A close inspection of the school models proposed by Area 1 in its education Scheme, which was conducted for this study, showed a convergence of curricula. This contrasted with the discourse emanating from central government in the early and mid 1990s that promised diversity between schools, but again was in line with Handy’s organisational theory. Area 1 adopted a three-tier model of education in its secondary schools. Interestingly, this approach resonated with the proposals made in Ottawa under its School Board’s New Vision (2000) document. Area 1’s scheme included semi- specialist schools, one of which was on the verge of evolving further from being a traditional bilingual school into a designated school with the remaining schools being traditional bilingual schools or English medium comprehensives. To avoid the separate provision implied by the latter phrase, an unfamiliar noun phrase was applied that
ensured the word ‘bilingual’ was attached to all schools. This approach also mirrored the language policies in other traditional areas.
Area 1 LEA’s strategy for 2001-2004 was to focus on the language policies of the schools and to continue to accommodate pluralistic tendencies and to allow for differing shades of bilingual competence. This entailed enveloping all pupils in an attempted coordinated change in the habits, attitudes and beliefs in the schools. Schools were expected to ensure that the Welsh language was used in their administration, social life, pastoral arrangements and curricular provision. They were also expected to ensure that the ethos of classrooms promoted bilingualism; probably the most difficult task to accomplish as individuals’ personal commitment can influence the nature of bilingual practice in the classroom. The uniform development of local policy was emphasised by each school being required to outline the merits of bilingualism in its prospectus. This was partly in response to the impact of LMS, which had allowed some primary schools to withdraw from ‘buying in’ some Welsh language provision and to concentrate on other priorities. Inevitably, this led to demand for Welsh services at LEA level to decline. It is difficult to assess, however, whether schools behaving independently would have created opportunities to organize children along more egalitarian lines, for example where fewer children would experience domination in second language learning of either Welsh or English.
Turning more specifically to the organisation of pupils in Area 1, appendix 1 shows a table produced by the LEA to describe the distribution of year 9 pupils across and within its schools. In the year 2000, the traditional/bilingual schools of the LEA had roughly one third of pupils at each level of bilingual provision, receiving 60%, 40% or 20% of the curriculum via the medium of Welsh. A less positive outlook for the status of Welsh is gained by considering the percentage of the curriculum taught through English (40%, 60% and 80% for the different categories). The percentage of pupils at each level of bilingual provision obviously indicated the overall level of Welsh medium education in each catchment area, but they also indicated that similar intakes were being retained, on the whole, by the schools. The percentage of Welsh medium education available in each linguistic level at the time was also a measure of the established conventions within and between those institutions; the percentages also showed the constraints on the role of
Welsh in core areas of the curriculum (mathematics and science) and therefore revealed its positioning as not being of high value and high status. On paper, there appears to be a standardization of classes in line with the model of bilingual practice described and encouraged by Dodson (1995). At this point I am not trying to suggest that the
composition of these classes and their curriculum was a compromise which was bound up with the collective survival of the institutions, but as the schools were relying by and large on the same intakes, their composition was more complex than suggested by simple classifications such as those underpinning such models of bilingual education.
As part of the strategy in Area 1, designated schools were set a target to increase the “opportunity” for learning all subjects through the medium of Welsh at Key Stage three (KS3) by 2004. However, just running one mixed ability stream satisfied this condition in subjects such as mathematics, as did making provision “available” within mixed language classes. The individual targets for Welsh medium development at KS3 in the traditional schools by 2004 implied a significant break with established conventions i.e. mathematics and science being introduced in Welsh. The proximity of traditional schools to designated schools and the slight trend for pupils to gravitate towards designated schools and other alternatives meant that one traditional school aimed to increase the available Welsh medium provision to 82% whilst other traditional schools had no less ambitious KS3 targets for the teachers involved, those ranged from 72% to 75%. Perhaps significantly, however, competent learners were also targeted in most schools to experience a rise from 40% to either 45% or mostly 50% of curriculum time via Welsh medium instruction. Linked to these changes was a transport policy that favoured catchment areas. One effect of such a policy was to guide parents in the direction favoured by existing providers. The other obvious effect was to make open enrolment a policy that empowered affluent parents who had the means to pay for school transport beyond their catchment area.
Area 1 LEA also set an additional complementary target for the traditional schools, it aimed to increase the percentage of pupils in the 60% band and reduce the percentage in other bands. This policy would extend second language teaching through Welsh for some pupils and impact on the classroom environment in unpredictable ways. Non-core subject teachers would experience a more challenging instructional context. No
doubt, some schools and some coordinators anticipated this and arranged for additional classroom support. Moving on to Key Stage 4, Appendix 2 shows the situation at this stage with the subsidiary role for Welsh continuing, but also the curriculum overlap between institutions becoming more apparent.
Underpinning these curriculum and classroom changes were the Welsh medium ‘allowances’ (or grants) distributed broadly by Area 1 LEA and shown in Appendix 3. Area 1 LEA’s funding formula was less demanding than that of Area 2 LEA (also shown as a draft in Appendix 3) in that it did not encourage schools to make changes. This reflected the comparatively high percentage of Welsh speakers in the area. The authority gave secondary schools money for each subject after the third Welsh medium subject “offered”. The funding formula can be interpreted as a means of subsidising schools, which could not contemplate implementing the changes necessary within their existing budgetary allowances, in order to prevent the movement of pupils.
