A powerful picture of life in the banlieue, told with some pride. Thought-provoking.
Posted at 05:11 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)
Posted at 05:06 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)
Many thanks to friend and colleague José Picardo of Nottingham High school for Boys for permission to use this list. It will act as a reference point for a chapter I'm writing for a book on MFL and special needs.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
N
O
P
Q
R
S
T
U
V
W
X
Y
Z
Posted at 03:48 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)
This is an inriguing short that turns out to be quite a difficult watch. How could it be exploited linguistically with a Y12 or Y13 group? A réfléchir...
Posted at 05:29 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)
Posted at 05:16 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)
So, he's finally come out and said something positive about primary languages. Well two cheers, Michael, because I simply won't believe it until I see it. I don't think you understand the level of damage you caused when you binned the Rose Review wholesale. This decision created uncertainty, and in that climate schools that were conscripts rather than volunteers had an excuse to slide languages down the list of priorities. I also don't think you appreciate the level of funding and support that will be necessary just to put us back where we were 18 months ago.
Furthermore, I don't think you understand that as a result of the effects of some of your other policies and those of your colleague George Osborne, a whole cadre of highly gifted and totally dedicated practitioners have lost their jobs, so the personnel required to encourage, support, advise and yes, in some cases cajole schools are no longer there.
This is further compounded by your inability to acknowledge that the success of the primary languages initiative thus far is due in no small part to the serious level of investment made by the previous administration through the Primary Strategy. This took us from 22% of schools offering languages in 2002 to 94% in 2009. We know there were problems of quality and consistency, and there were issues to resolve such as progression, assessment and transition. Had Rose, or at least the languages element of it, become statutory this year, we would be well on the way. We had a plan and a timescale, and you trashed them in 2010 with your summary execution of Rose. Talk about babies and bathwater. It wasn't broken - why did you have to "fix" it?
If you are indeed serious about this, be aware that it won't happen without significant levels of funding to support linguistic upskilling, pedagogical training, ITT development and appropriate resourcing in schools. In the current climate, I am less than sanguine about that.
Posted at 08:54 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)
You may have missed this - it closed yesterday. The National Association of Language Advisers (NALA) put together a submission for the consultation, the text of which appears below. ALL have made a similar submission, and I'm aware that colleagues have posted on the Linguanet forum. Let me know if you have any thoughts.
"We agree with Professor Wolf’s assessment that it is more than ever vital that pupils acquire a wide set of skills during their time in education. However, whereas we can appreciate the thinking behind these proposals, they are problematic when applied to languages in the present situation, particularly as we understand the Government regards languages as essential to allowing our students to become European and global citizens.
Many popular MFL qualifications will be excluded from performance tables meaning that schools are unlikely to continue to use them and pupils who are currently able to access a language and have that language learning rewarded, will no longer have the opportunity to do so. Another problem for languages is the proposed requirement for "clear synoptic elements", given that language qualifications, including GCSE, assess each skill area separately.
The Language Trends Survey 2010 has shown that accreditation, alternative to GCSE has been used in schools particularly since languages ceased to be compulsory in 2004. The percentage of schools offering alternatives to GCSE and A Level in the maintained sector rose from 22% in 2006 to 45% in 2010 and from 8% to 24% in the independent sector.
Evidence shows that alternative accreditation is not being used merely as a way of improving performance tables, but to boost actual performance and motivation, particularly for male students who are often not motivated by languages. It offers learners who prefer a more practical approach to learning the opportunity to achieve and enjoy language learning.
Teachers tell us that alternative qualifications make language learning more attractive to weaker pupils, and are helping pupils to succeed where they might not have done at GCSE. This is largely because of the focus on practical skills, the relevance to the world of work as well as the pupil’s own interests, and the assessment methods which put pupils in charge of their own progress.
Assessment systems for languages, whether studied via a vocational or an academic route, should share a common spine or point of reference which is understood by employers, HE and teachers across different sectors of education. The Languages Ladder, and the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages, to which it refers, provide a useful basis for this.
There is sometimes an assumption that alternatives to GCSE are not rigorous and only teach pupils to produce phrasebook language. Whilst this can occur with any qualification if taught badly, including GCSE, it is a mistaken perception that alternative accreditations have no rigour. Vocational language qualifications such as NVQ languages and ABC awards are based on National Occupational Standards (NOS), and have been specifically developed to meet the needs of employers. The assessment criteria include distinct grammatical and linguistic features which have to be met. For example, at Level 2 in both speaking and writing, pupils have to be assessed on being able to use past, present and future tenses, issue instructions, ask for permission, express feelings and opinions, use connectors and express negative as well as positive forms. Evidence produced by pupils has to be both internally as well as externally verified by the Awarding Bodies. Pupils must achieve in all four skills to gain a Level 2 qualification and for the qualification to be counted in performance tables. Asset language qualifications are set and assessed externally by the Awarding Body. Under the current proposals these may not count as they are not "GCSE sized" .
MFL is unusual in having so many smaller, bite-size qualifications which were developed specifically to encourage schools to include MFL in pupils' KS4 curriculum, even if they do not take a full GCSE size qualification and this may be particularly harmful for second foreign languages.
Finally there is the issue of less widely taught languages for which there may not be a GCSE, although there are Asset Languages qualifications available in these languages (e.g. Hindi, Somali, Tamil).
We feel strongly that as wide a range of languages as possible should be available, i.e. wider than the current range of GCSE MFL qualifications. Past experience has shown that awarding organisations will not voluntarily develop GCSEs in additional languages and hence the development of Asset Languages. It would be wrong to exclude the alternative qualifications developed to meet this minority demand.
All the work done in the last 6 to 8 years to broaden curriculum offer and encourage more pupils into language learning already risks being undone completely by the EBacc and its narrow adherence to a "one-size-fits-all" qualification structure. In our experience, if the qualification doesn’t count for the league tables, it won't be on the curriculum thus denying large numbers of pupils a coherent, progressive and worthwhile language learning experience, albeit in a different format to GCSE. We need a system that encourages high quality vocational qualifications – and we need them to be recognised in all performance measures.
We agree with Tim Oates’ statement that “assessment processes of greater validity and which have beneficial wash back into learning are essential if assessment is to drive learning in a beneficial manner”.
Posted at 07:59 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)
Oh, the magic of Twitter! Following up a tweet from @rubiales62, which led me to http://ictmagic.wikispaces.com/%2ARecently+Added, I scrolled through the wiki and found this:
http://www.starwars.com/games/playnow/crawl_creator/
It allows students to input 41 lines of text which then appear on screen in the classic "Star Wars Crawl" mode, to the accompaniment of the theme music! How cool is that! What a neat way to practise some key language in preparation for controlled assessment! Go on - have a play - you know you want to!
Posted at 08:03 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)