follow-up resources for EAL session at Edge Hill University, Monday 21st October, Isabelle Jones.

1. Fast Track
Research Scaffold
How do EAL pupils
perform in MFL and what
are the effects of setting
on their performance?
Helen Bergqvist 2005
Edge HIll College
1

2. Contents
Outline of focus and justification
Outline of study
Literature review and analysis
Action plan
Analysis of data/outcomes
Alignment in relation to literature review
Further scope for investigation
1
1
1
2
3
3
4
Conclusions and Recommendations
4
References
8
Appendix 1: Presentation of Data / Outcomes
Presentation of data/outcomes
School X
Figure 1: EAL pupils in each year group
Figure 2: EAL pupils in each class
Figure 3: EAL pupils in each set of each year group
Figure 4: EAL pupils in sets throughout school
Figure 5: Percentages of EAL pupils in each set
Figure 6: GCSE Spanish results 2004 (Line graph)
Figure 7: Mock GCSE Spanish results 2005 (Line graph)
School Y
Figure 8: EAL pupils in each Key Stage 3 Year Group
Figure 9: EAL pupils in each class
Figure 10: EAL pupils in each set of each year group
Figure 11: EAL pupils in sets throughout key stage 3
Figure 12: Percentages of EAL pupils in each set
Figure 13: EAL pupils divided into French sets (Bar chart)
Figure 14: EAL pupils divided into Spanish sets (Bar chart)
Figure 15: GCSE MFL results 2004
Figure 16: GCSE MFL results 2004 (Line graph)
Figure 17: GCSE French results 2004 (Line graph)
Figure 18: GCSE Spanish results 2004 (Line graph)
Figure 19: GCSE French results 2004 by set (Line graph)
Figure 20: GCSE Spanish results 2004 by set (Line graph)
10
11
11
12
12
13
14
15
16
17
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27

3. Title of Investigation
How do pupils with English as an Additional Language perform in Modern Foreign Languages
and what are the effects of setting on their performance?
Outline of the focus and its justification
The investigation will focus on the performance of pupils with English as an Additional
Language (EAL) in Modern Foreign Languages (MFL) in School X in North-West England,
where Spanish is taught, and School Y in South-East England, where Spanish and French are
taught. Given the ever-increasing number of EAL pupils in schools, the outcomes of the study
will assist in setting EAL pupils in MFL and will also aid my own professional development by
enabling me to understand the performance of EAL pupils in my subject. During my
placement in School X, I noticed that some EAL pupils were at risk of underachieving, as they
were placed in sets corresponding to their level of English rather than to their cognitive ability
in MFL, whilst it has been proven that EAL pupils make more progress working alongside
fluent English speakers (DfES, 2005). I also detected many EAL pupils using their knowledge
of learning English to facilitate their learning of the target language, so they could potentially
obtain higher grades than native English speakers and should be given every opportunity to
demonstrate these abilities.
Outline of the of the study (Abstract)
The study has proven that EAL pupils at School X are habitually placed in low-ability sets in
MFL, probably to match their linguistic ability in English. This is an inappropriate manner of
dealing with EAL pupils, as they learn more quickly with fluent English speakers to help them,
which is often not possible in low-ability sets. School Y, conversely, is catering well for the
needs of EAL pupils by following specialist advice regarding setting and providing guidance on
differentiated work for EAL pupils in its EAL policy. Further evidence suggesting that EAL
pupils may perform better in Spanish than non-EAL pupils has also emerged but, given the
small size of this sample, this would require further research if it were to be confirmed. By
piecing together the research findings that EAL pupils are sometimes placed in low-ability sets
and that they may perform better in MFL, it becomes clear that their needs are not being met
by all schools.
Literature review and analysis germane to the elected focus including reference where
appropriate to educational policy and practice.
EAL is an under-researched area in the UK context, but much of the available research,
including the EAL policies of Schools X and Y, presents similar findings. The research
indicates that for EAL pupils to succeed, communication between EAL specialists and other
school subject departments is vital. Researchers are unanimous in their conclusions that EAL
learners should be in a set corresponding to their intellectual capabilities, regardless of their
level of English, as EAL pupils “learn more quickly alongside fluent users of English who are
good language and learning role models” (Manchester City Council EMAS, 2004). The
contentious role of the mother tongue makes assessment of EAL pupils another highly
complex area, for example, there has been discussion of whether all pupils should be
assessed in English to preclude prejudice (Mills, 2002). Many EAL studies focus on specific
ethnic groups rather than on all learners, but all investigations that I have examined
emphasize the importance of valuing the mother tongue and culture of the EAL learner
(Scarcella, 1990:54), and using these to enrich the learning of the EAL learner and his or her
1

