Equal Opportunities : Bilingual Pupils
in U.K. Schools - Aspects of In-Service Teacher Training
Etude de cas

Texte de Célia Roberts, Benny Teasdale, Centre for Applied Linguistic Research - Thames Valley University. Pays :   Grande-Bretagne. Thème : Egalité des chances. Résumé Descripteurs :

1. Introduction 1.1 Brief outline of case study and criteria for choice 1.2 Research Methodology	2. Historical Context 2.1 The social and political. background 2.2 The Development of Government Policy on the education of bilingual pupils 2.3 Provision for bilingual pupils in schools 2.4 Government funding support for bilingual pupils 2.5 Local Education Authority (LE A) Language Development Service 2.6 Origin of the initiative in Kensington and Chelsea
3. The innovation 3.1 Introduction 3.2 Start date and projected finish date 3.3 Scale of project 3.4 Aims and purposes 3.5 Key players in the school-based projects 3.6 Contents of "The two most successful projects" 3.7 Innovative Aspects 3.8 Management of the innovation 3.9 Supports and Blockages 3.10 Developments/alterations to project 3.11 Evaluation	4. Conclusion
References	Notes

                                                                

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to acknowledge the considerable assistance afforded to them by Peter Nathan, the Language Development Co-ordinator of the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea Local Education Authority. They would also like to express their thanks to the Thames Valley University consultant to the project, Dr. Constant Leung.

1.Introduction

1.1. Brief outline of case study and criteria for choice

The Observatory theme of this case study is Equal Opportunities. It concerns bilingual ( 1) children in schools and efforts made to provide them with access to the curriculum which is equal to that of L I speakers of English.

The particular focus of the cas study is the in-service training of mainstream ( 2)teachers provided by a London local education authority (LEA), the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea (RBKC).

Support for bilingual pupils in schools is neither a "new" need or "new" provision in the United Kingdom (section 2). However, attempts to provide this support through the in-service training of mainstream teachers in the ways discussed here do represent "an original answer which is worth circulating in Europe" (Observatory criteria, Bologna, 1997).

The choice of the work being done by the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea LEA rests, primarily, upon the innovative ways in which it has taken advantage of relatively new, government funding in order to supplement and extend their provision (  2.4. for further details of funding).

1.2. Research Methodology

A qualitative approach was taken, using data to draw out categories and interpret meanings. Data were collected primarily by means of interviews with key players in the provision of the training and by inspection of a range of related documents, including correspondence.

1.2.1. Research instruments

The main research instrument used was the in-depth interview. A checklist of areas to be covered was drawn up (based on the Grid included in the minutes of the Observatory's Dublin meeting, May 1996) and this was used to steer the initial interviews rather than control them. Further interviews were conducted using similar instruments incorporating points arising from the initial interviews. Wherever possible, the interviews were tape recorded and transcribed. Where this was not, detailed notes were taken and checked with the interviewees later.

1.2.2 Method of data analysis

The main method used was content analysis. This enabled key content areas to be rapidly identified. In addition, a modified form of grounded theory was used to draw out key categories and concepts.

1.2.3 Role of the authors

The role of the authors, Celia Roberts and Benny Teasdale, in the case study is that of "outsiders". Although Celia Roberts is involved in some aspects of broad similar training programmes elsewhere, she has had no direct involvement with the work of Kensington and Chelsea.

2. Historical Context

2.1. The social and political background

The presence of significant numbers of ethnic minorities, many of whom arrived in the three decades between 1960s to 1990s.from the 'New Commonwealth' countries of India, Pakistan, Bangladesh and the Caribbean (and, more recently, as refugees from war-torn countries around the world), has created multi-lingual schools in all major urban areas in the UK. Like most countries in Western and Northern Europe, these demographic changes have put pressure on the British educational system to create provision which offers equal access to all. Given that most minority groups have had to fit into existing slots in the labour market, in unskilled and semi-skilled work, their class position and ethnicity have made them doubly disadvantaged ( Edwards & Redfern, 1992).

The legal right to equal opportunities in public life was enshrined in the 1976 Race Relations Act, and the Commission for Racial Equality (CRE) has both a legal and educational responsibility to promote equal opportunities and fight racism. Within this broad agenda of disadvantage and discrimination, issues of linguistic and cultural diversity have remained prominent.

Edwards and Redfern report six, overlapping, stages in the "responses of educationalists to linguistic and cultural diversity" which have been identified by Massey (1991) "... inaction or 'laisssez-faire" ... assimilation ... integration ... cultural pluralism ... anti-racist ... anti-racist multiculturalism ..." The somewhat naive assumption behind the initial inaction "was that immigrants would be absorbed with little difficulty into what essentially was a tolerant society." (op. cit.) This assumption proved to require rethinking and the controversial, assimilationist nature of the education of bilingual children gained force. The subsequent shifts in approach, influenced by and coupled with the changes in society and education generally, have contributed to an improvement in the status of bilingual members of British society. However, inequalities remain and successive governments' focus on English rather than a commitment to access to the curriculum through a policy of multilingualim may serve to disadvantage minority children further, with "the ethnic diversity of the school population and society at large, the cardinal point [is] that English should be the first language and medium of instruction for all pupils in England." ( DES, 1989, para 101 : quoted in Rampton et all, 1997).

The dominance of English is further asserted in the National Curriculum where language is addressed either as 'English' or 'Modem Foreign Languages' with little explicit focus on minority languages. The alternative to the dominance of English was reflected in a number of curriculum development projects in the 1980s which promoted a flexible multilingual pedagogy ( Bourne,1989). However, the 1990s have seen equal opportunities issues interpreted in terms of 'How can bilingual children get access to the National Curriculum ?' In other words, how can bilingual children learn to use standard academic English?

The relative absence of research on the abilities and performance of bilingual children learning EAL ( SCAA, 1996) means that policy and practice initiatives have not yet been systematically assessed. The current innovation to train mainstream teachers in the language of their content area holds promise but has not yet been widely evaluated.

Language across the Curriculum

Despite the Bullock Report's (1975) identification of the importance of understanding the language of all school curricula areas, research in the 1980s showed that Language Awareness was not a significant element of the Initial Teacher Training (ITT) curriculum. In many cases, knowledge about language and the language of curricular content were seen as 'permeating' ITT rather than being given special attention. The area which gave the greatest cause for concern was secondary Post Graduate Certificate of Education ( Brumfit, 1987).

