“PASSING THE BUCK”: LOCAL SCHOOLS, LOCAL DECISIONS AND ENGLISH AS A SECOND LANGUAGE (ESL) EDUCATION IN NSW GOVERNMENT SCHOOLS

A Draft Report from the NSW ESL and Refugee Education Working Party

Contents Glossary 3

Executive Summary 4

1. Introduction 7

2. The Students and their Needs: Scale and Distribution of ESL 9

3. Learner Outcomes from the ESL Program 10

4. ESL: An Evidence-Based Program 13

5. The ‘Invisible’ Tail of ESL: Disaggregating Data and Identifying Needs 15

6. School-based Management and Equity: Review of risks and evidence 18

6.1. ESL student needs and specialist ESL teachers 18

6.2. Brokered school-based ESL professional support 20

6.3. Accountability for ESL program planning, provision and outcomes 23

7. Conclusion 27

3

Glossary

BICS and CALP: Basic Interpersonal Communicative Skills (BICS) is the term for conversation fluency in English that takes about one to two years to develop. Cognitive Academic Language Proficiency (CALP) refers to formal, academic English that takes 5 to 7 years to develop and longer if learners do not have much education in their first language. The research into BICS and CALP is evidence for the continuing support for ESL students and explains why learners with fluency in everyday English can have their language needs misdiagnosed.

EAL/D: English as an Additional Language or Dialect is the current term for those learning English in Australia who use a language other than standard English at home.

ESL: English as a Second Language is the term used to describe learners from Language Background other than English who are acquiring English as their second ot other additional language. It also describes the program of teaching for these learners.

LBOTE (Language Background other than English): refers to people in whose home a language other than English is spoken.

PHASES OF ESL: The category used In the NSW ESL Program to identify a broad stage of ESL learning and degree of ESL learning need, ESL students are identified as being in one of three phases; first phase approximating in the first year of ESL learning; second phase, between two to five years; and third phase, more than five years.

4

Executive Summary

NSW continues to receive the largest share of the nation’s immigration intake. As a result, the NSW Government school system has more ESL students than all other state school systems in Australia put together. There are 136,000 migrant and refugee children (18% of students) including 5,600 refugee students and between 6500 to 7500 newly-arrived currently in need of ESL instruction each year from some 1600 specialist ESL teachers in NSW Government schools. The NSW ESL Program has become a world-class provision, central to achieving the Government’s multicultural access and equity obligations in education.

Under Local Schools Local Decisions, the NSW Department of Education and Communities is dismantling the state wide infrastructure that has supported delivery of ESL services to hundreds of thousands of migrant and refugee students and handing over responsibility for the funding and provision of ESL services to school principals.

The report draws attention to the change from the existing targeted, needs-based program support model to student-based funding under the Resource Allocation Model (RAM). This new model, rolls ESL Program funding for the state-wide pool of 896 ESL teacher positions and 32 frontline consultants into untied ‘flexible’ equity funding to schools. Under this new system, specific-purpose ESL teaching positions are lost and there is no guarantee of specialist teachers continuing. ESL funding therefore is no longer identifiable accountable, or related to direct support to the ESL student target group,.

The report highlights how this policy direction runs completely counter international research on second language acquisition and effective educational system responses to meeting the needs of ESL students. The current ESL program model in NSW Government schools is consistent with findings of large scale, international studies on the school-based learning outcomes of immigrant language minority students in OECD countries. These studies have confirmed that, while it may take about 2 years to achieve basic conversational fluency in spoken English, students typically require a minimum of 5 to 7 years of English language and literacy support in order to close the gap in academic performance with their English speaking peers. For refugee and other students with disrupted education and limited literacy skills in their own language, a significantly longer period of support is usually required.

International research also highlights the failure of devolved education systems to meet the challenge of growing linguistic diversity. Evidence from the UK and US indicates that ESL learners lose out in the shift to flexible, bulk funding regimes. Victoria also provides lesson in how school-based management policy, without adequate safeguards and support, erodes the provision and quality of ESL teaching. By contrast, research on effective responses by devolved education systems to growing linguistic diversity emphasises the critical role that district level systems of ESL professional support and leadership play in enabling schools to systematically address the needs of their ESL students.

5

In devolving the ESL Program, the NSW Government is taking a high risk strategy by ‘passing the ESL buck’ on to schools. The NSW devolution policy is the last stage in a long history of ‘buck passing’ of responsibility for ESL provision by both Commonwealth and state governments. The end result of these policy changes is that both federal and state governments have walked away from their national and state responsibilities for ESL education and shifted the full burden for this provision to school principals and the local community.

The dismantling of ESL provision also undermines government capacity to meet its commitment, under the agreed National School Improvement Plan, to improve the learning outcomes of all students. The continuing diversity impact of Australia’s ongoing immigration on the NSW school population requires whole system planning, monitoring and evaluation of ESL services. The absence of such processes in the implementation of Local Schools, Local Decisions means that ESL education in NSW is being ‘left to chance’. The report findings present a fundamental policy choice for Government - whether to preserve the program and its benefits for migrant and refugee students in NSW Government schools, or to allow continued erosion of the program, its professional support structures and student learning outcomes.

Recommendations

It is recommended that;

1. the 32 frontline Multicultural/ESL consultancy, Refugee and Community Information Officer positions axed in the Department restructure be incorporated into the new model of support to schools

2. ESL resources be allocated to schools as an identified funding stream within the RAM with the national English as an Additional Language/Dialect (EAL/D) Learning Progression being adopted as the ESL need assessment measure replacing the existing ESL phase categories, and effectiveness criteria of the current ESL staffing process applied as part of the implementation of the equity loading component within the RAM;

3. the NSW Government ensure that all funds generated through the RAM on the basis of NSW English language proficiency need factor are directed to the provision of English language services for the ESL learner target group in NSW Government schools.

4. the Department consult with key community interest groups in its development of allocation mechanisms for ESL and equity funds within the RAM.

