Transition from KS2 to KS3 - Calling all teachers!

[Jo Rhys-Jones]

What's the point of learning a language for 4 years or more and then starting again from scratch? What does that say about the attitudes of secondary practitioners to their primary colleagues? Moreover, how does a comprehensive cope with yr 7 coming in from a large number of primary schools, all doing different languages with different schemes of work to various levels, who do not seem to have liaised with each other, let alone with the secondary?

Discuss.

No, I'm not being flippant and this is not the start of an essay - it's what we all need to be doing; sit down and chat with each other, because if we don't it's the children who will pay the price.

There are no easy answers of course, but here are a few ideas of mine and I'd love to know what you think please:

1. Networks. The Interim Rose review is very keen on networks and with good reason. As both secondaries and primaries have a vested interest in children making a successful transition from KS2 to KS3, then clearly networks that involve secondaries & primaries making time to work together are at an advantage. Some authorities even link funding to the formation of networks precisely to encourage them, others leave teachers to make the time and initiate contacts themselves. But it has to be worth every minute and penny spent.

2. An end-of-yr.6 agreement. This is where a secondary and group of primaries sit together and spend a half-day creating a document that is an agreement of what children will have achieved by the time they leave yr 6. It is NOT a list of topics, but it is list of agreed skills / grammar that will have been covered, so that primaries still have the freedom to use whatever resources they have available to them and each school can get to the agreed level in it's own way. Here is an example - you'll see it is based on linguistic progress and not a list of nouns in order to be in line with progress through the KS2 Framework objectives. An interesting starting point to creating such a document might be the Breakthrough content specification from ASSET. After all, this is the level that it is being suggested will be reached by Yr 6. In fact I know a few who are already and are taking the Asset exams to prove it. I do not think it's ideal though and the first thing I do is slice the list of 'topics' off the bottom, because they are so ludicrously inappropriate for primary and frankly DULL!

3. Choice of Language. Clearly it is a big help if all the primaries that feed to a particular secondary are doing the same language, but in the real world this is rare. Primaries feed to many secondary schools, larger comprehensives have many primary feeders and then there is pupil movement which has to be taken into account. But that does not mean the situation should be ignored and everyone start on page 1 of metro. Schools need to at least discuss the possibility of setting and if this is not possible then training and time must be set aside to provide strategies to cope. Where both primary & secondary practitioners can work together on this, increased awareness of the problem is often a breakthrough in itself. There is also an argument that if language learning strategies have been the focus of the primary experience, then children should progress faster even if they do start a new language at KS3, so there is still experience upon which to build.

4. Differentiation. Apparently we are not supposed to say that, but frankly it makes a lot more sense and is far more realistic than 'personalised learning' and done properly, it probably is personalised learning. Personally I find it easier to look at progress in languages in terms of skill. So we begin with sound (phoneme), progress to word (and gender, spelling); then to phrase (adjectival agreement, word order, general expressions such as there is/are); then to simple sentences which gradually increase in complexity to include 1st,2nd,3rd person, negatives, likes & dislikes; next we begin extending sentences with connectives, subordinal clauses, effects of word order, bring in 1st, 2nd & 3rd person plural perhaps and adverbs. Maybe that's about as far as we'd get with my yr 6, but I'd expect to extend this at secondary by starting to look at speech, abstract nouns, the introduction of a sense of time and eventually tenses, though the standards site suggestions don't quite seem to hit the mark. For me, progression is about building the capacity to manipulate language and apply it to different settings, not the accumulation of topics and set phrases. So, frankly, it should not matter what we begin with in Yr 7, so long as we are prepared to put the time in to differentiating the theme to these different levels. The whole class can listen to the same song / watch the same video / explore the same text but with a variety of responses targetted at their experience of langauge learning. So complete beginners listen for phonemes & identify the graphemes, while those who have a little more experience gap-fill on a word level, and those with a lot of knowledge can insert punctuation/put the whole thing in the negative or switch it to the passive voice, whatever!