2.2. The Development of Government Policy on the education of bilingual pupils

The 'equalising of opportunity' provided by the introduction of the National Curriculum ( UK National Report) is the development in government policy which has had the most significant effect on the education of bilingual pupils. The conditions of the National Curriculum make it compulsory that all bilingual children (even those with little or no English) be educated in mainstream classes alongside their English Mother Tongue (EMT) peers.

The key government policy documents affecting the provision for bilingual schoolchildren are as follows :

1. The Plowden Report "Children and their primary schools" (1967) - recognised that the education of bilingual children was not being adequately provided for.

2. The Bullock Report "A Language for Life" (1975) - introduced the notion of Language across the Curriculum; suggested that bilingual children should be taught in mainstream classrooms; that mainstream teachers should be responsible for the education of all the children in the class; and that, therefore, in-service training should be provided to those teachers. These recommendations were not, at the time, taken up - see Swann Report.

3. The Swann Report "Education for All' (1985) - specifically investigated the under-performance of ethnic minority school children. The Swann Report, effectively, finished the practice of preparing bilingual children for entry into mainstream schools by teaching them in English Language Centres. Its publication co-incided with that of a formal investigation by the Commission for Racial Equality (CRE) into the practices of a local education authority which was providing ESL teaching in this way (CRE, 1986) ( 3)

4. The Education Reform Act (1988) - introduced the National Curriculum and the entitlement to an equal education for all children.

5. The Kingman Report "Report of the committee of inquiry into the teaching of the English language" (1988) - reaffirmed the role of "Standard English" in education as the variety of English to be taught in all UK schools and, therefore, to be the basis of all school testing. This, effectively, devalues the status of other varieties of English ( 2.1 Social and Political Background).

6. English for Ages 5 to 16 ( DES, 1989). This set out the curriculum for subject English.

7. English in the National Curriculum ( DFE, 1995). Further specifications of subject English.

8. Educational Support for Minority Ethnic Communities ( OFSTED, 1994). This provided some information about the effectiveness of educational projects funded specifically to enhance language and curricular achievement of ethnic minority pupils.

The development of government policy illustrated by the above documents has reflected the development in pedagogic beliefs and practice and research into second language acquisition.

"Broadly speaking, in England, educational provision for children from bi- and multi-lingual homes can be characterised as 'submersion' for some children (i.e. no effective in-class support) and in some cases, no EAL / support teacher at all), and content-based 'partial shelter for others (EAL support in class), with a limited amount of transitional bilingual support available to a small percentage of children in their early years." ( Rampton et all., 1997).

However, the innovation described in this case study focuses less on individual/groups of bilingual children needing EAL support and more on mainstream teachers and the skills / knowledge they require to make the curriculum accessible to all bilingual pupils.

There was a 20 year gap between the Bullock Report's (1975) recommendation on the in-service training of mainstream teachers and the 1995 introduction of funding support to provide that training, funding which is central to this case study ( 2.4).

2.3. Provision for bilingual pupils in schools

Until the late 80s many newly-arrived immigrant children were educated in language centres where, although a curriculum similar to that of the mainstream was aimed at, the emphasis was on language development. Children would be transferred to mainstream schools when their level of English was considered adequate. Once in mainstream classes, bilingual children would receive some part-time, targeted language support - the current 'Section 11' and Single Regeneration Budget (SRB) Projects provision ( 2.5 for details of LEA `Language Development Services').

Since the closure of the language centres, all bilingual children have been taught in mainstream classrooms, with occasional withdrawal., into other rooms for language focus. Although seen as- a triumph for equal opportunities, in practice the realisation of this policy shift has usually been limited to a physical 'moving into the mainstream'.

"Mostly the debate in this country has been arrested at the point of moving, integrating, the second language bilingual children into the mainstream classroom. And the rhetoric then becomes a kind of pseudo reality, and that is the mainstream is so wonderful that you can then move them in and provide them with some measure of understanding ... professional issues tend to ... dissipate ... the general pedagogical debate has tended to focus on the integration of bilingual children into the mainstream setting ... to the physical exposure of the mainstream curriculum and to have lots of native speaker language use around you. However, the increasing emphasis on curriculum achievement is beginning to direct the language of academic development in a more detailed way. A recent SCAA publication on English as an additional language (EAL) is an example of this." (University Consultant)( 4).

So, to a large extent, it has been assumed that the physical presence of bilingual children in mainstream classes is sufficient to.provide them with the necessary conditions for effective English language learning. The earlier idea presented in the Bullock Report (1975) that bilingual children should be taught in mainstream classrooms has been achieved but this raises issues of both in-service and initial teacher training. Research has shown that, in general, the content of Initial Teacher Training courses pays very little attention to Knowledge About Language (KAL) or the teaching of English as a second language ( Brumfit, 1987 and Brumfit, 1995).

The move into the mainstream presented two major challenges.

1 . How to continue providing support for individual pupils with EAL needs.

2. How to ensure that all pupils, whatever their language needs, were supported in the mainstream.

Government funding reflects these two challenges in Section 11 and GEST funding (  2.4).

2.4. Government funding support for bilingual pupils

Bilingual children in schools in the United Kingdom follow the same curriculum in the same classrooms as all other pupils. There is, however, a government recognition that bilingual children, may need additional support in order to provide access to the curriculum which is equal to that of their English Mother Tongue (EMT) peers. The local management of schools (LMS), introduced as part of the Education Reform Act (ERA, 1988), transferred the control of some of the general funding from LEAs to schools but these funds are channelled through, and managed by, the LEAs.

There are two main government funds: Section 11 and GEST (a smaller sum has also been made available under the SRB -  ( 5).

provided by the Home Office under Section 11 of the Local Government Act 1966 -part of the staff costs ( 6) for part-time language support to bilingual pupils by teachers extra to the normal class/subject teachers.

provided by the Department for Education and Employment (DfEE) through Grants for Education Support and Training (GES7) introduced for use in 1995/6 - part of the costs ( 7) for in-service training of mainstream teachers.

Neither Section 11 or GEST funding cover the full costs of provision and the shortfall is made up from school and LEA budgets. There are also specific criteria which restrict the ways in which LEAs can utilise the funding, for example, GEST funding cannot contribute to the training of language support teachers (who are funded by Section 11). These constraints require innovative management by the LEA, using the different funds creatively in order to maximise funding support to meet the costs of language support and training needs within the LEA ( 3.7 Innovative Aspects).