4. classmates. A recent study at Goldsmiths College found that Portuguese students who
attended mother tongue classes were five times more likely to achieve five or more A* to C
grades at GCSE than those who did not attend (NALDIC, 2005), which supports the pro ‘home’
culture argument. Although conflicting opinions regarding treatment of EAL learners are not
apparent, problems arise from attempting to put theory into practice. While OFSTED declared
provision and support for EAL pupils “good” in School X, I observed inconsistent adherence to
the EAL policy, which appeared to place EAL learners at a disadvantage. The policy of School
Y, which has a much higher proportion of EAL pupils, was more effective in practice, and
OFSTED rated provision “very good”. This point was reflected in the latest OFSTED reports;
that of School Y highlights the “very good progress” made by EAL pupils, while that of School
X fails to mention whether or not progress is made as a consequence of the “good” levels of
support. The focus of my research, the setting of EAL pupils in MFL, will provide information
either supporting or against previous research findings. The EAL policy of School X, although
sometimes disregarded, does loosely match earlier research, while that of School Y is far more
comprehensive and can be directly linked to previous research findings. Through analyzing
pupil set lists and examination results, I should be able to deduce whether more stringent
policy observance would be beneficial for either school.
Planning and specification of an Action Plan for Implementation
In order to analyse the current situation, I will use my personal experience in the MFL and EAL
departments of Schools X and Y. To aid research preparations, Fischer (2001) solicits, “As
you think about your teaching, how do you know when something really went well? What do
you feel you are good at? How did you get good at it?” I believe that all of these questions
can be answered through teacher-pupil interaction, consideration of examination results and
observance of ‘best practice’, along with learning from mistakes. For this reason, I have
chosen “outsider” research (Lee & Van den Berg, in Clarke, 2003) for this investigation, where
the focus is on observing procedures in the school environment from an objective standpoint.
I will discuss the MFL situation informally with pupils and teachers, but as this evidence will be
subjective, it is not a reliable enough foundation on which to base my conclusions. My main
source of evidence will be set lists and examination results because these are totally unbiased
and factual. The negative side of this sort of information is that it does not provide details on
pupils’ levels of ability or motivation in the subject, nor on the quality of MFL teaching. I will
analyse the number of EAL pupils in different sets, and I predict that there will be a higher
proportion of EAL pupils in low-ability sets. I will use original set lists from the beginning of the
school year, before any set changes, to ensure there is no duplication of data. As this
evidence is statistical, there is no potential for biased data manipulation, so I am certain that all
information collected will be true and accurate. In addition to set lists, I will examine 2004 MFL
GCSE results to evaluate the performance of EAL pupils. The downside is that as MFL is no
longer compulsory at Key Stage 4, the GCSE group at School X was small, so I will also use
2005 mock GCSE examination results for this school. Again, this information is based on
figures so there is no possibility for prejudiced conclusions. From an ethical viewpoint, it is
imperative to remain objective throughout and guard the anonymity of any participants in the
research. Protection of human subjects is paramount in any research, especially that involving
‘vulnerable’ subjects, as is the case here, since I will be working with children from ethnic
minorities. I will stay objective by refraining from influencing in any way the opinions or views
of participants and remaining an impartial observer.
2