6

5. the Minister ensure the development of a specific accountability framework that guarantees tagged positions for qualified ESL teachers and ongoing provision of effective ESL services;

6. current ESL allocation and staffing arrangements continue until detailed implementation plans for the incorporation of ESL funding within the RAM are completed

7. schools be informed of these transition arrangements, including their 2014 ESL staffing entitlement based on current determination from ESL survey information and that ESL teachers will continue to be employed in schools throughout 2014 according to their current ESL staffing entitlement

8. the NSW Government establish a formal process involving community stakeholders to monitor, evaluate and report on the use of ESL services during the first five years of LSLD implementation.

7

1. Introduction

The ESL Program in NSW aims to meet the educational needs of students learning English as an additional language or dialect. The program began in 1969 in NSW government schools after pressure from school principals and parent bodies. There are 136,000 migrant and refugee children (18% of students) currently requiring ESL instruction1 each year from some 1600 specialist ESL teachers in NSW Government schools. The NSW ESL Program has become a world-class provision, playing a central role in achieving the Government’s multicultural access and equity obligations in education.

With increasing global mobility and migration, second language programs operate internationally. Traditional countries of emigration such as Italy, Greece, Korea and Japan now have their own second language programs. The UK, Canada, New Zealand and the US all have long-standing and large programs. Hundreds of thousands of refugee and migrant students have received support through the program, which is recognized internationally as a highly successful model developed over decades in response to the language and learning needs of migrant and refugee students.

Since incorporation of the remaining intensive ESL New Arrivals component of the ESL Program into general education funding for state government schools by the Rudd Labor Government in 2008, the NSW Government has assumed full, devolved responsibility for the English language education of immigrant and refugee students enrolled in NSW public schools.

NSW Government’s sign-up to the Commonwealth Government’s National Schools Plan entails commitment to ambitious performance targets related to benchmarks set by the highest performing education systems, Shanghai, Finland and Hong Kong2. This commitment is being undertaken off the back of Australia’s stalled or slipping performance, over the last decade, on international tests of reading, mathematics and science, as well as on national tests of literacy and numeracy3. These results, showing sustained gaps in the performance of different student groups, have persisted despite increased investment in education and in the context of school devolution and choice policies accompanied by increased social stratification of schooling.

In this context, the success of reform efforts aimed at improving the outcomes of schooling can only come from a whole-of-system strategy of raising the performance of all students while at the same time reducing the ‘long tail’ of underperformance associated with learning

1 This figure consists of 86,000 students currently receiving support and an additional 50,000 identified as needing but not receiving ESL support. See Vinson, T. (2007). Dropping off the edge: The distribution of disadvantage in Australia, Jesuit and Catholic Social Services: Melbourne. 2 Nous Group (2011) Schooling Challenges and Opportunities: A Report for the Review of

Funding for Schooling Panel. p.47 3 Jensen, B. (2012) Catching up: Learning from the best school systems in East Asia,Report from the Grattan Institute. Victoria.

8

environments of entrenched or concentrated social and educational disadvantage4. The success of the government’s education reform efforts therefore crucially depends on its success in developing a high performance/high equity education system able to transform these learning environments, including those where ESL learners comprise a significant proportion of the student population.

Under its Local Schools Local Decision-making (LSLD) reform program, the NSW Government is looking to devolved school-based management structures and processes to deliver such a system and improve the learning outcomes of all students. Claims that devolved school-based decision making leads to improved learning for all students, however, are not well-supported by experience or research on school autonomy. The balance of evidence indicates, rather, that such structure-oriented governance changes do not effect improvements in student learning per se, but that successful education reform, whether devolutionary or otherwise, crucially depends on the quality of teaching and its leadership at both school and system levels.

To date, the NSW Department of Education and Communities’ (DEC) progress in designing a high performance/high equity education system has not been promising. On the equity side of the equation, LSLD implementation has sidelined and damaged the state’s cornerstone program designed to meet the English learning needs of immigrant and refugee students – the ESL Program. Staff cuts to DEC’s Multicultural Programs unit; imminent termination of all regional Multicultural ESL professional support to schools; and new resource allocation mechanisms are destroying the systemic structures on which specific-purpose ESL provision for immigrant and refugee students is built.

This report argues that the NSW Department of Education and Communities’ (DEC) ESL Program is a strategic state resource essential to achieving NSW Government’s educational reform. This asset needs from the outset to be strengthened and maximized in the design, planning and implementation of the reform, if public education in NSW is to move towards becoming a high performance/ high equity system. The alternative is to continue along the present path of sidelining and eroding the ESL Program support structures and risk undermining the reform effort as whole. This is the fundamental policy choice now facing the Minister for Education.

4 Nous Group (2011) Schooling Challenges and Opportunities: A Report for the Review of

Funding for Schooling Panel. p.50

9

2. The Students and their Needs: Scale and Distribution of ESL

NSW is Australia’s main provider of ESL education. Over the last six decades, Australia’s immigration program has shaped the increasing cultural and linguistic diversity of the NSW population, with NSW continuing to receive the largest share of the nation’s immigration intake. In 2012, NSW remained the most popular destination for new migrants, receiving 70,025 new settlers or 28.9 per cent share of all migrants to Australia5. In the same year, approximately 230,000 students with language backgrounds other than English (LBOTE) were enrolled in NSW government schools, comprising over 30 per cent of total enrolments6.

These numbers increase each year by between 6,500 and 7,500 newly arrived students (including up to 1,500 refugees) requiring ESL support. In addition, each year, many Australian-born students from Languages backgrounds other than English (LBOTE) enter kindergarten requiring ESL support. In 2012, teachers in prior-to-school settings reported 41,506 children speaking English as a second language (ESL) and an additional 13,983 children speaking languages other than English in the home (i.e. not reported as ESL). This makes the full cohort of children with language backgrounds other than English 55,489 (19.1 per cent of all children).7. As a result of these trends, the NSW government school system has the highest enrolment of migrant and refugee students of all states and systems in Australia and more ESL students than all other state school systems combined; with three times the number in Victoria, and over ten times South Australia’s.