Section 11 funding represents the basis of government support for bilingual pupils in that it contributes towards the staff costs, of part-time language support teachers. However, even when working at optimum efficiency, language development support provided through this method is inadequate - only the children identified as most in need receive targeted support and only for a small proportion of the school week ( 2.5 for details of how LEAs manage this funding).

GEST funding is the "new" government involvement in provision for bilingual pupils and even though it represents substantially less money is, arguably, more important. It is only available to train mainstream teaching staff and, coupled with the decrease in Section 11 support, effectively represents a policy shift of the responsibilities for bilingual schoolchildren from Section 11 teachers to mainstream teachers.

GEST funding has the potential to ensure that language development support is incorporated into all classroom teaching, and so making the need for additional language support increasingly redundant. This potential makes the provision of GEST funding an important innovation on the part of the government. However, the role of language development support teachers is still an important one in supporting their mainstream colleagues.

2.5. Local Education Authority (LEA) Language Development Service

The government funding for bilingual schoolchildren is channelled through Local Education Authorities (LEAs). Although there are differences in titles and roles between LEAs, most LEAs operate a similar structure to that of the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea. Kensington and Chelsea LEA has a Language Development Service (LDS) headed by a full-time Co-ordinator with a responsibility for the bilingual schoolchildren in the LEA

The LDS Co-ordinator, supported by two part-time assistants (one for Primary and one for Secondary), heads up a team of LDS teachers. These teachers are often referred to as "Section 11 " teachers as their staff costs are partly funded through the Government Section 11 monies. LDS teachers are allocated to schools in the LEA on a full or part-time basis in relation to the number of children in the school who qualify for Section 11 support (LDS teachers' handbook).

Although the LDS teachers are employed by the LEA, responsibility for them is shared between the LDS Co-ordinator and the headteachers of the schools in which they work:

"...there's a joint management responsibility, the heads manage them on a day to day basis but 1 also have the responsibility because it's an LEA project ... so 1 look after their training ... look at quality ... 1 brief quite a few staff and fund resources..." (LDS Co-ordinator)

LDS teachers work alongside mainstream teachers targeting individual pupils and supporting their learning in all subjects across the curriculum with the aim "to promote language development in the context of National Curriculum" (RBKC Research Report 9/96). In the course of their duties, they are also required to monitor and report on the language development of these pupils.

These teachers are not necessarily language specialists and the LDS has the responsibility of training them to meet the needs of the bilingual children. LDS teachers are themselves required to provide informal training to their mainstream colleagues.

The importance of the LDS 'Section 11' provision must not be underestimated as the impact of the 'new' in-service training for mainstream teachers, with GEST funding support, is still on a relatively small scale.

2.6. Origin of the initiative in Kensington and Chelsea

The Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea (RBKC) is one of the 33 London LEAs. During the last decade, the percentage of bilingual pupils in the borough has steadily risen to represent over half of the children at Primary and Secondary schools ( 8), from 33% in January 1985 to 57%, almost a third of whom speak little or no English, in January 1996 (RBKC Research Reports, 3/95 + 9/96). The responsibility to ensure equal access to the curriculum for all children, is taken seriously within the LEA:

"...The fact is ... it's a major issue in this authority. In this authority ... 16% of children are first or second stage learners ( 9), so that's about 1600 children out of 10,000 children in our schools. Now that's a lot. Also ... it's a very multi-lingual borough, there's not one dominant minority language, and it's a major issue in the schools here. So its an issue of considarable interest to our schools" (LDS Co-ordinator)

The innovative in-service training being provided by Kensington and Chelsea LEA, which was piloted in 1996/97, would appear to be a "bottom up / grass roots innovation : where policy / financial opportunities are taken up at grassroots level" (UK National Report, 1996). In this case, the financial opportunity of the DfEE Grants for Education Support and Training (GEST) taken up by the LEA in order to supplement and extend the existing local provision for the education of bilingual pupils. So, whilst "the funding is the driving force..." (LDS Co-ordinator) to the innovation, a necessary pre-condition is the importance attached to meeting the needs of bilingual pupils in Kensington and Chelsea.

The conventional use of the GEST funding has been to run centre-based training - a group of teachers from different schools attending a course based in an LEA 'Professional Development Centre' ( 3.4 for further details). Kensington and Chelsea's innovation lies in introducing school-based training. Not only is the existence of the school-based programme innovative but the way in which it is managed is also considered to be innovative ( 3.7 Innovative Aspects). Additionally, despite the small scale of this training (one third of the total GEST funds), its impact on teaching practice and school management attitude towards such training, and policy implementation generally, exceeded the most optimistic predictions ( 3.7. Innovative Aspects).

Given that there was a recognised need for the in-service training of mainstream teachers within the schools in the LEA ( 2.3), there were two major factors which initiated the introduction of the school-based programme:

The LDS Co-ordinator's professional views on the education of bilingual children

The limitations of centre-based training as perceived by Heads and Inspectors within the LEA

The limitations of offering only a centre-based course for mainstream teaching staff include:

the reduction in any possible 'cascade' effect in schools (in relation both to teaching colleagues and school management) due to the off-site nature of the training

the necessarily general nature of the practical skills development as course participants represent different schools/year groups/children

3. The innovation

3.1. Introduction

The Kensington and Chelsea LEA innovation took the original notion of Language Across the Curriculum ( Bullock Report, 1975) as the central concern for mainstream teachers working with bilingual children. In the application of this for teacher training, the notion of Language Across the Curriculum becomes further specified as language and content. Consequently, the Kensington and Chelsea GEST funded teacher training programmes are concerned with the teaching of bilingual children across the curriculum and not only within the subject English. In one of the school-based projects, for example, the focus is a Science topic.

The Language Development Service of the Kensington and Chelsea LEA offers a range of in-service teacher training concerning the teaching of bilingual pupils within the LEA. The specific focus of this case study, the school-based, in-service training programme for mainstream teachers, forms part of a comprehensive training provision which targets all the participants in the education of bilingual pupils. The complete training provision is variously funded and illustrates the way in which components of innovative programmes are drawn together.