5. Analysis of the data/outcomes
In School X, more EAL pupils were present in low-ability than high-ability sets, but the
difference between top and bottom sets is significantly reduced during Key Stage 3. In Year 7,
8.3% of top set and 35.1% of bottom set are speakers of EAL – a difference of 26.8%; in Year
8 the difference is reduced to 14.2%; and in Year 9 to just 10%. This implies that School X
places EAL pupils in the bottom set until they have proven that they are capable of more,
rather than giving them the opportunity to demonstrate their ability from the outset. In
opposition, the pattern at School Y is inconclusive. There is no evidence of different
proportions of EAL pupils in each set, although in each year group, the highest proportion of
EAL pupils is in Set 2, apart from in Year 8 French, where the majority is in Set 1. The data
collected does not account for the actual ability of pupils, but as previous research has proven
that EAL pupils have already developed the skills necessary to learn another language, one
would presume that they would be better placed initially in a high-ability set, as in School Y,
where they would be able to learn from classmates. Concerning GCSE results, although the
School X sample is small, it is apparent that EAL pupils have outperformed non-EAL pupils in
both 2004 examinations and 2005 mocks. There appears to be a much wider ability-range in
non-EAL pupils, whereas EAL pupils seem to achieve higher grades in general. Taking the
slightly larger sample of pupils at School Y, this pattern is not overtly repeated. EAL and nonEAL pupils perform at a similar level, apart from Spanish GCSE Sets 1 and 2, where a similar
pattern to that in School X emerges and EAL pupils outperform their non-EAL classmates.
The pattern does not however continue into Set 3, corroborating the hypothesis that EAL
pupils do not benefit from low-ability setting. It also suggests that in learning English, EAL
pupils may acquire skills to facilitate learning Spanish, but these skills do not assist them in
learning French. It must be noted here however that School Y has over 70% EAL pupils,
whereas School X has only around 20%, which could be a reason for differences in results.
Consideration of the degree of alignment of these in relation to the literature review
The data analysis presents a new, previously unencountered, factor to the research findings
discussed in the literature review. Although previous research concluded that EAL pupils
should be placed in sets corresponding to their cognitive ability rather than to their level of
English, prior to this I had not found any evidence that this was not happening in schools. It
was perhaps presumed that schools would follow advice from professionals and heed
research into the field, as in School Y, but this investigation has proven that in School X this is
certainly not the case. Although EAL pupils in School X appear to be achieving higher MFL
GCSE grades than non-EAL pupils, they are consistently placed in low-ability sets in Key
Stage 3, which could have negative consequences on their future MFL achievements. As
confirmed by the decrease in range of EAL pupils between top and bottom sets from Years 7
to 9, some EAL pupils must be proving themselves and being moved into higher-ability sets.
However, previous findings that EAL pupils learn more quickly working with fluent native
English speakers (DfES, 2005) are being disregarded, as in low-ability sets this is not always
possible, due to the fact that non-EAL pupils are often stretching themselves to understand the
work so do not have the time or ability to help EAL learners. Behavioural difficulties, which are
more common in lower-ability groups, also affect progress. In brief, the outcomes of previous
research seem to be being overlooked, and EAL pupils are put in sets with no consideration of
linguistic skills already acquired through learning English. Some manage to demonstrate a
higher level of ability and move sets, but others never gain this opportunity. This further
supports one of the issues highlighted by Mills (2002), that assessment of EAL pupils is
extremely difficult. However, in School Y, it seems that the EAL policy reflects previous
3

6. research findings and teachers do adhere to the policy. So why do EAL pupils not outperform
non-EAL pupils in GCSE MFL at this school?
Consideration of further scope for investigation, and reflection on unresolved issues,
questions and concerns
This study has in fact uncovered more questions than answers. At School X, although an EAL
policy exists and specialist advice is available, these are often overlooked, so further research
into the practicalities of the philosophy may be beneficial here.
Vis-à-vis GCSE results, having predicted that EAL pupils would outperform non-EAL pupils,
the outcomes of this investigation show that EAL pupils may achieve higher grades in
Spanish, but that French may not be affected. Further research, using a larger sample of
pupils studying a variety of Modern Foreign Languages, perhaps at a language college, where
all pupils must study a language to GCSE level, would be necessary to obtain a definitive
conclusion. Since EAL pupils appear to perform better than non-EAL pupils at GCSE level, at
least in Spanish, it would be advantageous for them to be in a high-ability set from the
beginning of Year 7. From this study, it is clear that current assessment criteria for setting
pupils should be modified in some way for EAL pupils, and in case of doubt, they should be
placed in a higher-ability set until a more accurate recommendation can be made.
In School X, the percentage of EAL pupils in Key Stage 4 classes is higher than in Key Stage
3, whereas in School Y the percentage of EAL pupils in Key Stage 4 classes is significantly
lower than in Key Stage 3. What does this suggest about the experiences/expectations of
EAL pupils studying MFL? This, alongside school catchment area, parental backing and
degree of specialist support available in the area, is a major influencing factor that could be
considered in future investigations.
To discover the true national picture, research would have to be completed in a wide variety of
schools across the country, as this investigation has already shown two vastly different
operational approaches.
Conclusion and recommendations
All of the findings of this research seem to support prior investigations into the area
of EAL. It appears that advice resulting from earlier literature would be beneficial to
EAL pupils, should schools choose to follow it. The problem in School X is that
previous research has been disregarded, to the detriment of EAL pupils.
The type of teacher research used in this investigation has been “outsider” research:
In the case of “outsider” teacher research, a teacher studies other
educators for the fundamental purposes of understanding and improving
educational practice generally.
(Lee & Van den Berg, in Clarke, 2003: 93)
This sort of research can at times appear disparaging, but it is important to bear in
mind its purpose – the educational benefit to children.
Taking into account this research in conjunction with previous literature, it is evident
that EAL pupils are strong in MFL. Having already acquired the expertise needed to
learn English, this knowledge can be transferred to the learning of another foreign
language. Through analysis of the outcomes of this research and the other
4