ESL need is unevenly distributed in schools due to patterns of cumulative settlement and enrolment. Concentrations of ESL need comprise a significant linguistic component of entrenched educational disadvantage in disadvantaged schools and regions, and is a ‘hidden contributor’ to student literacy underperformance in these contexts8. In such settings, ESL need is more than an individual or target group attribute but aggregates as a school-wide environmental disadvantage factor.9 Currently, there are many NSW Government primary and secondary schools in the Sydney metropolitan area with between 90% and 100% ESL student enrolment and an estimated 200 schools with more than fifty cent of the school population is assessed as having ESL learning needs. On the other hand about one half of schools have fewer than 10% of students in need of ESL support: it is often these schools where students tend to be less visible and schools have fewer resources to meet their needs.

5 Department of Immigration and Citizenship (2013) Migration to Australia’s States and Territories 2011-2012, Australian Government.

6 NSW DEC, Centre for Educational Statistics and Evaluation (2013). Language Diversity in NSW Government Schools 2012. Sydney: DEC.

7 Royal Children’s Hospital Melbourne (2012). AEDI Index - A Snapshot of Early Childhood Development in Australian 2012: Early Development National Report. DEEWR: Canberra.

8 Hidden as a yet-to-be disaggregated subgroup within the LBOTE category

9 Rothman, S. & McMillan, J. (2003):Influences on Achievement in Literacy and Numeracy. Longitudinal Surveys of Australian Youth. Research Report 36. Australian Council for Educational Research. p. 33

10

Refugee students comprise a particular subgroup the ESL student target group whose disrupted personal, social and educational lives necessitate high and sustained levels of support to access and benefit from schooling. The support required not only includes initial intensive and continuing ESL assistance but also the coordinated provision of counselling, welfare and other local school community services. The relative educational disadvantage for these students has been estimated as having a negative impact on performance of -0.463 (or 3 quarters of a performance band on NAPLAN), comparable with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander students, and -1.807 (or 3 performance bands on NAPLAN) for a newly arrived refugee student10. If the number of refugee students increases in 2013/14 as a result of the previous Commonwealth Government’s decision to increase the number of refugee places from 13,500 to 20,000, NSW will receive approximately 80 per cent of these humanitarian entrants.

International students also make significant demands on ESL services. On arrival enrolment of international students in Intensive English Centres flows through into demands for assistance from existing ESL provision, particularly in the senior years. The effective operation of the Department’s International Student Program relies on a strong infrastructure of targeted ESL support in schools. As international student enrolments are particularly sensitive to exchange-rate fluctuations, current demand for ESL services from 3,300 international students and 12,325 temporary visa holders in 201211 can be expected to rise in coming years with increased growth following recent revaluation of the Australian dollar.

The existing cultural and linguistic diversity of NSW means that ESL learners will continue to be a significant component of the student population in the early years of schooling. In the coming decade, immigration will form an increasing proportion of Australia’s population growth12 while international crises will continue to put pressure on Australia’s refugee and humanitarian intakes. To meet this ESL demographic challenge, building education system capacity and responsiveness through maintaining and developing a strong statewide ESL support infrastructure has been essential.

3. Learner Outcomes from the ESL Program

Australia is the only OECD country where first- and second-generation refugee and migrant children score above the average on international PISA Reading test scores. It is also the

10 Nous Group (2011) Schooling Challenges and Opportunities: A Report for the Review of Funding for Schooling Panel. p. 73

11 DET International. (2013). 2012 Annual Report: DEC International. DEC: Sydney

12 Cully, M. & Pejoski, L. (2012) Australia unbound? Migration, openness and population futures.

In; A Greater Australia: Population, policies and governance Committee for Economic

Development. p. 70.

11

only OECD country where the school educational outcomes of second migrant children exceed that of the first generation13. Although one contributor to this outcome is the SES of Australian immigrants this outcome can be largely attributed to the ‘coherent infrastructure’ of ESL teaching support that has been provided in Australian education systems over the last few decades14.

The DEC NAPLAN outcomes data reports15, disaggregated by ESL students according to three phases of English learning16, show significant literacy and numeracy gains among the second phase learner cohort in years 3, 5 7 and 9 in all school regions from 2009-2012. They also show the third phase ESL learner cohort achieving parity with, or exceeding, the performance of their English-speaking grade peers in years 5, 7 and 9 in all regions. These results indicate that, during this period, the ESL student target group overall was making consistent progress in social and academic English learning across the learning phases from their new arrivals beginnings and was successful in bridging the school language and literacy gap within the crucial 5 to 7 year language acquisition period.

These outcomes have been achieved in the context of a comprehensive system of support in the areas of targeted ESL resource allocation, standards-referenced ESL curriculum and

13 OECD. (2012). Equity and Quality in Education: Supporting disadvantaged students in schools, OECD: Paris.

14 Cummins, J., Mirza, R. & Stille, S. (2012) English language learners in Canadian Schools: Emerging directions for school-based policies, TESL Canada Journal, 29, 6, 25-48.

15 DEC SMART data

16 see glossary

12

assessment, and ESL professional support that has underpinned the effective state wide operation of the ESL Program. Such cross-school ‘systems of support’ have been identified in US research as essential for the provision effective services for English language learners in devolved education systems17.

17 Elfers, A., Stritikus, T., Calaff, K., Von Esch, K., Lucero, A., Knapp, M., & Plecki, M. (2009). Building systems of support for classroom teachers working with second language learners: A report prepared for the Center for strengthening the teaching profession. Seattle: University of Washington, College of Education. Retrieved 2014 from http://depts.washington.edu/ctpmail/PDFs/ELL.Study-July2009.pdf.

Elfers, A, & Stritikus, T. (2013) .How school and district leaders support classroom teachers’ work with English language learners, Educational Administration Quarterly, 20(10), 1-40.