The two types of in-service teacher training offered by the Language Development Service are centre-based and school-based (2.6 for brief descriptions). Both types of training are organised around a language -and content approach to the curriculum. This approach involves looking at the curriculum content and the language requirements inherent in it; identifying language targets suitable for the children in the class and planning appropriate presentations, tasks and materials. There are two target teacher populations : the LDS 'Section 11' teachers and the mainstream teachers. ( 10)

Although much of the training is carried out by the LDS Co-ordinator and his assistants, outside experts/specialists from Thames Valley University, in particular, are also involved. It is considered extremely important that there is a consistent message, that the trainers are all singing the same (LDS Co-ordinator), regardless of which training programme or which group of teachers is involved.

In view of the above, the school-based programme for mainstream teachers should be seen as an innovation which supplements and extends the full LEA provision for the education of bilingual pupils in mainstream classes, of which it is an integral part.

3.2. Start date and projected finish date

The training programmes for mainstream teachers currently being offered by Kensington and Chelsea started with the introduction of the government GEST 16 funds in 1995. At that point, however, the programme consisted only of a small centre-based course. The focus of the case study, the school-based programme, commenced in 1996/7.

GEST funds are granted on the basis of annual bids and, therefore, each project is contained within one school year. Funds have already been made available for 97/98 but as the provision of funding is a political decision, it cannot be relied upon beyond that. Although the title of the GEST funding related to bilingual pupils has altered each year, the basic criteria have not. ( 11)

3.3. Scale of project

From the government funding perspective, the GEST 16/11/7 funds are nationally available to Local Education Authorities (LEAs), and not directly to schools.

"Grants may not be devolved to schools but should be retained by the LEA to provide a co-ordinated programme targeted on schools with the greatest need for support." However, "Bids must indicate how schools have been involved in identifying need; in devising initiatives; in deciding which teachers should undertake training." (DfEE Circular No: 96, July 1996).

During 1996/97 the Kensington and Chelsea LEA's Language Development Service piloted its innovative school-based programme. The LDS allocated a third of the GEST budget to be used for working with individual schools (the other two thirds being allocated to the centre-based programme. There were 11 separate projects funded, all of which were in primary schools, self-selected' insofar as the headteachers responded to an LEA invitation to all schools in the borough.

The programme was available to all schools - Nursery, Primary, Secondary and Special Schools.

Each of the 11 projects was independent from the others, and often quite different in nature, as, in accordance with the overall aims of the programme, the aims and objectives for each project originated in the individual schools ( 3.4).

Two of the 11 projects, of a similar nature, will be discussed in detail in the following sections since they were identified as "the two most successful projects" by the programme manager (LDS Co-ordinator) and illustrate the most interesting, innovative and promising development.

3.4. Aims and purposes

The overall aims of both training programmes for mainstream teachers reflect the objectives of the GEST funding:

" to equip mainstream, class and subject teachers and classroom assistants, through in-service training the skills needed to respond to linguistic diversity in the classroom; and promote pupils' mastery of English thus securing full access to the curriculum". (DfEE Circular No: 96, July 1996).

The centre-based programme

The centre-based programme is of a more general, perhaps theoretical, nature ( 12) , even though it includes practically oriented workshops.

The school-based programme

Whilst the aims and purposes of the school-based programme are also to promote the same kind of understanding as the centre-based programme, the emphasis is more practical.

"The second type of programme is designed to specifically meet the needs of individual schools. Schools will identify particular training needs specific to the curriculum relating to bilingual pupils. Specialist expertise will be brought in to the school as appropriate to meet these training and development needs." (RBKC 97/98 bid for GEST 7 funds)

The aims of the trainers (e.g. the LDS Co-ordinator and the outside expert from Thames Valley University) are to promote a language and content approach to the curriculum particularly through a focus on detailed planning,

The aims of each school-based project relate to the particular perceived training needs of that school and, at a further level of detail, to the content of a particular curriculum topic and the learning needs of particular bilingual children. At each stage, the definition of aims is arrived at collaboratively with the relevant participants.

In this way, ownership of the project is firmly based firstly in the school with the headteacher, and finally with the teachers targeted for training. Ensuring that the project is directly related to the individual needs of the bilingual children in particular classes was foremost in the aims of the specialists facilitating the planning/providing the training: "We didn't want to fall into that old trap of the universal learner." (University Consultant)

The collaborative nature of the project management at every stage is one of the major innovative aspects.

3.5. Key players in the school-based projects

The key players can be divided into two groups:

1 . those that facilitate the detailed planning

2. those that are actually involved in the detailed planning

The key players in the planning are one or two mainstream from within the school, the LDS teacher who normally works with them and a specialist/ expert in the education of bilingual children in school. The specialist role is shared by the LDS Co-ordinator and an outside expert from Thames Valley University. GEST funding directly facilitates the planning sessions by meeting the costs of the outside expert and those of 'supply cove' teachers, necessary so that the mainstream teachers can be released from class to attend the meetings.

Other key players who facilitate the planning sessions include the LDS Co-ordinator, the headteacher and the rest of the teaching staff in the school.

The LDS Co-ordinator is, without doubt, the overall key player, both facilitating and participating in the planning sessions ( 3.5.1 for details).

The headteacher is a key player during the initial stages of the project but remains important during the planning phase by encouraging school/staffroom support to the teachers involved. If the benefits of the training are to have a significant impact on the school as a whole, the headteacher is also a key player in the long-term, after the project has been completed.

The following sections will discuss the roles of the key players in more detail.

3.5.1. The Language Development Service Co-ordinator

The LDS Co-ordinator had many roles in the pilot year of the school-based programme:

applying for and managing the DfEE GEST funds and other funds within the LEA budget
initiating the programme by offering funding to all schools in the LEA
negotiating the aims of an individual project with, primarily, the headteacher
operating in a project leader role for the individual projects
operating as the specialist in some of the planning sessions
conducting evaluation and providing feedback from observing lessons resulting from the planning

Perhaps most importantly, though, the LDS Co-ordinator insisted on Joint ownership of the programme with the schools in preference to a programme controlled by the Language Development Service. The first stage in this democratic approach was to invite proposals from headteachers in the LEA- Although the headteachers would not actively participate in the planning sessions, this immediately created a sense of school ownership in the project and had important long-term implications. Throughout every phase of the projects the LDS Co-ordinator and the expert from Thames Valley University fostered a collaborative approach to decision making and the equality of participants within this process.

