In the published response to A Consultation on School Funding Reform: Proposals for a Fairer System a massive 74% of respondents argued that EAL should be a key factor in any national formula. NALDIC is delighted with this strong show of support for importance of recognising the needs of bilingual pupils.
Less unanimous was the duration of support. 30% of all respondents felt that EAL funding should not be time limited. 55% favoured some limitation of duration and the most popular option here was funding for 3 years (22% of all respondents). 10% of respondents considered EAL to be an issue that remained with children throughout their education and therefore supported a long term EAL factor which provided support throughout their school life. Respondents also suggested that although pupils were able to quickly acquire the communicative aspects of English language, they took much longer to acquire the academic language needed to succeed at higher levels, and ongoing support for this was essential.
NALDIC is keen that the government recognise that the single most popular option was not to time-limit the funding factor for EAL. In line with promises made within the consultation document, we are keen to see an expert consultation established regarding EAL funding, particularly if the intention is to include a limitation on funding duration.
The relevant section of the consultation response is reproduced below:
English as an Additional Language and Underperforming Ethnic Groups
Paragraphs 3.34 to 3.38 considers what further factors of underachievement there might be for school age pupils and proposes the inclusion of an EAL factor in a national formula.
Q16Do you agree that we should use an EAL factor in the national formula?
There were 654 responses to this question
Yes484 (74%)No116 (18%)Not Sure54 (8%)
The majority of respondents supported an EAL factor in the national formula so that the EAL needs of children were met as early and as fully as possible.Respondents also suggested that any measure introduced needed to take into account the range of different languages spoken. It was mentioned that over 300 languages were currently spoken collectively in London schools.
Some respondents commented that whilst there was a need for additional funding for EAL children in the short term, once they had become familiar with the language they did not underperform.Others suggested that EAL was only relevant if it was linked to a special educational need and that this could be more of an issue for a local formula rather than a national formula.
45 (7%) respondents considered deprivation to be a more important consideration than EAL.Whilst respondents accepted that there would be an additional cost for new arrivals who could not initially speak English, the evidence suggested that this was a short term cost and over the life of the pupil’s education would require less financial input than for other vulnerable groups. They considered that if EAL was included within the national formula it should be at a low rate and should be of short duration, reflecting a temporary rather than permanent need.
35 (5%) said that the timeframe for the provision of funding for EAL must be backed up by relevant research and be evidence based.
Q17Do you agree that this should cover the first few years only? How many years would be appropriate?
There were 623 responses to this question
Yes359 (58%)No187 (30%)Not Sure77 (12%)
The majority of respondents felt that EAL funding should be provided for the first few years only.Of those who stated a preference the best supported option was for three years as detailed in the table below.
| Years | No of Responses | |
| 1 | 5 | 1 % |
| 2 | 92 | 15 % |
| 3 | 134 | 22 % |
| 4 | 15 | 2 % |
| 5 | 42 | 7 % |
| 10 | 4 | 1 % |
61 (10%) respondents considered EAL to be an issue that remained with children throughout their education and therefore supported a long term EAL factor which provided support throughout their school life.Respondents suggested that although pupils were able to quickly acquire the communicative aspects of English language, they took much longer to acquire the academic language needed to succeed at higher levels, and ongoing support for this was essential.
52 (8%) respondents said it was important that the length of support was calculated from when a pupil first entered the school system and was not simply limited to the primary phase. It was noted that a small but significant number of pupils with EAL first entered the school system in the secondary phase and their needs should be taken into account.