Horwitz, A., Price-Baugh, R., Simon, C., Uzzel, R., Lewis, S., & Casserly, M. (2009)> Succeeding with English Language Learners: Lessons Learned from the Great City Schools. Council of the Great City Schools: Washington DC.

13

4. ESL: An Evidence-Based Program

The key features of effective ESL programs in schooling systems have been identified by key important international studies into the educational outcomes of immigrant language minority students.18 These studies have become the main evidence base informing development of ESL programs in the US, Canada, the UK, New Zealand and Australia. Examining data on student achievement and program comparison from some 900,000 students over the period 1982–2001, the studies identified three key predictors of academic success for ESL students which were stronger than SES or gender variables. Academic success was defined as 'ESL students reaching full educational parity with native English speakers in all school content subjects (not just in English proficiency) after a period of at least 5-6 years'19. The 2002 Thomas & Collier study found that there were three key interlinked factors that predicted high educational outcomes for ESL students. These were:

• continuing specialist support in English and their first language where possible, involving 'cognitively complex academic instruction through the students' first language for as long as possible' and 'cognitively complex academic instruction through English for part of the school day'

• interactive and engaging classroom language-based teaching and learning involving communicative teaching/learning strategies and the teaching of language through content.

• school executive and teachers who were knowledgeable and trained in ESL pedagogy and multicultural education and had high expectations of student achievement .

A recent study20 investigating the Successful Language Learners (SLL) project in 11 government and Catholic primary and secondary schools in south-western Sydney found evidence that the NSW ESL Program support model meets these three factors. The aim of the project was to improve the language, literacy and numeracy performance of ESL students (including refugee students). The project consisted of four interrelated initiatives: firstly, targeted support for students involving ESL teaching through cross curricular support and after-school homework/ study centres. The second strategy was professional development for all teachers in developing their understanding of ESL pedagogy in providing an explicit and systematic language learning focus embedded in their classroom programs. The third strategy involved school leadership teams acquiring knowledge of and commitment to the use

18 Thomas, W. & Collier, V.(1997) School effectiveness for language minority students. National Clearinghouse for bilingual education: George Washington University, Washington DC

Thomas, W. & Collier V. (2002). A National Study of School Effectiveness for Language Minority Students’ Long Term Academic Achievement. CREDE:UC, Berkeley.

19 Thomas & Collier, 1997 p. 7

20 DEC NSW (2011). Literacy and Numeracy Pilots: Final Report. DEEWR: Canberra.

14

of ESL pedagogy that ‘allowed them to become leaders of pedagogical change’. The fourth strategy was parent and community engagement. The rigorous program evaluation found considerable evidence not only for the improvement of the English language proficiency of ESL students but also the language and literacy improvement of all students in all the schools. Improvements on NAPLAN and Basic Skills Tests were significantly above state averages. This was particularly the case for ‘at risk’ students/ A second key finding of the report was that both classroom teacher and school leadership capacity was improved through ESL professional development. The key factors in the project were the ESL teachers, support from ESL/ Multicultural consultants and school leadership, ESL professional development and Community Liaison Officers.

The NSW ESL Program is referred to nationally and internationally as a model21. A UK review identified the ‘specialist consultants and professional development programs’ of the NSW program22. A DEC-commissioned review of literacy and numeracy intervention programs in NSW found that the SLL Project had more evidence supporting its effectiveness as a literacy intervention for English-background speakers than most literacy intervention programs in use23. There is now strong evidence for the effectiveness of the NSW ESL Program.

21 Cummins, J., Mirza, R. & Stille, S. (2012) English language learners in Canadian Schools: Emerging directions for school-based policies, TESL Canada Journal, 29, 6, 25-48.

22 Pricewaterhousecoopers (2005). Review of English as an Additional Language: Final Report, Northern Ireland Department of Education,

23 Australian Council for Educational Research. (2013). Literacy and Numeracy Interventions in the Early Years of Schooling: A Literature Review. Report to the Ministerial Advisory Group on Literacy and Numeracy. NSW DEC: Sydney.

15

5. The ‘Invisible Tail’ of ESL: Disaggregating Data and Identifying Needs

This section explores more complex picture of ESL and refugee student need and outcomes and the implications of the possible dismantling of the statewide program. There is, in fact, a bipolar distribution in PISA results. According to the 2009 PISA test results, although Australian students with home backgrounds other than English achieved higher than average, there was also a higher proportion of students speaking a language other than English at home not reaching Levels 1 or 2: 20% compared with the average of 13%24.

This ‘long tail’ of outcomes has been confirmed in research in research from North America and the UK. In the Australian context students from Maltese, Arabic-speaking, Turkish, Filipino and Pasifika backgrounds have unacceptably low educational outcomes. Although Arabic-background students constitute 3.5% of students in government schools, they make up only 2.5% of TAFE students and 0.9% of university students25. Both first- and second-generation Arabic background students have lower school retention rates, low levels of post-secondary qualifications and higher unemployment rates26. There are also significant differences within specific ethnic/ language groups. Although Chinese background students have higher than average educational outcomes there are many differences between specific sub-groups. Students of refugee background occupy the bottom 25% whilst international students occupy the top 17%27.

International research points to one key reason for the large group of underachieving ESL students. Successive studies have confirmed that, while it usually takes about two years for ESL learners to achieve basic fluency in spoken English, students typically require a minimum of five to seven years schooling to develop the English language and literacy

24 Thomson, S., De Bortoli, L., Nicholas, M., Hillman, K. & Buckley, S. (2009). Challenges for Australian Education: Results from PISA 2009. ACER: Victoria.

25 Iredale, R. & Fox, C. (1994) Immigration, Education & Training in New South Wales. Canberra, Australian Government Publishing Service.

