What advice would you give to a school looking at their EAL provision for the first time?
Schools may wish to consider conducting a self-evaluation against the six EAL bullets in the toolkit, either by selecting a small group of EAL pupils at random as a case sample, carrying out an EAL learning walk to identify gaps, and considering assessment of EAL pupils’ proficiency in English, if not already doing so.
What about those schools which already have good embedded EAL provision?
Ofsted are looking to celebrate and validate a school’s strengths, so those which are proud of their EAL provision should ensure that this is flagged in the first call with the lead inspector. Schools may have received accreditation for their work – from The Bell Foundation or another provider – and the inspector should be made aware of these.
It is important to note that there is currently little to no guidance from the Department for Education (DfE) and Ofsted on what good practice in EAL looks like.
EAL didn’t feature at all in the previous inspection framework and Ofsted has not provided training on EAL for its inspectorate for many years, so unless an inspector has had direct experience of EAL, they may not know what good practice looks like and will rely on their knowledge in their areas of experience or expertise e.g. early reading or SEN.
Discover practical resources, expert insights, and training to help educators prepare for inspection of EAL provision under Ofsted’s updated inspection toolkit for state-funded schools.
What would your advice be for schools who don't have an EAL Lead?
There is no legal requirement for schools to have an EAL Lead. In some cases, a Teaching Assistant may act as an EAL Coordinator but not hold a leadership role.
If there is no designated EAL Lead and the Headteacher does not reference EAL during the initial call, there is a risk that EAL provision may be overlooked by inspectors.
However, if the lead inspector requests a meeting to discuss EAL – particularly where the Inspection Data Summary Report (IDSR) shows a high proportion of pupils with EAL – the school will need to identify someone who can confidently address the EAL criteria outlined on page 20 of the toolkit.
If there is no other leader or staff member in the school witha clear overview of EAL provision, this could present a significant issue for the school, especially if Ofsted chooses to pursue EAL as a key inspection trail.
What advice would you give for a school to build EAL provision in the short term and long term?
Schools building up their provision should aim to have a leader or coordinator who is well trained (e.g. a school SENCO must have a recognised professional qualification but there is no such requirement to be an EAL coordinator). Any EAL training for staff should ideally be provided for everyone.
Schools should also work towards having an EAL register that is accurate and up to date by ensuring that they’re asking the right admission questions to get as much detailed information as possible about their EAL learners.
There is no need to reinvent the wheel, though. Schools could start by looking for examples of established practice, evidence-based guidance and case studies, such as those from The Bell Foundation, rather than relying on the first thing they find online.
Schools may also wish to prepare an EAL policy or identify any staff who have experience in EAL and /or speak other languages.
The EAL coordinator, when present, should work with subject leaders to make the curriculum accessible to EAL pupils and identify where adaptations may be needed. The aim is for EAL to be featured throughout the school (from ongoing CPD to school activities and cultural events).
For most EAL pupils, provision will be in the classroom with quality-first teaching, so it is important that all teachers see themselves as teachers of EAL. Some learners may require in-class support and there may be an induction programme for new arrivals new to English and possibly new to schooling as well. These should be time-limited and linked to the curriculum they will need to access when they go into classes. Proficiency assessments should not be carried out until the pupil is settled and comfortable.
How might schools evidence progress beyond statutory testing?
All aspects of monitoring of data – achievement, attendance, behaviour, club take up etc – should take account of EAL where it is a statistically significant percentage of the school.
In addition, while the school may have language proficiency stages over time, this is not necessarily an indicator of progress. Baseline assessment tests should also be administered for late arriving pupils who may have missed them (e.g. CATS, NGR).
Retaining pupils’ workbooks over time may be another way to indicate where pupils have progressed in their language and writing in subjects such as English, history, or RE.
What would be your advice for school leaders when it comes to managing Ofsted up and getting them to focus on EAL?
Schools can make Ofsted aware of their EAL provision by setting the scene in the preparation call between the Headteacher and the lead inspector. The headteacher could also organise a meeting between inspectors and the EAL coordinator even if the lead inspector has not requested it.
Inspectors will see from the school's self-evaluation form (SEF) and improvement plan what the school's priorities are. If EAL is included in these documents, it increases the chance of this aspect being looked at on inspection.
It is important that the Headteacher includes EAL pupils at the early stages of English in the list of those who face other barriers to be considered as part of case sample pupils.
