LinkedUp Award Scheme
Collaboration for creative learning
Project basics
Applications for funding from the LinkedUp Award Scheme closed in 2010. The following information is provided as an indication of the types of project that were funded, as well as the project structure and guidance on funding. The final round of projects reported in March 2011. All resources produced by LinkedUp projects were added to the LinkedUp resource finder by August 2011. 
- What is a LinkedUp Project?
- What types of project received awards?
- Deadlines and timescales
- How long did projects last?
- Project structure
- Funding
- What was eligible for funding?
- What couldn’t be funded?
- Mentors
What is a LinkedUp Project?
A LinkedUp project is a group of language teachers working together, often with other partners, to develop an innovative approach to language learning that will benefit their own learners and also help other teachers to develop their practice.
The award scheme was designed to encourage a range of different sizes and styles of project, but all have some common features. A LinkedUp project is:
- collaborative: all partners benefit from mutual support and ideas sharing
- formative: it is a process of professional learning for all partners
- focused: all partners share an agreed set of goals based on an analysis of learners’ needs
- creative: partners develop new ideas and approaches
- evaluative: throughout the project, partners reflect on their progress, particularly their impact on pupils’ learning, to inform what they do next
- capacity-building: partners consider carefully how they can sustain the outcomes for learners after the project ends, and how other teachers can benefit from their work.
What types of project received awards?
In order to encourage a rich and diverse range of projects, LinkedUp identified four broad project ‘types’. In practice, there were many variations in the make-up of each partnership, the number of partners, the scope and scale of activities and the respective roles of the participating organisations.
Partnerships coordinated by a school or 16-19 college
In this model, primary, secondary, special schools or 16-19 colleges which have recognised good practice submitted an application to work with a group of up to 5 other schools, colleges, and/or other organisations. This approach allowed projects to be firmly embedded in classroom realities, to build on previous collaborative work and to draw creatively on each partners’ strengths and enthusiasms to address identified needs. Projects were encouraged to work closely with their local authority and, depending on their sector, other local networks.
Partnerships led or supported by a local authority, initial teacher training provider or university languages department
A number of partnerships were led or supported by a local authority or university. Projects following this model have built on existing networks and initiatives and benefit from a wealth of expertise.
Partnerships led or supported by an organisation other than a school, college or university
Other organisations, businesses, charities or agencies have led or participated in a project that has a focus that relates to their particular expertise. By involving partners with different (and perhaps unusual) expertise and experience, this approach has extended the possibilities for developing new and creative ideas.
‘High risk, high return’ projects
A limited amount of funding supported more ambitious and experimental projects, working with schools or colleges on a larger scale to develop an innovative aspect of language learning. They received a higher level of funding and some extra support to monitor progress.
Special requirements in relation to participating secondary schools
Important requirements were applied to all projects which included two or more secondary schools:
- If the project involved more than two secondary schools, one of the schools must have had fewer than 50% of pupils learning languages in Key Stage 4, and another school should have had fewer than 25% of pupils learning languages in Key Stage 4.
- If the project involved two secondary schools, one of the schools must have had fewer than 25% of pupils learning languages in Key Stage 4.
Deadlines and timescales
The last application deadline was 21st June 2010 and the final round of projects reported in March 2011.
How long did projects last?
The table below shows the time frame for each project, based on the different application deadlines. Taking account of holidays and the start of the new academic year, the time for projects to complete their work has been similar whichever deadline was chosen.
Project leaders were asked to send a report at the end of each phase.
| Project Phases | Time allowed |
|---|---|
| A. Preparation | |
| Partners plan in detail, ensure availability of resources, etc. | 6 weeks |
| B. Implementation | |
| Partners carry out the project, working with pupils/students | 3 months |
| C. Resource development | |
| Project members create dissemination materials | 2 months |
Dates
| Application deadline | Approved by (latest) | Phase A ends | Phase B ends | Phase C ends | Publication + event(s) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 15-Oct-09 | 22-Nov-09 | 31-Jan-10 | 31-May-10 | 31-Jul-10 | Autumn 2010 |
| 15-Dec-09 | 31-Jan-10 | 22-Mar-10 | 20-Jul-10 | 08-Nov-10 | Autumn 10 / Spring 11 |
| 15-Feb-10 | 22-Mar-10 | 31-May-10 | 15-Oct-10 | 15-Dec-10 | Spring 2011 |
| 23-Apr-10 | 21-May-10 | 16-Jul-10 | 07-Dec-10 | 15-Feb-11 | Spring 2011 |
| 21-Jun-10 | 19-Jul-10 | 15-Oct-10 | 4-Feb-11 | 21-Mar-11 | Spring / Summer 2011 |
Project structure
As a guide to structuring the project work, we adapted the steps recommended by QCA in their leaflet on disciplined innovation.
When the project has been approved:
- Finalise planning
- Create a detailed plan with deadlines and ‘reflection points’ (see below)
- Make necessary practical arrangements and prepare resources
- Implement curriculum changes
- Make the changes you have agreed, working together and evaluating your progress as you go
- Collect ‘stories’ about learners, examples of learners’ work and assessment data
- Review progress
- Use the ‘reflection points’ to assess how well you are meeting your goals
- Decide what you need to do next to increase the impact of the project
- Evaluate and record the impact
- Use the evidence gathered to evaluate the overall impact of the project
- Compare the current situation to your starting point
- Using this information, decide on the best strategy for taking your work forward after the project and ensuring sustainability
- Plan and create resources for sharing with other teachers
The resources prepared by each project were posted on the resource finder hosted by Links into Languages.