26 Khoo, S., McDonald, P., Giorgas, D. & Birrell, B. (2002) Second generation Australians. Report of the Department of Immigration, Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs. Canberra, DIMIA

27 Chan, H. (1987) The adaptation, life satisfaction and academic achievement of Chinese senior school students in Melbourne, PhD Thesis, Monash University, Melbourne.

16

needed to close the gap in academic performance with their English speaking peers28. These two types of proficiency have been called Basic Interpersonal Communication Skills (BICS), and academic English, or Cognitive Academic Language Proficiency (CALP). The key factor determining the time taken is the level of literacy which students have developed in their home language. Refugee and other students with disrupted education and little or no literacy in their first language can take between seven to twelve years to develop the level of English needed to achieve academic parity with their English speaking peers.29

Figure: Length of time to acquire English. Cummins (1991)

The language needs of this group of ESL students tend to be misdiagnosed as problems with English literacy or as special education needs because they have conversational fluency in English but display gaps in academic, written English30. One study of 400 ESL student records found that in the majority of cases students had been wrongly diagnosed as having learning difficulties when, in fact, they were at the latter stages of acquiring academic written English31.

28 Cummins, J . (1991). Interdependence of first and second language proficiency in bilingual children, in E. Bialystok, Language processing in bilingual children, Cambridge: CUP

29 Collier, V. (1989). How Long? A synthesis of research on academic achievement in a second language, TESOL Quarterly, 23(3), 509-531.

30 Lo Bianco, J. (1998). ESL ... Is it migrant literacy? ... Is it history? Australian Language Matters, 6(2), 1 and 6-7.

31 Cummins, J (1984a) Wanted: a theoretical framework for relating language proficiency to academic achievement among bilingual students. C Rivera(ed) Language proficiency and academic achievement. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters

Cummins, J. (1984b).Bilingualism and special education: Issues in assessment and pedagogy. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters

Basic Interpersonal Communicative Skills 1 – 2 years

Cognitive Academic Language Proficiency 5 – 7 years

‘Surface’ conversational English proficiency versus ‘depth’ academic English proficiency

17

The growth of NAPLAN and literacy testing in the past decade has led to the equation of ESL student need as English language literacy support. The research evidence, however, is that English literacy intervention programs do not meet EAL/D learner needs. The recent ACER Report32 for the Ministerial Advisory Group on Literacy and Numeracy narrowed their terms of reference to exclude ESL students because of the diversity of needs of these students and their being at different stages of language development and needing different teaching approaches. In addition, they found that relatively few literacy interventions had a specific focus on ESL learners or Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander students. Interestingly they found that the whole school ESL intervention, Successful Language Learners, had more evidence of positive impact for English-speaking background student literacy than all interventions apart from Reading Recovery and MultiLit.

The diversity of EAL/D learners means that a range of flexible support and intervention strategies is needed, with a focus on spoken language development. Second language learners need spoken language proficiency in order to gain literacy in English; ESL students who are literate in their first language transfer these skills to English, given sufficient ESL support; ESL students in need of literacy support follow different pathways to English language literacy to native speakers of English.

The question then arises, ‘how can the language needs of these ‘invisible’ ESL students be properly identified?’ The EAL/D Learning Progression, developed by ACARA describes the language development progression typical of EAL/D students33. The trial involving 56 schools, 944 students and 97 teachers found that the instrument enabled teachers to make consistent judgements of English language proficiency across all four modes; that the Progression provides a balanced and accurate reflection of student language development and can be the basis for development of a single measure of proficiency – the basis for allocation of ESL funding34. The validity of the EAL/D Learning Progression in the trial, however, relied on specialist ESL teachers and consultants to administer the instrument. Without these consultants and teachers, it may not be possible for accurate use of the assessment tool.

32 Australian Council for Educational Research. (2013). Literacy and Numeracy Interventions in the Early Years of Schooling: A Literature Review. Report to the Ministerial Advisory Group on Literacy and Numeracy. NSW DEC: Sydney. 33 ACARA (2011). English as an Additional Language or Dialect: Teacher Resource. EAL/D Learning progression. ACARA: Canberra. 34 Statistics Unit, Centre for Educational Statistics and Evaluation, NSW DEC. (2013). NSW Trial of the reliability and validity of the EAL/D Learning Progression, DEC: Sydney.

18

6. School-based Management and Equity: Review of risks and evidence

6.1. ESL student needs and specialist ESL teachers

Under Local Schools Local Decisions, all responsibility for the management and operation of the state’s English as a Second Language (ESL) Program is being devolved to school principals, and in 2015 principals will have responsibility for determining how allocated resources to their schools are used for ESL services. Currently there are no guidelines defining or circumscribing the scope of school-based decision-making and no accountability framework applying to school-based management. In the information sent to schools funds from the ESL program are labelled under ‘language proficiency’ which could refer to a range of students, including English-speaking background.

As the new policy is implemented from 2014, principals will have flexibility in deciding how school staff are used within their school budget allocation. In relation to ESL, this means they may be able to use ESL teachers for other purposes; employ casual teachers or teachers without ESL qualifications; make ESL teaching support a ‘priority’ one year, but not the next; or alter ESL teacher positions and programs altogether.

Effective ESL services in schools can only operate under the protection of an explicit state policy on ESL Education. ESL programs in schools are delivered through direct classroom and group instruction, team teaching and professional support to school staff. ESL does not have its own curriculum structure like subject areas such as English or Maths, but must create its own delivery settings by negotiating with other staff to decide on class groupings, access and timetabling. The ESL program therefore relies on the understandings and cooperation of non ESL teachers to fulfil their role. This situation means that the ESL program in a school is vulnerable if its operations are not strongly supported and informed by state policy.