7. literature on the topic, it is clear that EAL pupils new to a school could justifiably be
placed in a high-ability rather than a low-ability set:
Some subjects are more linguistically demanding than others. However, it
should not be assumed that these subjects are beyond the cognitive
capabilities of pupils, even if the linguistic demands need considerable support
in the early years.
(Manchester EMAS, 2004)
As MFL should be no more “linguistically demanding” to an EAL pupil than to a nonEAL pupil, because the class ought to be delivered in the target language (Spanish,
French etc.), EAL pupils should be able to manage in a higher-ability set because
they already possess second language learning skills. The analysis of Spanish
GCSE results from School X and Sets 1 and 2 of School Y lends further support to
this, since EAL pupils generally attained higher marks than non-EAL pupils in their
examinations. This area, however, would profit from further investigation, using a
larger sample of examination candidates studying a wider range of languages;
GCSE results from School Y show that EAL pupils did not appear to do any better
than their classmates at French, so acquiring English as an Additional Language
perhaps facilitates the learning of some foreign languages, but not others.
The breakdown of the School X Key Stage 3 sets demonstrates that EAL pupils are
regularly presumed less intelligent or less capable than their peers and are all too
often placed in low-ability sets, having to prove their ability in the subject before
being permitted to move into a more suitable set. Most non-EAL pupils, on the other
hand, are placed in high-ability sets in Year 7 but many are moved into lower sets in
subsequent years to allow for high-ability EAL pupils.
In the short term, a great deal more research needs to be carried out into the field of
EAL.
Suggested areas for research, identified by this study, include the
performance of EAL pupils compared with non-EAL pupils in MFL at GCSE level,
and perhaps a continuation of this study into AS and A2 Advanced Level
examinations. It may also be useful to focus on the progression of specific EAL
pupils from the beginning of Year 7 up to GCSE and beyond. This would give a
more accurate picture of the setting situation of EAL pupils, since the GCSE grades
could be used as a measure of ability in MFL, and each pupil could be tracked from
Year 7, taking note of the sets in which he or she was placed from the beginning. If
an EAL pupil were placed in bottom set in Year 7 and went on to gain a grade A* at
GCSE, it would show that his or her level of ability had not been accurately
assessed at the outset. It could also prove constructive to trace the progression of
EAL pupils placed in an inappropriate set at the commencement, in order to see the
effects it may have had on their learning. Additionally, it would be interesting to
investigate different languages, as the pattern that has emerged in Spanish does not
seem to be reflected in French.
In the medium term, teachers and school leaders should be aiming to incorporate
further research findings into their school EAL and setting policies, and obviously put
these policies into practice, since unless policies are adhered to, they are worthless.
An effective assessment system for EAL pupils must also be established, in order
for EAL pupils to be placed in the correct set from the beginning of Year 7, so that
progress is not hampered by slow lesson pace or behavioural issues in low-ability
sets. This method could make use of CAT scores, or other similar tests, which
5

8. could possibly be carried out in the mother tongue, in order to influence setting,
which may help to obtain a more accurate setting placement from the outset.
As a long term goal, educational establishments should continue to pay attention to
research carried out on EAL pupils and their performance in MFL, and integrate any
recommendations into school policies, without forgetting the advice from previous
literature. As the whole field of learners is EAL is under-researched in the UK, there
is plenty of scope for new investigations, and the outcomes of these should be
welcomed by the educational world.
With regard to comments from members of the school community, all of the staff
and teachers with whom I spoke were of the same opinion – that same opinion
expressed by the literature on EAL pupils. One EAL pupil at School X, recently
arrived from China and placed in set 4 of 5 in Spanish, said “English hard; Spanish
too easy”. The majority of the other pupils in her class had severe behavioural
difficulties, and she was unable to obtain help from any of the other pupils as they
had difficulty understanding the work themselves. Other teachers in School X
agreed that the system in place was prejudiced against EAL pupils, who often had to
put up with the poor behaviour of their non-EAL classmates. However, no matter
whom I spoke to, the blame was always pointed in the direction of somebody else,
and no teacher interviewed was willing to take responsibility for the situation or
ownership of the problem. The fact that in School X the setting of pupils in MFL had
nothing to do with any teacher in the department is perhaps another situation that
needs to be rectified, as MFL teachers are currently the only people able to assess
the ability of pupils in MFL. School X does not put Year 7 pupils in sets until
November, by which time the teachers have a good idea of the pupils’ capabilities,
but why wait until November if the teachers have no input anyway? The setting of
pupils at School Y, on the other hand, appears to be effectively meeting the needs
of EAL pupils, although further research into future examination results would be
necessary to find out whether setting does play as large a role as suggested by this
research.
In respect of the influence that this study has had on my own professional
development, I now have some evidence supporting the notion that some EAL
pupils are being disadvantaged by being placed in sets that do not correspond to
their intellectual capabilities. It could be that some schools are unable to determine
an appropriate set for EAL pupils as there is at present no adequate assessment
available to test their ability. However, now that I am aware of the situation, in future
I will always keep careful track of the progress made by EAL pupils in my classes,
and at the slightest sign of underachievement, I will do my best to move them into a
different set, using this research to support the case. Hopefully, however, a suitable
means of assessment will be devised in the near future to test the true capabilities of
EAL pupils, thus eliminating the need for such action.
In conclusion, this examination of the support system in operation for EAL pupils at
Schools X and Y has been successful at identifying areas where these and other
schools may find it difficult to meet the needs of EAL pupils, and it has also paved
the way for further research into the domain. It has enhanced my professional
development and influenced my future in teaching by making me aware of the
situation and assisting me in providing evidence to substantiate what I suspected
6