3.5.2 The headteacher

The interest and support of the headteacher is essential to the school-based projects, especially in the early stages. The management of the programme has been deliberately structured to actively involve the headteachers from the outset. In order to have a project in their school, the headteachers have to draw up a proposal in response to a general letter sent to all headteacher in the borough. This is followed by negotiations with the LDS Co-ordinator (the programme manager) concerning the aims of the project ( 3.6). This management practice has an important influence on the success of the projects :

"I would say the fact that these particular programmes all started with the headteacher taking the lead ... has been critical..." (University Consultant -   Innovative aspects)

The schools do not need to make any funding contribution as full "supply cover" ( 13) costs are built into the budget so that teachers can attend planning sessions. As it is symptomatic of the state education sector in the United Kingdom that school budgets are extremely limited, this is a Key factor in the headteacher's decision to apply for a project.

Once a project has been agreed, headteachers have "... got to incorporate whatever project they want to include, within the school development plan ... they obviously have to be committed to this, communicate with their staff ..." (LDS Co-ordinator). During the course of the project, this commitment influences school support (e.g. other teachers, governors, parents), both for the project as a whole and the individual teacher(s) involved in it. In the long-term, the headteachers response to the results of the training is also particularly important. The headteacher is in a position to take steps to extend the benefits of the project to all the teachers and, therefore, to the education of all the bilingual children in the school.

3.5.3 Teachers

Typically, a school-based project will involve one or two mainstream teachers teaching the same year group and the LDS teacher who normally supports the bilingual children in the relevant class(es).

It is useful, here, to clarify the role and status of the Language Development Service teachers within this training programme:

It is an essential part of the school-based training for mainstream teachers that the relevant LDS teacher should participate in the planning sessions and the teaching which follows.

LDS teachers' professional responsibilities are limited to the children within a class who meet the Section 11 criteria for language support (the mainstream teacher is responsible for all of the children in the class).

GEST funding is specifically not for the training of LDS teachers, whose training is partly funded through Section 11.

Therefore, even though LDS teachers are also, effectively, being trained through the school-based programme, it is the training of mainstream teachers which is being supported by the government GEST 16/11/7 funding.

The projects operate during school hours and part of the funds are used to provide supply teaching cover in order to release the mainstream teachers from class. At the point when the planning sessions begin, the teachers already have a curriculum content plan - these are usually drawn up a term/half a term in advance. During the planning sessions more detailed plans are developed to include targeting the bilingual children in the class(es).

3.5.4 Specialist support

The teachers' planning sessions are supported by a specialist in the school education of bilingual children. During 1996/7, this role was shared by the LDS Co-ordinator, Peter Nathan, and by the University Consultant, Constant Leung of Thames Valley University " to provide an-external authority and perhaps knowledge but primarily ... the authority, the badge." (University Consultant). This role of providing authority was particularly important during the phase preceding the planning sessions, when presenting the project-to the whole staff of the school and gaining 'credibility` ( 3.6.3).

During the detailed planning sessions, the primary role of the specialist is to facilitate professional development, to provide in-service teacher training. However, the planning sessions are not organised around any formal input but around the practical task of preparing specific lessons and materials. This does not mean that informal input is avoided: "... a lot of key things got clarified in the preparation and planning sessions and in the process a lot of theoretical things got introduced..." (University Consultant). Essentially, the specialist aims at avoiding control and fostering equality:

"… we work as equals... the decision making is always collaborative, it has to be because the teachers are the ones who are delivering it and they have to be committed to it..." (LDS Co-ordinator)

The specialists also have evaluative roles, providing feedback to the teachers based on observation of the implementation phase and also for the project as a whole ( 3.11, Evaluation).

3.5.5 The bilingual children

The two school-based projects described here were located in Primary Schools. The first project focused on a Year Two class (6-7 yr olds) with a high proportion of bilingual children, many of whom were among the youngest children in the class. The other project focused on a Year 3 class (7-8 yr olds), with 12 bilingual children out of a total of 25 in the class. Kensington and Chelsea has been described as "a very multi-lingual borough [where] there is not one dominant minority language" ( 2.6).

3.6. Contents of "The two most successful projects"

3.6.1. Introduction - development of aims

The actual contents of the school-based projects are determined by individualised aims at every phase and level. The whole process is one of negotiating and developing aims. Initially the focus is on training aims but once a project is set up the focus shifts, partially, to the teaching aims of the teachers being trained. Training aims are influenced, primarily, by the funding criteria the Language Development Service (LDS) and the school. The teaching aims are influenced, primarily, by the requirements of the National Curriculum and the language needs of the bilingual pupils in the relevant class(es).

There are some interesting parallels here with the movement in a number of EU countries to teach Foreign Languages through the medium of a curricular area such as Science or Geography but, to our knowledge, no connections have been made between these two language/subject initiatives.

The LDS Co-ordinator recognised the influence of work such as that of Mohan (1986) and of "the partnership teaching programme of the early 1990s" in Britain ( Bourne and McPake, 1991) which "was about the management of working in the mainstream". The work at Kensington and Chelsea, he feels, is a development of the partnership teaching work and "goes beyond moving into the mainstream ... if you're going to have bilingual children in the classrooms, you need to plan for them." From a training point of view this means training teachers "to work to a different model -not just look at the content of the lesson but develop their knowledge of language and develop a language and content model" (LDS Co-ordinator). Another aim of the school-based programme is to influence the culture of the school, to facilitate the preparation and/or revision of school development plans, by encouraging schools"... to build [the teaching of bilingual pupils] in as an integral part, not an add on " (LDS Co-ordinator).

3.6.2 The preliminary phase

In preparation for the pilot year, 1996/7, all headteachers in Kensington and Chelsea LEA were invited by the LDS Co-ordinator to make a proposal for a project based in their school. This proposal had to meet the criteria for the GEST funding which was to support it and, therefore, had to focus on the in-service training of mainstream teachers and the "skills needed to respond to linguistic diversity in the classroom and promote pupil's mastery of English thus securing full access to the National Curriculum." (DfEE Circular No: 96, July 96)

On receipt of a proposal, the LDS Co-ordinator then entered into a period of negotiation with the headteacher, during which the overall aims of the project were developed to satisfy:

the GEST funding criteria
the headteacher's perceived training needs
the professional judgement of the LDS Co-ordinator
the training support available

The teachers to be involved in the training project were usually drawn into this process and by the time this preliminary phase was completed, the curriculum topic area also identified. Projects then moved on into three main parts: introduction, planning and implementation.