Evidence from Victoria highlights this vulnerability, especially for ESL specialist teachers in primary schools35. The Victorian ESL program funding was devolved to schools in the mid 1990s. There are no statistics on the percentage of ESL qualified teachers before this devolution but it is realistic to assume a parity with NSW where a recent survey found 75.2% of primary and 89% secondary teachers in ESL positions had ESL qualifications36. After the devolution in Victoria the percentage of qualified secondary ESL teachers was 66.8% and in the 10 years since has risen to 75%. The percentage of qualified primary teachers, however, was down to 10% and 6% after the devolution and has only managed to rise to 20%. The increase in the number of non-qualified teachers in primary schools employed under ESL

35 Blackmore, J., Bigum, C., Hodgins, J. and Lasky, L. (1996). Managed change and self-management in schools of the future, Leading and Managing, 2(3), 195-220. 36 NSW Teachers Federation ESL teacher survey, 2013

19

funding indicates that ESL funding was spread amongst staff to make smaller class sizes or provide more literacy support. For example, the number of teachers employed under ESL funding in Victoria between 1997 and 2003 was the same as in NSW despite Victoria having three times fewer students!

Teachers in ESL funded positions, Victoria 1997-2009

Teachers K-6 1997 1998 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

No of teachers

721 729 1100 819 827 602 592 581 472 501

% ESL qualified

10 6.9 11.2 13.9 14.8 19.8 18.9 19.3 20.8 19.8

Teachers 7-12

1997 1998 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

No. of teachers

552 538 543 546 542 437 453 424 416 464

% ESL qualified

66.8 52.4 76.4 78.0 84.1 87.0 82.1 83.0 81.7 75.2

http://www.education.vic.gov.au/school/teachers/teachingresources/diversity/eal/Pages/ealonlinereports.aspx

Under local decision-making, the ESL Program can no longer be seen as a specific-purpose program dedicated to assisting the ESL learner target group. ESL services will be forced to compete with other school equity priorities. Given the years of instruction required by ESL learners to access and master the English language and literacy of the school curriculum, such erosion in school provision of ESL support is a matter of concern. Under RAM the funding for ESL is referred to as ‘the equity loading for English language proficiency’37 which conflates and confuses the ESL program with other multicultural equity provisions, increasing the possibility that funding for ESL qualified teachers is used for other purposes.

Specific measures are therefore required to safeguard ESL provision within the Local Schools Local Decisions agenda. The following recommendations outline these measures.

Recommendations

• ESL resources be allocated to schools as an identified funding stream within the RAM with the national English as an Additional Language/Dialect (EAL/D) Learning Progression being adopted as the ESL need assessment measure replacing the existing ESL phase categories, and effectiveness criteria of the current ESL staffing process applied as part of the implementation of the equity loading component within the RAM;

37 NSW DEC (2013). Equity loadings for low level adjustment disability and English language proficiency, Local Schools Local Decisions – Information Sheet 4, NSW DEC: Sydney.

Pricewaterhousecoopers. (2013). Local Schools, Local Decisions – Resource Allocation Model: Report on the development of the Resource Allocation Model. NSW DEC: Sydney.

20

• the NSW Government ensure that all funds generated through the RAM on the basis of NSW English language proficiency need factor are directed to the provision of English language services for the ESL learner target group in NSW Government schools;

• the Minister support the development of a specific accountability framework that guarantees tagged positions for qualified ESL teachers and ongoing provision of effective ESL services;

• schools be informed of these transition arrangements, including their 2014 ESL

staffing entitlement based on current determination from ESL survey information and

that ESL teachers will continue to be employed in schools throughout 2014 according

to their current ESL staffing entitlement

6.2. Brokered school-based ESL professional support

Under Local Schools, Local Decisions, schools will be forced to purchase with their allocated funds the professional development support they need at market rates, to use consultancy ‘brokering’ services on a cost recovery basis, negotiate cooperative resource-sharing arrangements with other schools, or failing that, ‘go online’.

This devolved, market model ignores school-based capacity and equity issues, such as uneven levels of specialist expertise among schools, the time it takes to develop such expertise, schools’ varying capacity to assess and prioritise ESL student need, barriers to effective cross-school organisation, the duplication and inefficiencies of small-scale responses to common needs (‘re-inventing the wheel’), the disincentives of full-cost teacher relief charges, and the availability of suitable specialist expertise in such a market-place.

Under Local Schools, Local Decisions individual schools will have the ability to ‘broker’ for professional support: professional development for schools staff and intervention support for students as needed. This brokering is based on models used in school-based management in the US and elsewhere. The research support for brokering is ambiguous, with one recent meta-analysis in health education finding less than 20% of studies having any proper evaluation.38 We have not been able to locate any studies of knowledge brokering in terms of equity and ESL programs.

There is, however, an emerging body of international research indicating the key role of district level systems of ESL professional support and leadership in enabling schools to

38 Mitton, C,, Adair, C., Mackenzie, E., Patten, S., and Perry, B. (2007). Knowledge transfer and exchange: Review and synthesis of the literature, The Milbank Quarterly, 85(4), 729-768.

21

address the English learning needs of their ESL students39. This research highlights the inadequacy of devolved systems in meeting the challenge of growing linguistic diversity and advocates the systematic establishment and development of systems of ESL professional support for schools. A clear case illustrating this point is the New Zealand’s Education Department’s need to re-establish entire systems of professional and curriculum support for schools over the last decade after it was found that three decades of laissez-faire devolution had failed to make any improvement in students outcomes40.

These findings are reinforced by related international research on teachers’ professional development needs in relation to ESL. Despite the growing linguistic diversity of schools, the majority of classroom teachers report having little or no pre-service training or in-school professional development in ESL or in teaching refugee and migrant students41. Teachers, without this training, report not being able to provide effective teaching for these students42.

A recent study of teacher professional needs in NSW government schools43 confirms these findings and identified ESL professional development in ESL as the highest priority within the area of multicultural education for both beginning and experienced teachers. The study, which drew on survey responses from over 5,000 teachers (just under 10%) also found that 90% of teachers identified support in English language and literacy for ESL students as the highest priority. In contrast, however, 40% of non-teaching executive had not implemented or did not know of the 2005 DEC Multicultural Education Policy. School executive were also less likely than classroom teachers to see racism as an issue in schools. The research evidence is for

39 Elfers, A., Stritikus, T., Calaff, K., Von Esch, K., Lucero, A., Knapp, M., & Plecki, M. (2009). Building systems of support for classroom teachers working with second language learners: A report prepared for the Center for strengthening the teaching profession. Seattle: University of Washington, College of Education. Retrieved 2014 from http://depts.washington.edu/ctpmail/PDFs/ELL.Study-July2009.pdf.

