Inspection for improvement: findings from follow-through inspections of provision for English as an additional language (EAL), September – December 2024

Chapter 11 - Inspection for improvement: Findings from follow-through inspections of provision for English as an additional language (EAL), September - December 2024 (PDF)

In September and October 2023, the Inspectorate conducted eighty-three incidental inspections, in forty-seven primary schools and thirty-six post-primary schools. These inspections focused on provision for English as an additional language (EAL). The report arising from the inspections, Meeting Additional Language Needs: Whole-school and Classroom Approaches for Inclusive Language Learning,[1] was published in February 2024 and is discussed in Chapter 10 of the Inspectorate Report (2021–2023) and Thematic Review [2].

Inspectors conducted follow-through inspections in a sample of nine of the eighty-three schools: seven primary schools and two post-primary schools. These follow-through inspections were carried out between September and December 2024. A follow-though inspection evaluates the progress that a school has made in implementing recommendations made in an earlier inspection. During a follow-through inspection, inspectors also examine the process used by the school to implement the recommendations.

[1] Available at: https://assets.gov.ie/static/documents/meeting-additional-language-needs-whole-school-and-classroom-approaches-for-inclusive-.pdf

[2] Available at: https://www.gov.ie/en/department-of-education/campaigns/the-department-of-education-inspectorate-report-2021-2023-and-thematic-review/

There were thirty-one recommendations in the original inspections across the nine schools. The recommendations fell under five main themes, as outlined in Table 1.

[3] Agencies include Oide (https://oide.ie/), National Council for Special Education (https://ncse.ie/) and National Council for Curriculum and Assessment (https://ncca.ie/en/)

The Inspectorate uses a quality continuum to indicate the progress in implementing recommendations. It ranges from no progress to very good progress, as outlined in Table 2.

The findings of the follow-through inspection programme were very positive. Of the thirty-one recommendations made in the initial inspections, schools made very good progress in implementing fifteen (48%), good progress in implementing thirteen (42%) and partial progress in three (10%).

Assessment and target setting

Recommendations relating to assessment and target setting were made in all nine schools and focused on two main aspects of provision:

• the need for teachers to use assessment data to establish clear, specific targets for language acquisition for each child or young person
• the need for teachers to monitor the progress that the children and young people made in language learning and to amend targets for language acquisition accordingly

In some schools, inspectors also advised on the need to ensure that special education teachers, EAL teachers and mainstream class teachers (primary) or subject teachers (post primary) worked more closely together on assessment and target-setting. Inspectors advised teachers to consider the strengths and interests of children and young people as part of the assessment process, to use appropriate assessment tools aligned to the Common European Framework of Reference for languages (CEFR) [4], and to conduct assessments within a reasonable time frame of the child or young person’s arrival to school.

Five schools made very good progress, and four schools made good progress, in implementing recommendations relating to assessment and target setting.

In the five schools that made very good progress, a special education teacher or coordinator had taken responsibility for assessment and target setting and they supported collaboration among all teachers. All five schools also ensured that children and young people’s language skills were assessed within reasonable timeframes and that the information gathered was shared with relevant teachers. This information informed the targets in student support plans. Student support files were in place in these schools and contained targets and interventions to improve language skills. Importantly, structures were in place also to review progress in meeting targets. Four of the five schools that made very good progress were primary schools and all four schools were making use of the Primary School Assessment Kit (PSAK) [5].

The four schools where good progress was made had improved the specificity of language targets, were ensuring that student support files were in place for all children and young people in receipt of support and had broadened the assessment approaches they used. To further improve their practice, these schools were advised by inspectors in the follow-through inspections to continue improving the clarity and specificity of their targets and to use the targets to inform teaching and learning. They were also advised to gather assessment information on a more regular basis during the year.

[4] Assessments aligned with the CEFR place children and young people on a scale ranging from A1 (most basic) to C3 (native speaker fluency) across the skills of reading, writing, speaking, and listening. Additional information available at: https://www.coe.int/en/web/common-european-framework-reference-languages/level-descriptions

[5] Available at: https://ncca.ie/en/resources/primary-school-assessment-kit/

Whole-school structures to support EAL

Recommendations related to whole-school structures to support EAL were made in seven of the nine schools during the original inspections. The main advice for schools was to develop and implement whole-school approaches to EAL teaching and learning. A related recommendation was about the need for greater collaboration between special education/EAL teachers and mainstream class teachers (primary) and between special education/EAL teachers and subject teachers (post primary). Inspectors also recommended that all staff work together to create an environment where children and young people learning EAL experience a sense of belonging and feel welcome.