5. The New KS3 Curriculum. It's about being creative and reclaiming our subject from the constraints of the textbooks. Re-using the same language but moving on, building on what children already know. If half the class know colours and the others don't, we can extend the theme by putting them in a new and exciting context. I've linked up with the art department & to do some art appreciation, trying to use the vocabulary the art world is using to extend experienced learners - ochre not yellow etc. To prgoress their skills the more experienced learners then describe pictures to each other but do not show them and see if their partners can recreate the works accurately. I was surprised to find out that there are a large number of 'non-specialist' teachers teaching languages in secondary schools across the country - so perhaps it's time to chat up that Geography teacher who's been roped in to help out in Spanish and try to create a more intellectually stretching unit than 'places in the town'. There are some good examples on the Internet over on the TES resources and particularly on the SSAT Leading Practitioner blogs, but we can do just as well eh?

6. ICT. Let's use the gadgets the kids are into, and not be afraid to let them take the lead. Time and time again ICT proves to be a natural way to differentiate delivery and learning. The children are going to smuggle their phones in - so we can be the cool subject that encourages them, using those mp3 players & built in cameras; if the children are habitually recording themselves it is a lot easier to 'police' the classroom and target groups for support as you have those recordings long after the lesson as evidence of the work they were doing. Podcasting & vodcasting motivate children & livens up a topic that may well be otherwise repeating what the children already covered in KS2. We want children to repeat things to reinforce learning, but we have to find interesting ways to do it - have you noticed how much children are prepared to repeat when using a website?

7. Transition Units. Hmm, not yet convinced by these. Often they seem to smack dangerously of topics and collective knowledge of the same set phrases/nouns. PersonalIy I didn't like having a secondary teacher come into my classroom, oblivious to what we had done and trying to teach 'Heads, shoulders knees & toes' in French as a one-off to my class who had already done this back in yr. 3. It would have been far better had the teacher come and spent a lesson watching what they do first. Having said that I know some people have got together to get full transition units to work well and written some very interesting resources. If nothing else at least it's a way of introducing the child to their new school.
Early Start suggests their Unit 16, maybe you've used it? (I haven't and I'm not to keen on the can do statements - thay are too vague for a transfer document, though they are useful to individual children perhaps). Also I like the work done by West Sussex GfL.

8. Transition Projects. By this I mean where a group of primary & secondary practitioners have had some time to spend together and experiment. There are some details on the NACELL website of some of these projects around the country, but I'm sure many teachers are trying their own on smaller scales and if you are involved in one, please tell us about it! Kent have shared their project doc as has De Ferrers primary and there is an interesting discussion of transition issues on the training zone.

9. Over to you - I don't have the answers, the above are some of my ideas, but if you have ideas or files you'd care to share it would be really appreciated - because no matter what key stage we are teaching we all want the best language learning experiences for the children.

[Kerry]

This is a really good discussion and definately one that needs to happen. I am a secondary trained French and Spanish teacher, and for the last few years the subject of transition has been a worry in our department. While a lot of primary language teaching is fantastic. I worry that there is a large percentage of second rate or heaven forbid quite bad primary language teaching happening. I have no doubt that mfl should start in the primary school to bring us in line with many other European countries, however I am sure that a lot of primary teachers do not feel comfortable that their own level of language is good enough to enable them to teach the difficult sentence and grammar structures in another language. Having spent 4 years at uni studying French/Spanish and then a further year doing a PGCE I still find it a struggle to explain some concepts clearly enough for all of my Year 7's to 'get it'. (I hope this is not a reflection of my teaching!!) So how is a non specialist who is not particularily confident teaching mfl going to achieve this? I have had countless year 7's insist that something I say to them in French is wrong because it's not 'how their primary teacher says it'. It is also practically impossible to start anywhere but from the beginning when you have a mixed ability class with children from different feeder schools who have started in Spanish, German and French. Having just got back from the CILT show I know that there are a lot of excellent very enthusiastic pro-mfl primary teachers around. but I still hear many primary teachers pronouncing even the most basic of words completely incorrectly, which only has a knock on effect at secondary level. I also agree that there may also be a danger of boredom (or mfl fatigue as a colleague calls it!) by the time students reach year 7, particularily if being taught by a non enthusiastic primary mfl teacher.
There is never enough time to fit in everything you need to teach during a term we basically have to do a chapter of the textbook per half term, so there is precious little time to work out who knows what and to differentiate everything accordingly. Another major issue is that i find Primary and Secondary teachers are by and large a different breed, many of my colleagues, my self included, shy away from activities that the primary mfl teacher does with ease. It also worries many that the children are being taught phonics, phonemes and grahemes in the foreign languge, because we have no clue what they are!!!! We may speak the target language fantastically but unless you studied linguistics at uni many have NEVER used these terms in their teaching. Primary teachers have of course been teaching these things in English and so this will all be second nature to them. I still have year 11's asking me how to say yes and no!!! I don't want to sound negative because mfl should definately start in primary schools, no question, so maybe i'm being a bit of a devil's advocate, I just feel that we are a long way off having successful transition between yr 6 and 7 for the majority.

