PA103

Written evidence submitted by The Bell Foundation

The Bell Foundation is a charity which aims to overcome exclusion through language education by working with partners on innovation, research, training and practical interventions.   The Bell Foundation works with a range of partners to produce robust, evidence-based research.  We are responding to this call for evidence in order to share evidence regarding pupils who use English as an additional language (EAL) and persistent absence, and recommendations which may help to support these pupils.

Persistent absence amongst pupils who speak English as an additional Language

According to data available through the Pupil Absence in Schools in England, primary school pupils who use EAL are more likely to be persistently absent for 10% or more of lessons than pupils who speak English as their first language (9.7% versus 8.5% in 2020/21).  This has been the case since the beginning of the available dataset in 2012/13.  Primary school pupils who use EAL are also more likely to be persistently absent for 50% or more of lessons than pupils who speak English as their first language.  Again, this has been consistent since 2012/13.  Primary school pupils who speak EAL are currently nearly twice as likely to be absent for 50% or more of lessons than a pupil who speaks English as their first language (1.1% versus 0.6%).

Secondary school pupils who speak EAL are less likely to be persistently absent for either 10% or more, or 50% or more of lessons (12.4% versus 15.3%, and 1.1% versus 1.6% respectively).   Further research would be needed to identify why a primary school age pupil is more at risk of persistent absenteeism than a secondary school pupil who speaks EAL.  Pupils who use EAL in primary school are over three times more likely to have low proficiency in English than pupils in secondary schools (48.7% of EAL pupils in Key Stage 1 will be in the early acquisition stages of English language compared to 15.3% in Key Stage 4) (Strand, 2018).  To identify whether it is having low proficiency in English that increases the risk of persistent absenteeism for pupils who use EAL, the absence data would need to be analysed by time of arrival in the English school system, which is a useful (albeit with caveats) proxy for proficiency in English (Hutchinson, 2018). 

Persistent absence of Gypsy/Roma pupils

Data from 2020/21 notes that ‘Traveller of Irish heritage pupils and Gypsy / Roma pupils had the highest overall absence rates at 19.1% and 15.0% respectively, and the highest rates of persistent absentees at 58.8% and 52.1% (DfE).  The DfE’s analysis of proficiency in English amongst EAL pupils recorded 13,661 Gypsy/Roma pupils as using EAL in 2018, which accounts for just over half of all Gypsy/Roma pupils in England (DfE, 2020).  Amongst the Gypsy/Roma pupils who use EAL, the DfE analysis found that 79% of Gypsy/Roma EAL pupils were assessed as being in the early stages of developing English proficiency.   Evidence demonstrates that EAL pupils in these early categories of English proficiency are at risk of underachievement and will underperform compared to their English-speaking peers (Strand, 2018).   Only one in five of all Gypsy/Roma pupils who use EAL will have sufficient proficiency in English to access the national curriculum (DfE, 2020). 

A Gypsy/Roma pupil whose first language is English is four times as likely to reach expected standards in reading, writing or maths at KS2, than a Gypsy/Roma pupil who uses EAL. In KS4, a Gypsy/Roma pupil whose first language is English is over three times as likely to achieve 5 A*-C at GCSE (under the former alpha grade system) than a Gypsy/Roma pupil who uses EAL. While there is a significant attainment gap between all Gypsy/Roma pupils and their peers, there is within the Gypsy/Roma cohort, a significant attainment gap between those who speak English as an Additional Language and those who speak English as their first language.  Language is a significant risk factor in the educational outcomes of Gypsy/Roma pupils. 

A DfE report in 2010 noted that while Gypsy/Roma pupils who use EAL at primary school are less likely than English-speaking Gypsy/Roma pupils to get a short temporary exclusion (five days or less), they are more likely to get a longer exclusion (six days or more).  Gypsy/Roma pupils who use EAL are nearly twice as likely to have an exclusion lasting 20 days or more than their English-speaking Gypsy/Roma counterpart (DfE, 2010).  A similar pattern was seen in secondary school exclusions where a Gypsy/Roma pupil who uses EAL was less likely to have a shorter exclusion (seven days or under) than an English-speaking Gypsy/Roma pupil and more likely to have a longer exclusion (eight days or more), and significantly more likely to have an exclusion of 20 or more days.  Evidence demonstrates that language is a significant risk factor for Gypsy/Roma pupils in terms of achievement and risk of exclusion.  To understand whether language is also a risk factor in persistent absence the data should be analysed by ethnicity and language. 

Refugees, asylum seeking children and separated children

‘Resettled refugee and asylum support recipient children are estimated to have higher school attendance rates than non-migrant children, with 5% school absence rates compared to the 6.6% for non-migrant children’ (EPI, 2021).  However, separated children (unaccompanied asylum-seeking children) experience ‘slightly higher school absence rates of 6.8% compared to 6.6% for non-migrant children (EPI, 2021).

The Bell Foundation has commissioned research into what provision is being offered pupils who arrive in the English school system between Key Stage 3 and Key Stage 5 (many of whom may be refugees or asylum seekers) as anecdotal evidence has indicated that newly arrived children, particularly those arriving in Key Stage 4 and 5 may frequently be being placed in withdrawal or in alternative provision.  Withdrawal or placement in alternative provision may be counter to best practice and not align with the academic or employment ambitions of the student.  We will share the findings with the DfE and Education Select Committee when they are published (expected mid 2023). 

Recommendations:

• More nuanced data would enable any association between limited proficiency in English and the risk of persistent absenteeism to be identified. Although age of arrival may be a proxy useful in analysis for national trends, it will not enable teachers to effectively support at-risk pupils. Formative assessment of proficiency in English is necessary for teachers to develop appropriate support strategies for pupils to enable them to access the curriculum.  Regular assessment of EAL pupils is standard in many English speaking countries, including Canada, Australia and the United States of America, and reporting is statutory in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland (Hutchinson, 2018) (Strand, 2018).  Research notes the effectiveness of policy in the United States which requires ‘rigorous annual targets for Limited English Proficiency (LEP) students to reach proficiency, and testing and reporting requirements to support this’ (Strand, 2020).  Statutory assessment of English language proficiency should be reintroduced in England, and guidance should be issued by the DfE on how schools can robustly assess pupils who use EAL.  
• Teachers and Teaching Assistants need to receive training to build their skills and expertise in teaching approaches which support the language development needed for Gypsy/Roma pupils who use EAL and the wider EAL cohort. Targeted funding should ensure that teachers have access to high quality EAL Continuing Professional Development (CPD).  The need for teachers with expertise in EAL was noted in the Ofsted report on overcoming barriers for Roma pupils (Ofsted, 2014). 
• Effective communication with parents or caregivers is essential to support school attendance.  For parents with limited proficiency in English, schools will need to adopt particular strategies to negate language barriers[1].

February 2023