3.6.3. The Introduction phase

During this phase, the project is presented to the whole staff in a meeting, called by the headteacher, which lasts between one and two hours. This introduction is carried out by one of the specialist/experts in the education of bilingual children (usually the consultant from Thames Valley University or the LDS Co-ordinator) and is part of the process to include the whole school in the ownership of the project.

The main aim of the introduction is "to talk about the broad issues to do with bilingual children and EAL ... to set up the background so that there was some sort of school support and understanding in the staffroom." (University Consultant). This would include introducing "the idea that curriculum activities could be seen. as opportunities for language development, that there didn't have to be strange things that bilingual children who didn't speak English had to do." and discouraging the view that mainstream teachers have no part in language development, that they are curriculum content teachers. (University Consultant)

There was also a need to "gain your credibility, to show them that you know what you're talking about and that you're not just talking about yet another kind of medicine man ... We had to do something to promote a kind of visibility and also to gain a kind of confidence with the targeted teacher(s)." (University Consultant). The issue here is one of integrating outside expertise with the concerns and perspectives of the school and its teachers.

3.6.4 The Planning Phase

The planning phase is the central part of the project and is where the actual training occurs, although not a formal, input based style of training. With the specific aim of promoting a language and content approach to the curriculum, the specialists see their role as working with the teachers as equals, developing ideas and plans together ( 3.5 4) Consequently, although essentially planning sessions, "... a lot of questions actually came out and from them about .. "What are the principles involved? Why are we planning" (University Consultant).

The planning sessions occur during the normal school day for a number of reasons :

to make it easy for the teachers to attend
to add to the sense of school ownership
to make a clear statement to the school management/teaching staff that adopting a language and content approach to the curriculum is important enough to make time for

The Mainstream teachers involved in the project are released from their normal teaching for two or three, separate, half days in order to attend the planning sessions. During these planning sessions, detailed preparation is made, for a series of lessons on a particular curriculum topic. The starting point is the teachers' existing plans for delivering part of the curriculum (usually drawn up a half-term in advance). In one case, for example, this was 11 lessons of between one and a half and two hours, on the Science topic of Light. The detailed planning sessions are concerned with ensuring/adding a language dimension to the planning as opposed to planning for the first time.

The object of developing the teacher's curriculum content plan is to give practical experience of incorporating language targets into content teaching by the application of a language and content approach to the curriculum. Working from the knowledge of class time available and curriculum content, the planning group works through, lesson by lesson, making a detailed analysis of the content. Either at the same time as the content analysis or as a separate activity afterwards, the language involved is discussed. The contribution of the specialist becomes more significant as the focus is steered towards language by the specialist's questions:

"...right, we're going to do this particular experiment. How is that experiment going to be set up How are we going to organise the classroom? What materials are we going to need ? What language activities are there going to be within the lesson ? What is the key vocabulary ?' (LDS Co-ordinator)

The setting of language targets requires careful consideration of language development needs (a factor which is relevant to all of the children, not only the bilingual children). To this end, the specialist encourages discussion of the actual children targeted "... we talked a lot about "What kind of children are we talking about ... what kind of learners ?" We didn't want to fall into that old trap of the universal learner, we wanted to know "What kind of level of English are we talking about with the children [in this class ?' (University Consultant).

Language targets focused on in the detailed planning for the Science topic of Light included key vocabulary, comparatives and genre- based focus such as the reporting of experiments "the language of description, explanation and prediction" (University Consultant, Written feedback from observation ).

A key notion would appear to be "contextualisation of key, ideas" (University Consultant). The demonstration of visual/semantic relationships which is a basic practice of teachers trained and experienced in the teaching of English as a Foreign/Second Language does not seem to be shared by mainstream teachers in general. To maximise the understanding of children of the idea and the language, then contextualisation must be extended beyond either explaining it in words or demonstrating it mechanically and, ideally, be to "articulate the language, the key language that you intend to focus on with the actual phenomenon." (University Consultant). Whilst this may seem a small point, it is an example of a language and content approach to curriculum which ensures that all children have the opportunity to understand the process and, at the same time, link the language to that process.

The LDS Co-ordinator summed up the role of specialist support to the planning sessions in the following way :

I think the major thing I've done is just ask questions, which is what good teaching's about ... Why are you doing this ? What is the aim of this lesson?' And that's important so, 'How are we going to do this ? How are you going to make this successful ? ... so my role has been just asking ... a lot of fundamental questions about what they're doing."(LDS Co-ordinator)

The outcomes of the planning phase are detailed lesson plans and materials with a range of differentiated tasks designed to challenge and extend all the children in the class. The teachers involved will have gone through the complete process of applying a language and content approach to part of the (compulsory) curriculum ensuring that the language development of the bilingual children in the class was being addressed.

3.6.5. The implementation phase

During this phase, the teachers implement the plans developed in the planning sessions. Some of the lessons were attended by the specialists, as participant-observers. This was considered an important part of the training as it allowed the specialist not only to help the teachers realise their plans but also to prepare for detailed feedback afterwards, both to the teachers and the headteacher ( Evaluation).

3.7. Innovative Aspects

The innovative aspects of the Kensington and Chelsea school-based in-service training for mainstream teachers have been highlighted throughout this case study. They are summarised here:

The existence of the school-based programme at all is a national innovation
The school-based programme as part of a comprehensive LEA training
The democratic nature of the programme management is a major factor contributing to the success of the individual projects
The location of the individual projects within the school raising the profile, for the whole school, of the need to actively plan for the education of bilingual pupils
The addition of specialist support to the provision of planning time as professional development
The visible benefits of getting to practical grips with a language and content approach to the curriculum (as opposed to relying on more theoretical, or less local, based approaches): language development of bilingual children being better incorporated into mainstream teaching, contribution towards more equal access to the curriculum for bilingual children
The applicability of this teaching approach to other problems in (eg. mixed ability mainstream classrooms )

3.8. Management of the innovation

The management of the innovation, the school-based training programme, is the responsibility of the LDS Co-ordinator who represents the LEA in matters relating to the education of bilingual pupils. He prepares the applications for funding to the DfEE, chooses how to involve schools, makes the decisions as to which school proposals will receive funding and the extent of the funding involved.

As the GEST funding is provided on an annual basis, planning for the overall programme can only be in outline beyond that period. Within one programme year, however, there are a number of individual school-based projects, each with their own time scale.

The LDS Co-ordinator is also responsible for the management of the individual projects, although this is in consultation with headteachers and teachers (re timetables etc) and with outside specialist support personnel where involved. He is also responsible for evaluation and for developing plans for the future as a result of evaluation.