[Jayne Jackson]

A hugely insightful post detailing the complex issues currently facing those involved with the delivery of MFL across the country. Thank you, Jo.

I think we would all agree that the majority of primary teachers are not language specialists, but rather ‘generalists’ by nature. Many would admit to having little confidence to deliver language learning activities, so an ethos of support and encouragement is essential to their personal and professional development. Recent recommendations in the Rose report include the compulsory teaching of a foreign language at primary school within the new area of learning defined as ‘Understanding English, communication and languages.’ Now is not a time to waste our energy on criticisms, but a time to collaborate and co-operate, embracing an initiative that will hopefully renew an interest in language learning and lead to their increased uptake at Key Stage 4, 5 and beyond.

With the ‘Entitlement’ approaching, MFL is fast becoming ‘common territory’ across KS2/3 in a way it never has been before. Successful transition can only be ensured if colleagues from both sectors are involved in more frequent liaison, not just at the point where pupils are ready to move to their high schools but well before that, in joint planning for instance and in the mutual agreement of key grammatical structures to be taught.

Undoubtedly, it is in the pupils’ best interests if KS3 teachers are able to plan and differentiate work according to the skills and knowledge that the learners have already acquired. This may require ‘setting’ the pupils earlier than has traditionally been the case. Mark has mentioned above how he felt that his former school’s decision to ‘let Y7 pupils with prior language learning experiences shine’ was a cop out and I personally believe that such a decision would more likely lead to pupil disaffection and a lack of motivation with the study of languages.

So, is it all worth it? I know you have raised this question previously on the forum Jo and it has recently reared its head again on the TES website where debate surrounding the value of primary languages teaching has been stirred up!

‘Catmother’ describes the situation in KS3 as having gone from “bad to worse” with difficulties on Y7 entry arising out of the fact that “some will have done a bit of the language but not all the same amount, some will have done another language, some will have done nothing at all.” In an ideal world, primary pupils would learn the language taught in the secondary school so as to ensure continuity, but in reality, provision at primary school is largely dependent upon the skills of the existing workforce and these may vary largely. Sustainability is also an issue here as primary teachers move schools to take up other posts or are redeployed to other year groups. Let us not forget either, that these practitioners entered the profession as ‘generalists’ and their competence in one or more foreign languages was never an issue.

‘Professorab’ infers that “MFL lessons at primary are, in my opinion, WORSE than a mere waste of time. In my experience, they result in kids getting bored to death of ten years of French before the age of 16.” What is insulting is that the poster seems to have arrived at the conclusion that primary language teaching centres around nothing more substantial than animal, colour and number vocabulary, songs and ‘Splat’ style games, whilst aspects of spelling and grammar are ignored. How many more secondary practitioners are harbouring these ill-informed and stereotypical images without actually setting foot inside their local feeder schools to discover for themselves the quality of the pupils’ language learning experiences? The poster suggests that the boredom of high school pupils can be attributed to the fact that these children have been learning languages for too long… he has obviously never witnessed first hand the amazing creativity of some primary language lessons; the way teachers find and exploit inspirational ideas for cross-curricular use of language eg John Sly’s rainforest materials or Jo’s interpretation of QCA Unit 16. This aside, if pupils have been learning a language for some considerable time, why is it necessary to continue to age 16? With a PoS that is tailored more to individual ability, those who arrive in Y7 with a secure and measurable level of language skill (L3 or L4 on The Languages Ladder or Asset accreditation) ought to be able to be entered for GCSE examinations at the end of Y9. It is my opinion, that boredom arises out of the fact that pupils are required to repeat work rather than build on their skills and in order to avoid this, and maintain the interest and enthusiasm of pupils, prompt setting by ability is an absolute necessity.