Elfers, A, & Stritikus, T. (2013) .How school and district leaders support classroom teachers’ work with English language learners, Educational Administration Quarterly, 20(10), 1-40.

Horwitz, A., Price-Baugh, R., Simon, C., Uzzel, R., Lewis, S., & Casserly, M. (2009)> Succeeding with English Language Learners: Lessons Learned from the Great City Schools. Council of the Great City Schools: Washington DC. 40 Cross, B. (2002). Bulk funding: A retrospective, Paper presented at the Education International (New Zealand) Conference October 2002.

Wylie, C. ( ‘Tomorrow’s schools’ after 20 years: Can a system of self-managing schools live up to its initial aims? The New Zealand Annual Review of Education, 19, 5-29.

Wylie, C., & Wilkie, M. (2001). Effects for Maori of bulk funding, a literature review. New Zealand Council for Educational Research: Wellington, NZ.

41 He, Y., Prater, K. & Steed, T. (2011). Moving beyond ‘good teaching’ ESL professional development for all

teachers, Professional Development in Education, 37(1), 7-18.

Harper, C. & de Jong, E. (2004).. Misconceptions about teaching English Language Learners, Journal of Adolescent

and Adult Literacy 48(2), 152-162.

42 Gandara, P., Maxwell-Jolly, J., & Driscoll, A. (2005). Listening to English Language Learners: A Survey of

California Teachers’ Challenges, Experiences and Professional Development Needs. UCLA: Santa Cruz, CA.

43 Watkins, M., Lean, G., Noble, G., & Dunn, K. (2013). Rethinking Multiculturalism Reassessing Multicultural

Education, UWS and NSW DEC: Sydney.

22

effective and continuing professional development in the areas of ESL, multicultural education and anti-racism initiatives.

The Successful Language Learners (SLL) project reported in earlier sections found that the professional development of classroom teachers and school leadership in ESL pedagogy was a key factor in improving the language and literacy outcomes of all students in the school above state average, including ESL and ‘at risk’ students with disrupted educational backgrounds. The role of ESL/ Multicultural consultants and community liaison officers was central to this achievement.

The NSW DEC has notified the termination of the existing regional Multicultural/ESL consultancy support services to schools from Term 4, 2013. On 23 August, multicultural/ESL consultants and Community Information Officers received letters informing that their positions would cease at the end of 2013. From 2014, 31.8 multicultural/ESL consultancy positions and personnel will be discontinued with no place in the new LSLD support model identified.

The Government’s cuts to Multicultural/ESL consultancy support to schools is in marked contrast with the dedicated consultancy support available in the new structure from other school-based, specialist instructional programs. Department organisation charts show that 58.5 Aboriginal Education consultancy positions are available to assist schools support 47,087 Aboriginal students across the state, while 142 Special Education consultancy positions are available to support 90,000 students with a disability and/or additional learning needs in schools throughout NSW. This compares with no dedicated consultancy provision for schools serving the 229,106 students from language backgrounds other than English, 136,000 ESL learners, and 5,581 refugee students across the state. It is clear from this situation that, among the department’s specialised instructional programs, ESL Education has been singled out for funding cuts.

The wholesale loss of the regional network of consultants means the cessation of the range of school support services outlined above. It also means the permanent loss of specialist expertise to the system, severely diminishing the capacity of schools and the system to meet language and cultural needs of migrant and refugee students. The nature and range of the services delivered by Multicultural/ESL consultants is such that their functions cannot be simply picked up by remaining staff in generic consultancy positions. The growing diversity of the NSW school population, continuing changes to the teacher workforce and school staff necessitate an ongoing systemic provision of specialist professional support in this area. The ongoing need for systemic local professional support to schools in the area of ESL and multicultural education has been recognized by successive governments and Directors-General through various regional, district and cluster-based configurations of consultancy support in previous Department restructures.

23

In previous years the NSW DEC allocated $500,000+ through the network of consultants for professional development in ESL, multicultural education and anti-racism44. This funding, along with that for the funding for consultants and Community Information Officers, is not identified in the new RAM model. This report finds that there is great risk for schools under the new model in that they may not be able to locate the expertise that would enable them to identify the specific needs of students and professional development and support needs of staff, nor to implement appropriate professional development and intervention programs.

The diversity of the NSW population means that the schools’ professional support needs in the areas of ESL and multicultural education will not diminish. Without a strategic and cohesive network of officers with specific expertise in these areas, schools will be overwhelmed, children from linguistically diverse and vulnerable refugee communities underserved, and social and educational costs of NSW’s diversity ultimately shifted to community and non-government organizations.

Recommendation

• the 32 frontline Multicultural/ESL consultancy, Refugee and Community Information Officer positions axed in the Department restructure be incorporated into the new model of support to schools;

6.3. Accountability for ESL program planning, provision and outcomes

Without appropriate policy safeguards, the Government’s Local Schools, Local Decisions policy will effectively dismantle the state wide infrastructure that has supported delivery of ESL services to hundreds of thousands of migrant and refugee students in NSW Government schools since 1969.

This process is already underway. The NSW DEC Multicultural Programs Unit was restructured in December 2012, resulting in staff cuts and disruption to state-wide ESL program co-ordination functions. As a result of these changes, ESL services in NSW Government schools will no longer continue to operate as a specific-purpose program dedicated to assisting the ESL learner target group. As implementation of the policy proceeds, the capacity of NSW Government schools and the NSW public education system to address the immediate and long-term English learning needs of migrant and refugee students will be degraded, and the availability, continuity and quality of ESL services across the state compromised.