This, in turn, could lead to conversations between inspectors and relevant staff on site about those pupils. In lesson visits, inspectors might want to see how teachers adapt the learning for those EAL learners in the classroom.
What are the risks of having inspectors with no experience of EAL who may not know what good practice looks like? Thinking of withdrawal, for example, and how that could be seen as a positive intervention for someone who doesn't know the history nor evidence around this.
This is a huge risk and a concern for me and for The Bell Foundation. We know inspectors have had no bespoke training on EAL for many years, and references to EAL in the training modules being few and far between.
Unless the inspector has knowledge and experience of EAL, they may not be familiar with EAL proficiency scales, or research promoting good practice. They may hold differing views on whether to withdraw pupils or keep them in class and whether pupils should use their home language at school, Leaders will need to articulate why they are following a particular approach (e.g. withdrawal and why it is beneficial for those pupils, having assessed its impact).
Can you suggest how schools can demonstrate and evidence effective practice and progress in the EAL areas highlighted by the toolkit?
The Ofsted toolkit states that “leaders and teachers recognise that these [EAL] pupils already speak at least one language, and do not lower their expectations of them.”
The first part refers to how well staff know EAL pupils:
In addition to knowing their language(s) and dialects they speak, if a pupil is chosen for case sampling, leaders may need to produce more information about their starting points, any other barriers to learning (e.g. housing / refugee./ SEND / FSM ) previous schooling. Are they literate in home language / English? What previous schooling have they had? Have there been gaps in schooling?
The second is about expectations:
The code of practice states EAL should not be considered as a special educational need, but there is a risk that a low level of English might be equated with low ability. The more the school knows about pupils starting points, not just in English but in other subjects studied, the more they can ensure work is pitched accordingly. Ideally, students should face a high degree of challenge but in accessible language.
In 2016, the DfE introduced a requirement for all schools to assess all their EAL pupils against a 5-point scale from A (new to English) to E (fully fluent) as part of the annual census. Despite the requirement being withdrawn in 2018, many schools have continued to develop arrangements for assessing pupils, using tools such as that produced by the Bell Foundation.
Now that Ofsted expects to see that “teachers assess pupils’ English language proficiency accurately and regularly”, schools which stopped assessing learners’ proficiency after 2018 will need to consider how they can evidence this.
It is not clear what Ofsted mean by ‘accurately or regularly’ since they will not be moderating schools’ assessments. However, when inspectors talk to pupils as part of case sampling, they may want to see if the school’s assessment of EAL proficiency matches with their conversations with pupils. ‘Regularly’ could be termly or annually but there is no guidance for this.
Ofsted has no requirements for the format of the proficiency assessment as long as it identifies “those at the early stages of English”. This also hasn’t been clarified by Ofsted, only that it doesn’t relate to any previous proficiency scales.
This point is presumably referring to pupils talking in English but could also refer to talking in their home language.
The toolkit doesn’t specify talk with adults or other pupils, but if pupils are withdrawn regularly for one-to-ones with an adult, or are sat on their own in lessons, inspectors might ask what opportunities pupils are being given to talk.
For some new arrivals, there may be a silent period. If a pupil is not speaking, leaders will need to draw inspectors’ attention to this if they attempt to talk to them.
The Ofsted toolkit states that “teachers [should] focus on the vocabulary pupils need, including subject-specific vocabulary, to help them understand new concepts [and] keep explanations clear and precise” and that “teachers [should] develop and extend pupils’ language carefully and deliberately, with plenty of repetition”. Unless pupils have previously studied in an English medium school abroad, they are likely to need to access key vocabulary in English. This can be accessed through bilingual dictionaries if the pupil is literate and is familiar with the term in their home language.
If it is specialist subject vocabulary they may or may not have studied the concept before, so an explanation in English and/or their home language may be necessary.
AI now has tools for pupils to hear the vocabulary and definition in their home language if they are not literate in their home language. It is important leaders know the exact language or dialect the pupil speaks, as there are many variations and some dialects are not mutually intelligible (e.g. Mandarin and Cantonese).
Teachers should remember that pupils are acquiring a new language and concepts alongside each other. There is no expectation of whether this is addressed in the mainstream classroom, in a small group during the lesson, or in additional teaching before or after the lesson.
Wherever possible, subject content should be provided in a visual and concrete way with clear explanations. The vocabulary required for the lesson cannot be changed but the teacher can consider how it is presented, in context, and with a language-friendly explanation.