9. through observation of the system – that EAL pupils often have an aptitude for
learning other foreign languages and that their needs are different to those of nonEAL pupils, so must be met by different means. One possible way to begin meeting
the needs of EAL pupils more successfully is to ensure that research findings such
as these are more extensively published, and therefore reach a wider audience, who
will then be able to take action.
7

10. References
Altrichter, H, Posch, P &
Somekh, B. (1993)
Teachers Investigate Their Work: An Introduction to the
Methods of Action Research, London: Routledge
Busher, H. & Harris, A. (2000) Subject Leadership and School Improvement, London: Paul
Chapman Publishing Ltd.
Clarke, A. & Erickson (2003) Teacher Inquiry: Living the Research in Everyday Practice,
London: Routledge Falmer
DfES (2002)
Access and Engagement at Key Stage 3: Teaching EAL
Learners, London: DfES
DfES (2002)
Supporting
Key Stage 3 National Strategy Grammar for Writing:
Pupils Learning EAL, London: DfES
Dunham, J. (1995)
Routledge
Developing Effective School Management, London:
Hollingsworth, S. (1984)
International Action Research, Great Britain: Oxford University
Press
Kincheloe, J. L. (2003)
Teachers as Researchers: Qualitative Inquiry as a Path to
Empowerment, 2nd Edition, London: Routledge Falmer
Levine, J. (1990)
Bilingual Learners and the Mainstream Curriculum, Great
Britain: The Falmer Press
McKernan, J. (1996)
Curriculum Action Research, 2nd Edition, London: Routledge
Falmer
McNiff, J (2002)
Action Research: Principles and Practice, 2nd Edition, London:
Routledge Falmer
Mason, J. (2002)
Researching Your Own Practice: The Discipline of Noticing,
London: Routledge Falmer
Nixon, J. (1981)
A Teacher’s Guide to Action Research, Great Britain: The
Pitman Press
OFSTED (2003)
Language
More Advanced Learners of English as an Additional
in Secondary Schools and Colleges,
Reynolds, D. et al (2002)
World Class Schools: International Perspectives on School
Effectiveness, London: Routledge Falmer
8

11. Scarcella, R. (1990)
Teaching Language Minority Students in the Multicultural
Classroom, United States of America: Prentice-Hall Inc.
Searle, C. (2001)
An Exclusive Education: Race, Class and Exclusion in British
Schools, London: Lawrence & Wishart
W.W.W. Pages & E-books
Burnaford, G., Fischer, J.
Teachers Doing Research: The Power of Action through
Inquiry,
& Hobson, D. (2001)
2nd Edition, London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers
http://library.edgehill.ac.uk/search/tteacher+research/tteacher+research/2%2C0%2C0%2CB/l856&FF=tteachers+doing+research+electronic+resource+the+power+o
f+action+through+inquiry&1%2C1%2C%2C1%2C0/indexsort=(accessed 9 August 2005)
DfES (2005)
Aiming High: Meeting the Needs of Newly Arrived Learners of
English as an Additional Language (EAL)
(updated 2005)
http://www.standards.dfes.gov.uk/primary/publications/inclusion/newarrivals/pns_incl138105
newarrivals.pdf
(accessed 8 August 2005)
Manchester Council (2004) Ethnic Minority Achievement Service: Supporting New Arrivals
(updated 13 December 2004),
http://www.manchester.gov.uk/education/diversity/ema/newarriv.htm,
(accessed 11 March 2005)
Mills, R. W. & J. (2002)
Bilingualism in the Primary School: A Handbook for Teachers,
London: Routledge
http://library.edgehill.ac.uk/search/tbilingual/tbilingual/25%2C33%2C33%2CB/l856&FF=tbilin
gualism+in+the+primary+school+electronic+resource+a+handbook+for+teachers&1%2C1%
2C%2C1%2C0
(accessed 11 August 2005)
NALDIC (2005)
NALDIC Bilingual Research, (updated 2005),
http://www.naldic.org.uk/docs/research/bilingual.cfmT,
(accessed 11 March 2005)
9

