I hear this a lot during my interviews for EAL teaching/leadership roles. It’s in response to my question about which EAL assessment tool(s) the school use and *the extent to which they are embedded*.
I love the honest responses from leaders. Recent ‘journeys in EAL assessment’ I’ve heard from international schools include:
- one school in which all teachers in the primary phase are responsible for implementing the Bell Framework to assess the language development of EAL learners. A collective endeavour, shared purpose, and a team upskilling together
- another school in which EAL-specific assessment tools are implemented solely by the EAL team, but there’s desire among SLT for wider integration
- a school in which the WIDA journey has ended. They’re going back to CEFR and a coursebook-driven support programme.
- a school in which the WIDA screener is part of admissions, but day-to-day use of the assessment tracker needs some embedding.
And so on. It’s fascinating to hear leaders sharing their experiences and challenges, real food for thought.
Reflections
Here are some reflections I’ve had based on what I’ve heard:
• Onboarding all teaching staff across a phase to use Bell – that sounds amazing! I wonder what the ‘teacher voice’ take is on that. Workload required vs benefit for teachers and learners, etc? I wish I’d asked.
• Using CEFR-aligned coursebooks for EAL pull-out provision: which books out there are building skills in mediation and plurilingual/pluricultural competence? And which books equip learners enough to be mainstream-curriculum-ready when/if they ‘exit EAL’? Books of choice often seem to be NGL Lift or Cambridge Global English – they seem quite different in what they set out to achieve.
• When the EAL team take almost full responsibility for EAL assessment, how is the data being communicated/explained to teachers? What actions (if any) would a subject teacher in the school be likely to undertake if a member of the EAL team said to them something like ‘that learner is working at Bell C / WIDA 4 / around CEFR B1 etc blah blah’?
As expected
So far, none of these assessment ‘journeys’ I’ve heard about have seemed misplaced/negative/undesirable – it’s all about context of course. Top-down ‘we need a tighter syllabus quickly because BSO/COBIS/ISQM are coming!’ contexts might lead to coursebook-driven provision as a quick fix. Whole-staff pushback on embedding EAL assessment across the school might lead to siloed use of certain tools. This is not a critique, it’s more of a pondering.
Other ‘journeys’ in EAL provision
Another common ‘we’re on a journey’ that I come across in these interviews relates to continuity and alignment. Across the last couple of recruitment rounds for me, I’ve heard about:
- schools that are using different EAL assessment tools across different phases and are on a journey to fix this
- schools that are noticing real challenges in the way EAL transitions are handled across key stages
- schools that have embedded great EAL provision at one phase (usually primary!), but provision at other phases is not on par.
Based on my experiences of ISQM and BSO, it feels like continuity for the learner journey is on the agenda for inspectors. Every international school and their mascot are going through some sort of accreditation process at the moment – maybe that’s why schools seem to be focusing more on smooth transitions, alignment across phases, etc. This time around, two schools I’ve interviewed with have mentioned how they are looking for their literacy leads to work closely across KS2 and KS3, and for EAL coordinators across these stages to collaborate closely. It seems there’s some whole-school thinking going on out there!
Has the journey been rerouted for intensive ‘programmes’?
During recent interviews, talk of ‘accelerated/intensive programmes’ has been conspicuous in its absence. Back in 2022 when I was interviewing for Head of EAL roles, it felt like there was a post-COVID panic over drops in student numbers. The solution for some schools was to accept more learners with emerging or developing English proficiency levels. Once they were in, it was *then* the time to provide for them, and intensive programmes became the EAL buzzword of 2022/23.
What’s been interesting during this latest round of interviews is that there seems to be more talk of (considered) ‘pathways’ than (panicky) ‘programmes’ for ‘learners whose English is perhaps not at the level just yet to fully access our curriculum’. What was a reaction or sticking plaster in 2022 seems a real opportunity for school growth in 2026. With that, is the narrative surrounding EAL learners shifting? I’m making big assumptions here on the basis of a handful of interviews of course, but something feels different. Are the deficit viewers out there softening, as providing for EAL learners becomes more and more important for schools to survive in the competitive marketplace?