44 NSW DEC (2012). Multicultural Policies and Services Programs, Report 2011. DEC: Sydney.

24

These impacts have immediate and long-term consequences for the successful resettlement, school participation, completion and employment of migrant and refugee young people, and ultimately, the wider social cohesion of local communities and the state. In introducing the policy, neither Government nor the Department have conducted consultation with those communities which will be most affected by these far-reaching changes. No assurances or guarantees have been given that the current level and quality of ESL services will be maintained, nor have any risk management strategies45 or accountability mechanisms been put in place to ensure that ESL learners will not be worse off under the new arrangements.

In devolving the ESL Program without specific accountability mechanisms, the NSW Government is effectively ‘passing the ESL buck’ on to principals and schools. The NSW devolution policy is the last stage in a long history of ‘buck passing’ of responsibility for ESL provision by both Commonwealth and state governments. The end result of these policy changes is that both federal and state governments have walked away from their respective national and state responsibilities for ESL education and are attempting to shift the full cost burden of this provision to schools, their principals and the local community.

The dismantling of ESL provision at a state level also undermines the government’s capacity to meet its commitment, under the agreed National School Improvement Plan, to improve the learning outcomes of all students. The continuing diversity impact of Australia’s ongoing immigration on the NSW school population requires whole system planning, monitoring and evaluation of ESL services. The absence of such processes in the implementation of Local Schools, Local Decisions means that ESL education in NSW is being ‘left to chance’.

There is currently no strategic medium or long-term system planning to address the challenges of providing for the English language and literacy learning of ESL students arising from Australia’s ongoing migration program and the substantial migrant settlement to NSW. The Multicultural Education Plan (2012-2015), while loosely linked to the 5 Year Strategic Plan (2012-2017), was developed prior to introduction of the Government’s education reforms, does not link with LSLD implementation currently shaping ESL service delivery, and only has a two year remaining planning horizon. ESL education is not identified in statewide LSLD plans and any ESL program planning is devolved as an optional responsibility for school level planning only.

Similarly, ESL education not considered in any of the key NSW education policy and planning documents such as The Five Year Strategic Plan 2012-2017; Early Action for Success; the NSW Literacy and Numeracy Action Plan; the Strategic Human Resources Plan 2012-2017.

This ESL policy and planning vacuum at the heart of the NSW education system means that

45 ARTD Consultants. (2011). Independent Review of the School Based Management Pilot: Final Report. DEC: Sydney. Neither this nor the DEC report on the RAM trial specifically addressed ESL equity issues.

25

there is no strategic oversight, coordination, or performance monitoring and development of ESL services in NSW public education. This policy and planning vacuum effectively leaves ESL program provision to chance, encouraging program fragmentation, residualisation and erosion, and diminishing its capacity to contribute to the Government’s reform goals.

The ability to respond to the changing ESL needs effectively and equitably requires a responsive state wide regional planning structure. NSW government schools receive 90% of the refugee intake in NSW with the main settlement being in Greater Western Sydney. The change in the past decade has seen the increase in ‘acute’ refugee students who are likely to have suffered the effects of war and violence and family dislocation. Settlement patterns change quickly especially in rural and regional areas where schools do not have the established expertise to deal with these issues. The need for state level ESL planning has never been greater.

The current NSW situation is in stark contrast with the policy and planning efforts and directions of US state education systems facing similar challenges. Challenged by increasing linguistic diversity from new and growing English language learner enrolments in schools and No Child Left Behind performance reporting requirements for these students, some state systems are establishing, or re-establishing, district and local level systems of ESL professional support for schools and coordinating these efforts by ESL-focused system planning46.

This omission needs to be addressed. A specific accountability framework needs to be developed to ensure effective monitoring and transparent reporting on the provision and effectiveness of ESL services in schools with particular reference to targeted funding and delivery, target group assistance and outcomes. A process also needs to be established to ensure that ESL planning is incorporated within all relevant areas of the Department’s operations and Government’s education reforms and that a proactive approach is taken to the coordination and development of ESL services in schools.

Recommendations

• current ESL allocation and staffing arrangements continue until detailed implementation plans for the incorporation of ESL funding within the RAM are completed;

• the Department consult with key community interest groups in its development of allocation mechanisms for ESL and equity funds within the RAM;

• the NSW Government establish a formal process involving community stakeholders to monitor, evaluate and report on the use of ESL services during the first five years of the LSLD implementation.

46

26

27

7. Conclusion

Responsibility for the educational consequences of Australia’s ongoing immigration program cannot be shouldered by school principals alone. The NSW Government cannot simply walk away from its responsibility for the English language education of these students by ‘passing the buck’ on to schools. It has a responsibility to ensure that the NSW public education system is well-equipped to meet these demands and satisfy the State Government’s access and equity obligations under the Community Relations Commission and Principles of Multiculturalism Act of 2000.

The approach to reform implementation and organizational change, whereby core design settings are determined first and equity considerations are addressed afterwards, constitute standard, but flawed, operating departmental procedure. Equity concerns cannot be addressed as a mere after-thought to reform, but need to be systematically considered in the initial design, planning and implementation of the reform agenda itself.

The most recent UK study47 concluded that for students learning English as an additional language:

Decentralization leads to inefficiencies in funding distribution; time-wasting, due to teachers and managers repeating work already done by others elsewhere; and a lack of knowledge through a lack of effective training programs……..

….The lack of centralized control of forums for dialogue has a negative effect on provision for children and staff

The findings of the present report, ‘Passing the Buck’, therefore pose a fundamental policy choice for the NSW Government: whether to preserve the program and its benefits for migrant and refugee students in NSW Government schools, or to allow continued dismantling of the program, its professional support structures and eventual erosion of ESL student learning outcomes.

47 Wardman, C. (2012). Pulling the threads together: Current theories and current practices affecting UK primary school children who have English as an additional language, ELT Research Papers, 12-04. British Council: London