Funding
How did projects allocate their budget?
In their application prospective project leaders were asked to show how they intended to meet the costs of the project. We advised them to write a budget that is an honest assessment of what they would need to spend. As the budget was fixed, they needed to adjust their plans so that the project can be carried out within the funding limit. Project leaders could add additional funding from another source if it was available.
When writing the budget, project leaders were asked to make sure that it was clear what the unit cost of each item was, and what was being paid for. For example, in relation to supply cover they needed to specify whether they were counting cover in half days or whole days. They also needed to indicate clearly how many teachers were receiving cover and how many days per teacher were allocated.
Project leaders also needed to make sure that the items in the budget related clearly to the list of project activities directly above the budget section on the application form.
Cost headings
Below are some of the cost headings that project leaders were likely to use when putting the budget together.
Paying for the project leader's time
The project leader needed to allow some additional time to manage the project. This included attending a LinkedUp briefing meeting at the start of the project (allow one day plus travel), writing reports after each project phase, preparing a Project Guide, dealing with any problems that arise and liaising with your mentor, as well as planning and setting up meetings and ensuring there is ongoing communication between partners, including use of the online workspace. They therefore needed to allocate to themselves more time than to their project partners.
If the project leader was lucky enough to have time available for the project as part of their wider role, for example as an AST, this would have allowed more of the £3,000 to be spent on other things, and they should have entered the amount saved as a contribution towards the project from your school or local authority.
Paying for partners' time and travel
As the focus of all projects is collaborative professional development, we expected a large proportion of the budget to be allocated to supply cover, to enable teachers to meet and work individually to develop ideas, observe learning in action, prepare learning activities and create resources. But please see the note on the use of supply cover in the next section.
The funding could also be used for out of hours payments if teachers preferred to work on the project after school or at the weekend.
Partners in other organisations or companies could also receive funding for their time and travel.
When including an allocation for travel expenses, we advised project partners to use the normal mileage rate that their school or organisation provides (a standard level would be 35 pence per mile).
Paying for the cost of meetings
The budget could be used to pay a small amount for a meeting venue, but not to pay for meals.
Paying for pupils' activities
The scheme did not fund pupils' activities unless they are clearly integral to the project and would not otherwise be taking place. If the activities were an important element of the project, the scheme could fund pupils' travel and other costs at a modest level.
Paying for teacher-made resources
The scheme could provide funding to enable participants to make learning resources for pupils, and for the dissemination materials that are made publicly available at the end of the project. Extreme care needed be taken in relation to copyright.
Payment for the mentor to attend meetings or events
The mentor was paid directly by ALL, so their honorarium was not to be included in the budget. However, project leaders could include the cost of their mentor attending a small number of meetings and for his or her travel expenses.
What was eligible for funding?
Checklist
As a guide, funding could include the cost of:
- developing and sharing learning resources
- activities with learners, in and out of school, that are essential to the project and would not otherwise be taking place
- travel to meetings or briefings (including a briefing for the mentor and lead partner at your regional Links centre)
- phone calls or videoconferencing
- a relevant CPD course (normally for one person who feeds back information)
- supply cover for the lead partner for coordination of the project
- supply cover for partners for identified activities (but see the note below about supply cover)
- payment for the time of partners who are not school-based
- briefing or consultation meetings, eg. for parents
- stationery, CDs/DVDs and photocopying/printing
- other expenditure if clearly needed to enable you to meet your objectives
Overseas visits
Funding was not available to subsidise an overseas visit, but could be used for an additional aspect or activity during a visit. No funding was given to schools outside the United Kingdom.
Supply cover
Project leaders were asked to consider their use of supply cover carefully and take advantage of opportunities to work in a 'smart' way. For example, it is appropriate to enable teachers to observe lessons or to work together for a short period with a clear outcome in view. In contrast, it would be a less effective use of funding to hold a meeting that required a full day’s cover for all partners. They were also asked to explore the potential of using the shared online workspace to facilitate collaboration without needing to meet face to face.
Co-funding
It was possible to contribute funding from another source to enhance the scope of a LinkedUp project. The two funding streams needed to be kept clearly separate for accounting purposes.
What couldn’t be funded?
Funding was not provided for:
- large scale commercial resources such as sets of text books, recording equipment, software licenses or IT infrastructure
- professional filming or publishing
- equipment which is already available within the school or college
- alcoholic drinks, restaurant meals or catering at project team meetings
- any items or activities which do not directly contribute to the success of the project
Mentors
Mentors provided support and guidance during the projects, particularly in relation to classroom research, curriculum development, aspects of pedagogy and project management.
Mentors received an honorarium of £500 and were expected to give the equivalent of two days of their time to support the project throughout its duration, the equivalent of around one hour per fortnight. Most support is likely to be through phone, email or online discussion. Project leaders did not need to include the honorarium in their budget, as it is paid directly to the mentor by the Association for Language Learning.