12. APPENDIX 1
Presentation of data/outcomes
From the quantitative data from School X showing Key Stage 3 sets (Figures 2 &
3), the proportion of EAL pupils in low-ability sets is substantial. As predicted, as the
sets get lower, the proportion of EAL pupils gets higher; this is significant because
progression of EAL pupils is affected by the capabilities of their classmates.
Unfortunately, the small sample size of GCSE candidates at School X made the
formulation of any definitive conclusions impossible. However, from the cumulative
frequency graph of 2004 GCSE results (Figure 6), it is apparent that EAL pupils
outperformed non-EAL pupils in Spanish, as no EAL pupil obtained below a grade
D. The graph of the 2005 mock results (Figure 7) is ambiguous, owing to fewer
candidates, but again the lowest grades were obtained by non-EAL pupils.
In relation to data from School Y, Figures 12, 13 and 14 make it clear that most
EAL pupils in each year group are in Set 2, with the exception of Year 8 French,
where most are in Set 1. This suggests that EAL pupils in this school are given the
opportunity to put previously acquired skills to good use in learning MFL.
Furthermore, there is no pattern at this school implying the number of EAL pupils in
low-ability sets decreases as they progress through Key Stage 3 like in School X.
From the cumulative frequency graphs of GCSE results, it is evident that EAL pupils
performed at a similar level to non-EAL pupils (Figures 16-20) apart from in Spanish
Sets 1 and 2 (Figure 20), where EAL pupils generally surpassed their classmates.
This supports my original hypothesis that placing EAL pupils in the bottom set does
not benefit them in any way.
10

13. Breakdown of EAL Pupils Studying Spanish in Each Year Group
Year
7
8
9
10
11
Total number of
pupils
Total number of EAL
pupils
Percentage of pupils with
EAL
212
222
201
18
25
30
29
28
3
4
14.2
13.1
13.9
16.7
16
School X
Figure 1
Breakdown of EAL Pupils in Each Spanish Class
Class
7A1
7A2
7A3
7A4
7B1
7B2
7B3
7B4
8A1
8A2
8A3
8A4
8A5
8B1
8B2
8B3
8B4
8B5
9A1
9A2
9A3
9A4
9B1
9B2
9B3
9B4
10AB
11A
11B
Total In
Class
Total
EAL
30
29
30
19
30
30
26
18
30
29
25
15
12
29
31
26
15
10
30
26
30
14
27
26
30
18
18
13
12
Percentage
EAL
2
2
4
9
3
3
3
4
2
2
5
5
2
3
1
4
2
3
4
5
4
2
1
4
4
4
3
1
3
School X
6.7
6.9
13.3
47.4
10
10
11.5
22.2
6.7
6.9
20
33.3
16.7
10.3
3.2
15.4
13.3
30
13.3
19.2
13.3
14.3
3.7
15.4
13.3
22.2
16.7
7.7
25
Figure 2
11

14. Breakdown of EAL Pupils in Each Spanish Set of Each Year Group
(Key Stage 3)
Total In
class
year 7 1
year 7 2
year 7 3
year 7 4
year 8 1
year 8 2
year 8 3
year 8 4
year 8 5
year 9 1
year 9 2
year 9 3
year 9 4
Total EAL in
class
60
59
56
37
59
60
51
30
22
57
52
60
32
Percentage EAL in
class
5
5
7
13
5
3
9
7
5
5
9
8
6
8.3
8.5
12.5
35.1
8.5
5
17.6
23.3
22.7
8.8
17.3
13.3
18.8
School X
Figure 3
Breakdown of EAL Pupils in Spanish Sets Throughout School
(not by specific year groups)
Set
1
2
3
4
5
Total number of
pupils
207
183
167
99
22
Total number of EAL
pupils
Percentage of EAL
pupils
19
20
24
26
5
School X
9.2
10.9
14.4
26.3
22.7
Figure 4
12