3.9. Supports and Blockages

The training programme is managed in such a way as to maximise the potential for support within the school, support from the headteacher and the g overnors, support in the staffroom and support from parents. All of these people have the potential to operate as supports or blockages. One of the major means employed to this end is the insistence on creating a collaborative project, that the project is 'owned' by the school. It is, therefore, a deliberate feature that the training needs are identified in collaboration between the LDS and the headteacher and the details of the lessons being prepared in the planning sessions in collaboration between the teachers and the specialist.

The headteacher's close involvement in this is a major factor in the success of the project ( 3.5.2 The headteacher) as the degree of support by the headteacher has the potential to strongly influence the outcomes. Poor communication in the school can act as a blockage : "...there is a problem, and it's an important issue in projects such as this, which is about communication ... I've turned up at one or two meetings to discuss curriculum projects and they, the teachers, don't even know what it's all about. And that's a management issue and there seems to be a weakness." (LDS Co-ordinator). The rationale behind the first, introductory meeting with all of the staff is, partly, to encourage good communication within the school, to interest and involve colleagues participating teacher(s).

The GEST funding operates as both a support and a blockage. Although it is the key facilitating funding, the scale of the programme is limited by the amount of GEST monies available and also by the annual nature of the funding. The programme is small and it will take a number of years for the benefits of the training to significantly influence schools in the LEA as a whole.

Further potential blockages include the National Curriculum, the demands of which restrict the time teachers have available and the individual circumstances of attitudes and staffing arrangements within the schools.

3.10. Developments/alterations to project

Although the LDS Co-ordinator is open to all proposals from schools within the LEA which fit in with the criteria detailed in 3.6.2., the results of the two projects discussed here were such that emphasis has been placed on this type of project in the plans for the programme year 1997/8.

3.11. Evaluation

Evaluation of the individual school projects discussed here is essentially participant evaluation - the specialists provide feedback to the teachers (and the school) on the effectiveness of the planning put into practice in the implementation phase. Moreover, the nature of these projects is such that the teachers themselves have the opportunity to evaluate their own learning in the same way as the 'specialists'. It is hoped that the immediacy of realising the benefits of this professional development will encourage teachers to extend the 'new' practices into all their planning and teaching. Indeed, this is often apparent during the course of the project:

"...it got extended either way and also because, in fact, by this time it had developed into the fabric of the teacher's whole work ... there was a lot of crossing over into other bits of the time, curriculum time. So there were designated [planning session] times but in fact I had a very strong feeling that the teacher was so enthusiastic about this that during some other kind of occasions during the school day, on other days ... things were happening already." (University Consultant)

The feedback which the specialists provide to the teachers, and the school, is based on observation of the implementation phase and seen as evaluation of a developmental nature. During observation, the specialists were careful to take sufficiently detailed notes so that the feedback could "...cite the child and the moment in time in the class ... so they could see that I wasn't just talking about general things but that it was in that specific moment." (University Consultant)

For the programme as a whole, the DfEE does not require any particular form of evaluation, although a report is written by the LDS Co-ordinator at the end of the year.

Evaluating the projects as a whole the specialists were both concerned about targeting. The LDS Co-ordinator is not in control of which teachers participate in the projects as this is a decision between the headteacher and the teachers involved. Teachers may not always be ready or willing to receive this type of training. Teacher feedback from the centre-based programme confirms the importance of "readiness": whilst all other participants found the course "stimulating" "excellent" and "learned a lot, one participant commented that:

"As a newcomer to teaching in a school with many bilingual children, the course wasn't what I had expected - it was a bit over my head at times."

Consequently, teacher motivation and teacher need/readiness for this type of training can vary enormously between projects. There is also the problem of "getting the wrong messages from their experience" (LDS Co-ordinator), as the considerable experience of having bilingual children in mainstream classrooms which many teachers in the UK now have does not necessarily lead to adequate provision ( 2.3 Provision for bilingual pupils in schools).

".A think that we were not always able to target properly ... teachers who were not ready. Because your energy, your thinking, and everything else, were diverted into management of the situation because of having to cope with people who were reluctant ... and it is very difficult to do any positive work in that sort of situation." (University Consultant)

"... in one school, the mainstream teacher was already pretty well-versed in language issues ... quite an awareness of language anyway." (LDS Co-ordinator)

... what you might find is that it would work well with teachers who have achieved a level of professional development that they feel comfortable with but they could see that children weren't learning. So they weren't concerned with management ... had some space to deal with other things..." ('University Consultant)

Inevitably, these individual differences amongst participants effect the success of the individual projects but "...even when it worked badly, it was still better than what I've seen elsewhere in the last 10 years or something..." (University Consultant)

Evaluation of the projects must also be extended beyond the successful implementation of a series of lessons planned in collaboration with a visiting specialist. The long term aim of the school-based training programme is to influence the future lesson planning of the teachers involved and to facilitate the dissemination of learning to teaching colleagues, year group leaders, subject heads and school management. The LDS Co-ordinator feels that the outside (LEA) provision of funding and specialist support for the school to, effectively, provide its own in-service training encourages further personal investment within the school, particularly with the teachers :

"... my philosophy is, in a sense, that if you give people things, they're much more likely to give a little bit more themselves, and I think this is what happens..." (LDS Co-ordinator).

Such interventions have a 'halo' effect on the project on the participants and, indeed, on the whole school. In the long term, perhaps, it is the impact on the school that is most significant because this influences the culture of the institution and allows further steps to be taken to address the needs of bilingual schoolchildren. Further in-service teacher training is not dependent upon that organised and funded by the LEA as there is scope within the school through, for example, training days or more simply, the exchange of ideas and materials in the staffroom.

4. Conclusion

This innovation aims to deal with the paradox that relatively disadvantaged groups in terms of Equal Opportunities need to be both part of 'mainstream' opportunities and provided with additional/special support. The idea of language education training for non language specialist teachers also has a wider Equal Opportunities effect. Many students not designated as requiring EAL support, but with a range of language and learning needs, can benefit from a focus on the language of subject content. The curriculum becomes more accessible to all.

The specific school-based approach recognises the embedded nature of teacher practice : teachers have daily pedagogic and classroom management problems to solve and any innovation, particularly one which requires of them new responsibilities and new skills, has more chance of succeeding where this embeddedness is recognised.