The organisation and the subsequent teaching and learning of subjects in a designated bilingual school that was once perhaps more distinctively Welsh in its ethos, complemented the managerial developments that came in response to the reforms. The school’s bilingual policy took the following broad nature:
a) The teaching of mathematics and science through the medium of English or Welsh, according to parental choice.
b) The teaching of all other subjects through the medium of Welsh.
c) Pupils sit public examinations in the language in which they were taught. d) Following (a) and (b) above, teachers will use both languages orally when
necessary and will teach technical terms in both languages as and when necessary. Textbooks in either language are used as appropriate.
(Designated school Web Site, 2002) Overall, schools with such policies regarding bilingual practice at the classroom level remain closely allied to their consortium partners.
School policy statements such as that above leave a good deal unsaid. The minutiae of classroom communication are often overlooked, along with the ways in which language mediates learning and the building of classroom relationships. Cumulatively,
this can have a bearing on the nature of the bilingualism being promoted within a classroom and it can affect the levels of participation by different categories of pupils. There may nevertheless therefore be opportunities within every category of school to alter the ways that teachers and learners communicate about different areas of the curriculum so as to increase participation. More research of this nature is needed. This study endeavours to narrow the research lens to the level of classroom communication.
5.3.2 Coordination of Language Planning in Area 2
The second authority, Area 2 LEA, also aimed to have policies that guided pupils into local schools. However, its response to requests for specific Welsh medium education provision was different in curriculum terms than the arrangements developing in Area 1 LEA. Its response was shaped by a number of local and UK national developments, including the coordinated activities in support of a designated Welsh medium school in the area by a coalition of local parents and the impact of financial intervention by the State under PSI. The Authority coordinated responses to lessen the impact of such destabilising interventions. One component of its formula funding encouraged schools to provide more than five subjects through the medium of Welsh whilst another component was directed at separate Welsh medium groups. This coincided with a broad approach in which Welsh medium streams were funded so that they ran with small numbers of pupils during the 1980s in a few schools. As these streams filled up and PSI was managed by the LEA and by those at a more local level to limit its impact, the policy was extended to the remaining schools and these new streams were also funded so that they ran, initially, with low numbers of pupils. A statement in a draft LEA plan shows the kind of thinking behind the broad approach of establishing Welsh medium units and streams within common schools. The reasoning was worded as follows:
“A development of the Welsh language in all secondary schools rather than the creation of a number of designated bilingual schools... as an approach is
considered a better opportunity for positive community involvement than schools that only cater for a section of the population.”
Some consequences of this broad, LEA-wide approach were foreseen, and someone with experience of primary school teaching would recognise the characteristics of over-ambitious attempts to provide Welsh medium classes in every year of the secondary schools. These included mixed ability teaching and, of course, the various definitions of that concept held by different teachers. Their thinking has been influenced by two slightly different developments. First, the changes in the assessment requirements at GCSE e.g., (1.) the need to differentiate according to examination requirements (recognised as streaming within a mixed ability class by some); (2.) the need to limit that differentiation by adopting whole class teaching methods for investigations and projects. Secondly, the narrower assessment criteria observable in the year 9 SAT examinations. What is striking is that arrangements for mixed ability teaching in Welsh medium classes were not applied in English medium classes.
In a review conducted into Area 2 LEA’s first Welsh Education Scheme between September 2000 and March 2001 more obvious consequences resulting from their broad policy implementation approach emerged. These were highlighted in an Estyn inspection in September 2001 reporting on provision and standards in Welsh and Welsh medium education (Estyn, 2002). The extension of Welsh medium education across the Authority meant that three levels of provision emerged. A majority of the schools offered at least three subjects through the medium of Welsh in Key Stage Three, but of those schools, less than half had been targeted to make all subjects available through the medium of Welsh by 2003.
Some differences between policy and practice were apparent; these were: 1 Partial provision or non-availability in some areas.
2 Delimited opportunities to continue to study through the medium of Welsh at Key Stage Four.
3 Availability of post 16 provision.
4 Difficulties with recruitment of Welsh medium teachers.
On two occasions the inspection report drew attention to the need to address the final point with a strategy to overcome staffing shortages. Nevertheless, despite these differences, the Estyn report acknowledged, “the significant development that has taken place in access to Welsh medium education”, but made no analysis of the nature of what
parents and children were accessing. The inspection report, on another two occasions, referred to decisions to ‘rationalise’ Welsh medium education. Over the long term, the extent of rationalisation was never fully clear and the situation was perhaps less reassuring than that conveyed by the report.
The inspection report also included brief references to the “high costs” of some aspects of the Welsh medium provision (total cost amounting to £1.8 million). These aspects were most obviously connected to staffing, including the employment of bilinguals for Welsh medium teaching and support for the ensuing low pupil teacher ratios. In some areas, this had an impact on the manageability of classes, and there was a duplication of resources. Conveying some concern in relation to the inevitable escalation of costs from the continued expansion of Welsh medium education, paragraph 7.12 in the inspection report stated the Authority had, “identified the need to explore more fully the potential financial savings to be gained from organising alternative provision.” (Estyn, 2002).