Six schools made very good progress and one school made good progress in implementing these recommendations. The seven schools were making children and young people’s cultural and linguistic identity visible in the school and had organised specific events to celebrate diversity. Some of the schools had devised and implemented a whole-school approach to the use of dual language texts and digital technologies to support language learning.

Two schools reviewed their provision of EAL support to ensure age-appropriate placement of children and young people. These schools also provided greater guidance to teachers on appropriate teaching and learning activities. In addition, structures to support greater collaboration between EAL teachers and mainstream teachers had been put in place in these schools. During one of the follow-through inspections, the EAL teacher pre-taught relevant vocabulary, which had been agreed in advance with the mainstream teachers. Such practice enhances the ability of the children and young people to engage in learning with their peers in the mainstream class.

The quality of teaching and learning in mainstream settings

During the original inspections, the quality of teaching and learning in mainstream settings required improvement in four of the nine schools. In these four schools, teachers were advised to use teaching approaches designed specifically to assist children and young people to develop their ability to communicate in English and to acquire the subject-specific language of the curriculum. A second, related recommendation was that teachers should ensure that children and young people learning EAL were provided with engaging and appropriately challenging learning activities.

One school made very good progress, and three schools made good progress, in implementing these recommendations. In these schools, teachers modelled and recast language and used the students’ home languages to progress understanding and linguistic awareness. In one school, teachers implemented a language ‘buddy system’ in their classes. This provided a worthwhile opportunity for children and young people learning EAL to engage with peers fluent in English and to enhance their basic communicative language and content-based language learning. In another school, teachers made very effective use of the resources of the Primary Language Curriculum [6] to inform teaching and learning.

The schools that made good progress had all taken actions to improve teaching and learning in mainstream classes. Inspectors found that, in some of these schools, there was a further need for appropriately challenging learning activities to be provided for children and young people learning EAL. In such schools, teachers were advised during the follow-through inspections to make greater use of digital technologies to support teaching and learning.

[6] Available at: https://curriculumonline.ie/primary/curriculum-areas/primary-language/

The quality of teaching and learning in support settings

Recommendations regarding the quality of teaching and learning in support settings were made in four of the nine schools during the original inspections. These recommendations focused on the need to group children and young people appropriately for support lessons and to align learning activities in support lessons with activities in mainstream classes (primary) or subject classes (post primary). In some schools, teachers were advised, during the original inspections, to make greater use of digital technologies to support learning.

Very good progress was made by one school and good progress was made by three schools. The strategies implemented by teachers in these schools included greater use of in-class support and the reduction of withdrawal support for children learning EAL. In one primary school, the EAL teachers were making greater use of the Primary Language Curriculum to inform their planning, preparation and, most importantly, their teaching. Three of these schools also introduced formal systems to facilitate discussion of EAL provision and the sharing of expertise by teachers at staff meetings. Teachers in these schools reported that this action increased their own understanding of relevant pedagogies and their capacity to use them.

A common recommendation in the follow-through inspections was for EAL teachers to collaborate more with mainstream teachers. Such collaboration is necessary for learning in support settings to complement learning in the mainstream class.

School engagement with the support services

In the original inspections, two schools were advised to engage with the support services for teachers. One of the schools was identified by the inspector as needing support in assessment. Subsequently, the principal accessed support from Oide in relation to assessment for EAL and dedicated a staff meeting to reviewing assessment practices and linking assessment with approaches to teaching and learning.

In the other school, a recommendation was made to enhance access to support for all teachers in relation to the provision of EAL. The school made good progress in implementing this recommendation with whole-school training provided to teachers by Oide. In the original inspection, this school had been advised to seek support also in relation to aligning its assessment approaches with the CEFR. Partial progress had been made in implementing this recommendation. The school had a plan in place to address this recommendation and had organised training for EAL teachers in assessment for later in the school year. At the time of the inspection, the plan was not implemented consistently by teachers and further work was required to develop the school’s assessment practices.

Maintenance of and support for home languages

Recommendations in relation to the maintenance of, and support for, home languages were made in two schools during the original inspections. These schools were advised of the importance of children and young people’s home languages to their learning experiences. The schools were also advised to agree a whole-school approach to the inclusion of home languages and to the development of cultural and linguistic awareness.

One school had made very good progress in implementing this recommendation. It had devised a home languages policy and, importantly, teachers were implementing the agreed approaches in their classroom practice. The school also made significant progress in strengthening links with parents. For example, information sheets written in the home languages of the children were shared with parents, and the principal had begun consultation with parents about how to support their children’s learning in subjects such as Social, Personal and Health Education (SPHE) and Mathematics. Teachers in this school also facilitated parent-teacher meetings in the accommodation centres for families from Ukraine.