The role of language in both explaining and constituting specific subject knowledge is relatively opaque to most subject and primary teachers. The idea that a subject is constituted in language is difficult and requires very specific 'language noticing' of the subject and recognition of pedagogic concerns at that moment.

Although small scale, the innovation described in this paper, is unusual. The novel use of the combination of the various monies available and the democratic nature of the management has served to maximise the developmental potential of what is an imaginative approach to promoting attention to language and content in multi-lingual classrooms.

References

Bourne, J. 1989. Moving into the mainstream. Windsor: NFER/Nelson.

Bourne, J. and McPake, J. 1991. Partnership teaching.. co-operative teaching strategies for English language support in multilingual classrooms. London: HMSO.

Brumfit, C. 1987. Language in Teacher Education. National Congress on Languages and Education.

Brumfit, C. (Ed.) 1995. Language education in the national curriculum. Oxford: Blackwell.

Bullock, A. 1975. A language for Life (The Bullock Report). London: HMSO.

Commission for Racial Equality (CRE) 1986. Teaching English as a second language: Report of a formal investigation in Calderdale Local Education Authority. London : Commission for Racial Equality.

 Cummins J. 1996.. Negotiating identities: education for empowerment in a diverse society. Ontario: California Association for Bilingual Education.

 Department of Education and Science (DES) 1985. Education for all : The report of the committee of inquiry into the education of children from ethnic minority groups (the Swann Report). London: HMSO.

Department of Education and Science (DES) 1989. English for ages 5 to 16 (The Cox Report). London: HMSO.

 Department of Education and Science (DES) 1988. Report of the committee of inquiry into the teaching of the English language (7he Kingman Report). London: HN4SO.

Department for Education (DFE) 1995. English in the national curriculum. London: FIN4SO.

 Department for Education and Employment 1996. Circular No: 96, July 1996.

Edwards, V. and Redfern A. 1992. The World in a Classroom: Language in Education in Britain and Canada. Clevedon : Multilingual Matters.

  European Observatory on Innovation in Education and Training 1996. UK National Report.

 Genessee F. (Ed.) 1994. Educating second language children: the whole child, the whole curriculum, the whole community. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press

Mohan B. 1986. Language and content. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley

OFSTED (Office for Standards in Education) 1994. Educational support for minority ethnic communities: ref. 130 94 NS. London OFSTED.

Plowden, B. 1967. Children and their primary, schools (7he Plowden Report). London : HMSO.

Rampton, B., Harris, R. and Leung C. 1997. "Multilingualism in England." Annual Review of Applied Linguistics 17, 224-24 1. USA: Cambridge University Press.

SCAA (School Curriculum and Assessment Authority) 1996. Teaching and learning English as an additional language: new perspectives : SCAA Discussion Papers: No. 5. London: SCAA.

  Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea (RBKC), 1994. The Language Development Service (Section 11) Handbook. (2nd Edition). London.. RBKC.

 Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea (RBKC), 1995. Research Report 9 96: Section 11 Monitoring 1995. London: P1BKC.

 Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea (RBKC), 1995. Research Report, 3 95: Language, Ethnic Origin and Religion Survey. London.. RBKC.

 Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea (RBKC) 1997. RBKC 97/98 bid for GEST 7funds. London: RBKC.

Notes

(1) The term 'bilingual children' is used in the U.K. to refer to children for whom English is an additional language (i.e. 2nd or 3rd or even 4th) as opposed to children for whom English is the first (or only) language. The terms EAL (English as an additional language) and EMT (English mother tongue) which make the same distinction, are also used here.

(2) Mainstream teachers are the 'normal' class or subject teachers in schools and are not required to have responsible for all aspects of learning in their classrooms. Mainstream classes are the specialist knowledge beyond their subject(s) but are, within normal teaching duties, regular, whole group classes as opposed to ' lidrawal classes'.

(3) The CRE concluded that "Calderdale's arrangements for ESL teaching are in breach of the Race Relations Act 1976." (CRE, 1986). The LEA based the entry. of bilingual children into mainstream schools on English language tests (Children would be sent to English Language Teaching Centres until their level of English was considered adequate).

(4) Two recent publications which critically. explore issues of pedagogy. in relation to current ESL concerns are Cummins (1996) and Genessee (1994)

(5) There is also a more general budget - the Single Regeneration Budget (SRB) which is held by the Department of the Environment (DoE). It is "designed to support projects to raise the quality of life in urban areas" (SCAA Discussion Papers: No. 5, 1996). It can. therefore. be used for projects which contribute to the language development of bilingual children.

(6) This is subject to fluctuations in government policy and has been progressively decreased. for example: 75% of costs in 1992, 50% in 1995 (K+C Research Reports).

(7) 60% for 1997/8

(8) Children at Special Schools are not included in these figures.

(9) Fluency in English is assessed by means of a set of descriptors. One criteria determining the extent of the allocation of Language Development Service teachers to a school is the number of children falling into the first and second stages.

(10) Additionally, there is a one-day. introductory course for newly qualified teachers (NQTs) during their first term. The aims of the course are to provide some initial guidance for the practical task of making adequate provision for bilingual learners.

(11) The title of the GEST funding concerning bilingual Pupils has changed annually: GEST 16 = 1994/5, GEST 11 = 1995/6. GEST 7 = 1997/8.

(12) "The centre-based courses for mainstream teachers. entitled "Teaching Second Language Learners", involve a total of 5 and a half day's of workshops etc based at the LDS Centre. The course content deals with a mixture of practical and theoretical issues and reflects the aims which are presented in terms of "Learning Outcomes":

Be able to relate second language acquisition theories to practice and show, understanding of their implications for the classroom
Be able to apply knowledge of literacy development for the teaching of bilingual learners in the mainstream curriculum
Be able to use knowledge of assessment of language curriculum achievement of bilingual pupils including those pupils who may have SEN (Special Education Needs) in the context of their own practice
Be able to initiate and monitor curriculum and classroom organisation for effective learning (Course details, 1996197)

Currently, there are places for approximately 20 teachers per year. There is an option for participants to complete an assignment in order to qualify for MA credits from Thames Valley University. Attendance on this course does not automatically. exclude or include involvement in the school-based projects.

(13) "Supply cover" - a qualified teacher who teaches on a temporary basis when the regular teacher is unable to take the class.

© Innova : Observatoire européen des innovations en éducation et en formation / European Observatory for Innovation in Education and Training, juin 1998.