Poster ‘Jubilee’ mentions that she favours more grammar tuition and that double exposure in primary literacy and MFL sessions would equip pupils with a greater level of transferable skill. No-one would deny this. But if ‘Jubilee’ is under the impression that grammar is ignored in the primary languages classroom, I would urge her to spend time in a KS2 setting and see the work that goes on with regard to adjectival agreement, formation of adverbs and negative sentence construction to highlight but a few.

‘Catmother’, like ‘Jubilee’, believes that an understanding of English grammar is a valuable tool in the acquisition of foreign languages. Whilst I agree with this principle, I would be interested to know exactly what she deems to be a ‘sound understanding of English grammar’ since, reflecting on my own knowledge of English grammar at high school entry, I knew only the basics – use of full stops, capital letters and commas in lists as well as what verbs, nouns, adjectives and adverbs were. The colon, semi-colon and ellipsis, nowadays a requirement to achieve L5 in writing, were a mystery to me. It was only as a direct result of language lessons at high school (French, German, Italian & Latin) that I was taught grammatical rules in more depth and henceforth became more aware of the functions of grammar in my own mother tongue. I had no idea what a personal pronoun was until I was required to conjugate French verbs in Y7; no idea about the use of commas to separate a main clause from a subordinate clause until studying German; no idea about grammar at all it seemed!

I have digressed somewhat from the origins of Jo’s original post but would like to hear anybody else’s views regarding the TES thread and the value of primary languages.

Jayne

[Jo Rhys-Jones]

Well, I know of a very large authority that hands out considerable funding to networks of primaries and secondaries - enough to fund regular termly meetings with one person from every school present and to buy resources and fund supply for training events. With the free advice of a primary languages consultant on hand and up to 5 days inset provided per network - for free. Ahem.

The trouble with appointing someone full-time to liaise is that they quickly find themselves no longer teaching, and then of course it's eay to lose the support of classteachers. Sadly the reverse is also true, with that person suddenly finding themselves doing everybody's ppa cover without getting the support and training they might require themselves.

Oh I forgot to add the document the network were working on - their adapted version of the French breakthrough content - here it is:
End of yr 6 Agreement using Asset Breakthough Specification Content.doc

[Mark Purves]

Hi Jo

This is a really important thread and I appreciate the pointers you have given to try and inform us about what is happening. As a newbie to primary languages but with a secondary background, I know all of the anxious discussions that took place at my secondary school about how to accommodate pupils with a primary MFL background. In the end we decided that, because we setted in yr8, we would just let those who had done French before 'shine' and get into the top sets. Of course this is a cop out and disadvantages those, who through no fault of their own, found themselves in schools where the push to learn a language was not there. Once in these top sets, there was little movement up or down and that single factor often determined their GCSE grades. There is a lot of good will about getting it right. Nobody likes a half-baked solution but time pressures dictated that our school wasn't able to satisfactorily unpick the consequences of an ill-thought out policy. I feel convinced that the only real solution as you suggest is a partnership of schools in a local cluster, yet to make this work requires far more time than is currently being funded. Funding the odd half-day for a secondary colleague to pick this up and successfully manage it, is wishful thinkng. We need the funding for some full-time appointments of primary liaison teachers, with experience of both sectors. I am not talking about the current set-up where the LEA has a Primary MFL advisor. Many do a really good job but their brief is too broad across a whole authority. I am talking about 1 person appointed full-time to liaise with a specific cluster of schools and funded out of a budget devolved to that cluster so that each member of that group co-funds a proprtion of the salary of the appointee. Do you know of anywhere that is doing this?