and/or copyright protected. This e-mail 
is intended for the addressee only. If you receive this in 
error, please contact the sender and delete the material 
from your computer.

************************************************************ 