15. Breakdown of Percentages of EAL Pupils in Each Spanish Set of
Each Key Stage 3 Year Group
Set 1
Year 7
Year 8
Year 9
Set 2
16.7
17.2
17.9
Set 3
16.7
10.3
32.1
Set 4
23.3
31
28.6
School X
Set 5
43.3
17.2
21.4
Total
24.1
100
99.8
100
Figure 5
13
←due to rounding

16. GCSE Spanish Results 2004
120
Cumulative Frequency (%)
100
80
Non-EAL pupils
60
EAL pupils
40
20
School X
0
A*
A
B
C
D
Grade
14
E
F
G
Figure 6

17. Mock GCSE Spanish Results 2005
120
Cumulative Frequency (%)
100
80
Non-EAL pupils
EAL pupils
60
40
20
0
A*
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
School X
Grade
Figure 7
15

18. Breakdown of EAL Pupils in Each Key Stage 3 Year Group
Year
7
8
9
Total number of
pupils
Total number of EAL
pupils
Percentage of pupils with
EAL
204
185
182
169
152
132
82.8
82.2
72.5
School Y
Figure 8
Breakdown of EAL Pupils in Each Key Stage 3 Class
Class
7Fr1
7Fr2
7Fr3
7Fr4
8Fr1
8Fr2
8Fr3
9Fr1
9Fr2
9Fr3
9Fr4
7Sp1
7Sp2
7Sp3
8Sp1
8Sp2
8Sp3
9Sp1
9Sp2
9Sp3
9Sp4
Total In Class
36
31
27
22
34
31
28
27
24
22
21
29
30
29
32
31
29
22
23
19
24
Total
571
School Y
Fr = French
Total
EAL
22
28
21
19
27
25
25
18
19
14
13
24
27
25
26
29
21
15
20
15
18
Percentage
EAL
61.1
90.3
77.8
86.4
79.4
80.6
89.3
66.7
79.2
63.6
61.9
82.8
90
86.2
81.3
93.5
72.4
68.2
87
78.9
75
451
79
Figure 9
Sp = Spanish
16

19. Breakdown of EAL Pupils in Each Set of Each Year Group
(Key Stage 3)
French
year 7 1
year 7 2
year 7 3
year 7 4
year 8 1
year 8 2
year 8 3
year 9 1
year 9 2
year 9 3
year 9 4
Spanish
year 7 1
year 7 2
year 7 3
year 8 1
year 8 2
year 8 3
year 9 1
year 9 2
year 9 3
year 9 4
Total In
class
Total EAL in
class
36
31
27
22
34
31
28
27
24
22
21
Total In
class
Percentage EAL in
class
22
28
21
19
27
25
25
18
19
14
13
Total EAL in
class
29
30
29
32
31
29
22
23
19
24
Percentage EAL in
class
24
27
25
29
25
21
15
20
15
18
School Y
61.1
90.3
77.8
86.4
79.4
80.6
89.3
66.7
79.2
63.6
61.9
82.8
90.0
86.2
90.6
80.6
72.4
68.2
87.0
78.9
75.0
Figure 10
17

20. Breakdown of EAL Pupils in MFL Sets Throughout Key Stage 3
(not by specific year groups)
Fr & Sp Sets
1
2
3
4
French sets
Total number of
pupils
180
170
154
67
Total number of EAL
pupils
135
144
121
50
Percentage of EAL
pupils
75.0
84.7
78.6
74.6
Total number of
pupils
Total number of EAL
pupils
67
72
60
32
Percentage of EAL
pupils
69.1
83.7
77.9
74.4
68
72
61
18
Percentage of EAL
pupils
81.9
85.7
79.2
75.0
97
86
77
43
1
2
3
4
Spanish
sets
Total number of
pupils
1
2
3
4
Total number of EAL
pupils
83
84
77
24
School Y
Figure 11
18

21. Breakdown of Percentages of EAL Pupils in Each MFL Set of Each
Key Stage 3 Year Group
French sets
Year 7
Year 8
Year 9
Set 1
Spanish sets
Year 7
Year 8
Year 9
Set 1
Fr & Sp sets
Year 7
Year 8
Year 9
Set 2
Set 1
24.4
35.1
28.1
Set 3
31.1
32.5
29.7
Set 2
31.6
34.2
22.1
Set 3
35.5
38.2
29.4
Set 2
27.7
34.6
25.0
Set 4
23.3
32.5
21.9
Set 4
Set 3
School Y
Total
100
100
100
26.5
Set 4
27.7
30.1
22.0
100
100
100
20.3
32.9
27.6
22.1
33.1
35.3
29.5
Total
21.1
Total
11.4
23.5
100
100
100
Figure 12
19