Bit of a cynical take to say the narrative shift is driven by profit. I should probably rephrase that. Consider this a raw take!
Practical considerations for a job seeker
It seems like I’ll be hard-pressed to find a school that feels they have a good handle on EAL assessment practices, phase transitions, and whole-school alignment of EAL provision. That’s fine, and it would be in my remit to help develop provision in those areas as needed.
Typical questions I ask at interview relate to the school development plan, department priorities/targets, and pathways for progression. What I normally forget to ask is ‘when’s the next inspection?’. I should definitely find that out, as it would have a huge impact on whether the department focus at that time is likely on development/growth or consolidation/gap-plugging. I can’t believe I’ve never asked – it’s probably because I get too bound up in shooting the EAL breeze about assessment tools!
There are plenty of new startup schools in Bangkok where the journey is just beginning. I can’t deny it’s tempting to establish another department. But then after a year or so I’ll be guy interviewing people saying ‘we’re on a journey with…’ and some annoyingly rambly and long-winded blogger will be writing about me. Sounds like a fun journey though!
Image: Matt Foxx on unsplash
Categories: General, reflections
ELT Planning 
…let’s through a whirligig into the soup…
All of this talk about journeys, pathways and tools sometimes makes me think that there are too many cooks. These discussions often trickle down from senior leadership, who may not have ‘expertise’ in SLA/MLLs and, like you say, are maybe in response to upcoming visits (read ‘inspections’). Aren’t we in danger of neglecting the actual teaching/learning of these students? What to teach? When to teach? Where to teach? Who to teach? How to teach? These questions feel much more important than ‘How do we assess?’ and ‘What’s their language pathway?’
As a school (Snr) we are looking into the teaching of Reading at the moment: the PRACTICE of teaching. The research and publications around this topic are everywhere but they do at least usually always mention or suggest classroom strategies. I kind of think the time is coming when EAL needs to do the same.
I may be missing a few boats here – I’m not one to scour the online world for papers, podcasts and seminars – but from where I’m sitting, I would really like to talk about HOW and WHAT we teach a wee bit more.
-P (Long Time Teacher – First Time Caller)
PS: Good luck with job-seeking!
LikeLiked by 1 person
Hi P, cheers for commenting! You wading through the soup to get to comments box – that’s a rarity for my readers! Haha
Yeah definitely agree – in many cases there are too many cooks and that is doubly difficult when level of expertise is mixed. Things worked well in my last role at the leaders were like ‘you’re the EAL experts, we trust you, build what’s needed’. Sure, there were some constraints, but not a firm hand from an above at all.
‘Aren’t we in danger of neglecting the actual teaching/learning of these students?… These questions feel much more important than ‘How do we assess?’ and ‘What’s their language pathway?’
Yeah I totally get that. Not a plug here, honest, but that’s why Adri Szlapak and I chose to write a practical book on classroom strategies to support in such contexts. Rather than talk constantly about overriding aspects of provision, teachers need more ‘this is what to do and how to do it’.
But I’ve got two hats on here – I’m a teacher first and foremost, but I’ve also dipped my toe into middle leadership and building an EAL dept. I’d say that the practical stuff has to come first as there is an immediate need for all (teachers AND learners). Around that, we do need principles underpinning what we do, a clear model of provision, etc. it’s not a one or the other thing. That said, my post above definitely makes it sound like I’m more concerned with certain broader structures rather than the day to day. Good point noted.
The focus on the practice of teaching reading sounds awesome. While I did harp on about assessment, it’s worth mentioning that the Bell Framework is very action-oriented, and the organization provides lots of practical tips and strategies for reading and viewing too. Have you ever checked out the free webinars, etc? If not, worth a look. I watched one on annotating texts the other day that had some good practical tips.
‘I would really like to talk about HOW and WHAT we teach a wee bit more.’
I’m happy to share ideas for reading strategies if needed. I can photocopy a chapter on it from our book if you think it will be useful.
Cheers again for your thoughts – great to get some new insights 🙂
LikeLike