The second school had made partial progress in implementing the recommendation. This partial progress included the incidental use of translation by children to support each other, a language buddy system for children in senior classes and the availability of reading materials reflecting a range of cultures. However, during the lessons observed, there were few references to, or use of, children’s home languages. There were limited displays or signage of a multi-cultural nature in the classrooms visited or on school corridors. The school was advised to further support children to use their home language to assist them in learning English and Irish as additional languages.

During the follow-through inspection, inspectors enquired into the processes the nine schools used to implement the recommendations arising from the original inspections. There were four common elements:

• clearly-defined leadership responsibilities
• a whole-school review of current provision
• a whole-school approach to improvement
• opportunities for teachers to work together and to engage in professional learning

In all nine schools, a specific teacher had a leadership role in relation to implementing the recommendations. In five schools, the principal fulfilled this role; in other schools, the deputy principal, a special education teacher or an EAL teacher had this role. In almost all schools, the teacher leading the implementation of the inspection recommendations had initiated a review of the whole-school provision for EAL, rather than focussing exclusively on implementing each specific recommendation. Principals reported that, in addition to impacting positively on the implementation of the recommendations, the whole-school review led to a much greater understanding of language-based teaching approaches and relevant assessment strategies across the school.

Five schools reported that increased opportunities for professional dialogue and sharing of expertise at staff meetings supported them in both implementing the recommendations and in improving overall provision for EAL. An important aspect of this teacher professional dialogue was the range of opportunities it provided for increased collaboration between mainstream and special education teachers. Six of the nine schools participated in relevant professional learning with the support services and all six reported that this engagement led to improvements in their practices. One school described its participation in an EAL-based Léargas project [7] positively as it provided opportunities for professional collaboration among teachers and innovative learning experiences for the children.

All schools reported that the implementation of whole-school approaches to EAL provision resulted in all teachers assuming some responsibility for EAL teaching and learning. EAL provision was no longer regarded as the preserve of one or two teachers; it was now understood as a whole-school responsibility. There was greater understanding across all teachers of the significance of home languages to the life of a child. Principals reported that their staff now appreciated how universally fostering cultural and linguistic awareness supported improved learning outcomes and experiences and a plurilingual and inclusive school culture.

[7] This was an e-Twining Arts-based project exploring EAL themes, such as migration and communication, through art, drama and music.

School self-evaluation (SSE) is an internal process in which a school actively outlines and evaluates its own performance [8]. In Ireland, SSE is designed as a process of collaborative, internal school review that is focused on school improvement [9]. External evaluation in Ireland is also fundamentally about bringing about improvement in the quality of education provision for children and young people [10]. As the Inspectorate Report (2021 – 2023) and Thematic Review [11] notes, a quality assurance system that combines both SSE and external evaluation can be a powerful agent of improvement. Combined with this is the role of the teacher support services; Oide and the National Council for Special Education (NCSE) are key dimensions of the architecture of oversight and support for quality education in Ireland.

This chapter highlights, in a practical way, how the external perspective of evaluation combined with the collective work of the school community can bring about improvements in the quality of provision for children and young people. All nine schools that were inspected as part of the follow-through inspection programme engaged with the recommendations made during the initial inspections. Importantly, all nine schools made progress in implementing the recommendations and six of the schools (66.6%) made either good or very good progress in implementing all of the recommendations.

The findings of this follow-through inspection programme also highlight the processes used by the schools to improve their provision. These processes involved clearly defined leadership roles, a review of existing provision and a whole-school approach to improvement. They also included opportunities for professional collaboration and teacher professional learning (TPL), supported by Oide.

The Inspectorate shares a common objective with school leaders, teachers and all education stakeholders: to improve the learning and life experiences of all children and young people. The findings from the follow-through inspection programme of provision for EAL demonstrate that the collective work of key elements of the quality assurance system— schools, the Inspectorate and teacher support services—can lead to real improvements in teaching practices and in the outcomes attained by children and young people.

[8] Fadder, J., Vanhoof, J. and De Maeyer, S. (2018). School self-evaluation: self-perception or self-deception? The impact of motivation and socially desirable responding on self-evaluation results. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 29(4), 660-678.

[9] Available at: https://www.gov.ie/en/department-of-education/circulars/school-self-evaluation-next-steps-september-2022-june-2026/ p. 3

[10] Available at: https://www.gov.ie/en/department-of-education/publications/inspectorate-strategic-plan-2021-2024/

[11] Available at: https://www.gov.ie/en/department-of-education/campaigns/the-department-of-education-inspectorate-report-2021-2023-and-thematic-review/