22. EAL Pupils Divided into Key Stage 3 French Sets
40.0
35.0
30.0
25.0
Year 7
% of EAL pupils 20.0
Year 8
Year 9
15.0
10.0
5.0
0.0
Set 1
School Y
Set 2
Set 3
20
Set
Set 4
Figure 13

23. EAL Pupils Divided into Key Stage 3 Spanish Sets
45.0
40.0
35.0
30.0
25.0
Year 7
20.0
Year 8
Year 9
% of EAL Pupils
15.0
10.0
5.0
0.0
Set 1
School Y
Set 2
Set 3
21
Set
Set 4
Figure 14

24. GCSE MFL Results 2004
(Cumulative Frequency)
French
Non-EAL
pupils
EAL pupils
A*
Spanish
Non-EAL
pupils
EAL pupils
A*
Overall
Non-EAL
pupils
EAL pupils
A
A*
1
1
3
9
A
1
1
A*
Overall
Non-EAL
pupils
EAL pupils
B
A
PERCENTAGES
French
A*
Non-EAL
6.25%
pupils
EAL pupils
2.86%
A*
5.26%
2.08%
5.71%
2.41%
C
10
16
2
3
2
2
Spanish
Non-EAL
pupils
EAL pupils
B
C
B
A
18.75%
25.71%
A
10.53%
6.25%
A
14.29%
14.46%
14
29
7
9
5
12
D
D
C
B
62.50%
45.71%
B
36.84%
18.75%
B
48.57%
30.12%
16
34
12
36
17
25
E
E
D
C
87.50%
82.86%
C
63.16%
75.00%
C
74.29%
78.31%
16
35
18
45
26
65
F
16
35
F
19
48
E
34
79
G
16
35
G
19
48
F
35
83
19
48
G
35
83
D
E
F
100.00%
97.14%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
D
E
F
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
E
F
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
35
83
94.74%
93.75%
D
97.14%
95.18%
G
100.00%
100.00%
G
100.00%
100.00%
G
100.00%
100.00%
Figure
15
School Y
22

25. GCSE MFL Results 2004 (French and Spanish)
120.00%
Cumulative Frequency (%)
100.00%
80.00%
Non-EAL pupils
60.00%
EAL pupils
40.00%
20.00%
School Y
0.00%
A*
A
B
C
D
23
Grade
E
F
G
Figure 16

26. GCSE Results in French 2004
120.00%
Cumulative Frequency (%)
100.00%
80.00%
Non-EAL pupils
EAL pupils
60.00%
40.00%
20.00%
0.00%
A*
A
B
C
D
24
Grade
E
F
G
School Y
Figure 17

27. GCSE Results in Spanish 2004
120.00%
Cumulative Frequency (%)
100.00%
80.00%
Non-EAL pupils
EAL pupils
60.00%
40.00%
20.00%
School Y
0.00%
A*
A
B
C
25
Grade
D
E
F
G
Figure 18

28. Helen Bergqvist
GCSE French Results 2004 by Set
Research Scaffold
French Set 1
120.0
Cumulative Frequency (%)
100.0
80.0
Non-EAL Pupils
EAL pupils
60.0
40.0
20.0
0.0
A*
A
B
C
D
E
F
Grade
French Set 2
120.0
Cumulative Frequency (%)
100.0
80.0
Non-EAL Pupils
60.0
EAL pupils
40.0
20.0
0.0
A*
A
B
C
D
E
F
Grades
French Set 3
120.0
Cumulative Frequency (%)
100.0
80.0
Non-EAL Pupils
60.0
EAL pupils
40.0
School Y
20.0
0.0
A*
A
B
C
Grade
- 26 -
D
E
F
Figure 19

29. GCSE Spanish Results 2004 by
Research Scaffold
Set
Helen Bergqvist
Spanish Set 1
120
Cumulative Frequency (%)
100
80
Non-EAL Pupils
60
EAL pupils
40
20
0
A*
A
B
C
D
E
F
Grade
Spanish Set 2
120
Cumulative Frequency (%)
100
80
Non-EAL Pupils
60
EAL pupils
40
20
0
A*
A
B
C
D
E
F
Grade
Spanish Set 3
120
Cumulative Frequency
100
80
Non-EAL Pupils
60
EAL pupils
40
School Y
20
0
A*
A
B
- 27 -
C
Grade
D
E
F
Figure 20