Alcantara Communications LLP

Here is, in essence, what I have responded to the DfE KS4 accountability consultation.

We urgently need to improve the situation for languages in schools and it is vital that the government takes into account specific issues which affect language learning in the national curriculum, in order to avoid creating further ‘perverse incentives’ with a negative effect on language take up.

The introduction of a foreign language into the KS2 curriculum creates 2 interrelated issues which affect the way in which languages can be used within the accountability framework at KS4. These are a) whether pupils will be able to continue with the same language when they move from KS2 to KS3, and b) the need to encourage a wider range of languages given that around 95% of language teaching in primary schools is in either French or Spanish.

I argue that schools cannot be held accountable unless starting points as well as finishing points are measured and that we need a new graded assessment system for languages in order to provide this.

Impact on lesser taught languages

The accountability arrangements proposed may have the effect of narrowing the range of languages studied.This is because a value added measure based on performance at GCSE in relation to prior performance in English and Maths at KS2 will not take into account the fact that some pupils will be starting a new language in Year 7 and others at the beginning of their GCSE course, while some pupils will have had 9 years’ tuition in the same language. Lesser taught languages such as Arabic, Russian or Mandarin are often introduced only at KS4 but because they diverge more from English than Western European languages, they require more time to reach similar levels. A value-added measure based on English and Maths will not measure value added in a foreign language and there will inevitably be pressures on schools and students to avoid the risk of a poor grade by sticking to a language they have already learned rather than enriching or revitalising their language learning experience by starting a new one. German may also be affected since it is perceived as a ‘hard’ language at GCSE and there is very little German teaching in primary schools.

Shortcomings of GCSE languages as a tool for school accountability

I am concerned about the total reliance on GCSE results as a measure of performance. Teachers responding to the Language Trends survey are clear that the current assessment arrangements do not promote ‘deep understanding’ but rather reward superficial rote-learning. This means that the exam is not meaningful or credible to either learners or employers, but is seen merely as a box ticking exercise for school performance tables. Rather than preparing pupils for life in the global economy, this is creating a cycle of disenchantment with language learning.

Teachers also say that the GCSE exam advantages pupils who are generally high attaining, but is less accessible for lower ability pupils within the curriculum time available. Many schools have now made a language compulsory for their top sets, but lower attaining pupils are encouraged to take other subjects in which they will be more successful.

Teachers are also concerned about comparability between languages at GCSE, because more time is needed to acquire the same level in languages with non Roman scripts or those which have little vocabulary in common with English (particularly when these are only started in Year 10).

I do not believe therefore that the GCSE exam provides a suitable tool for measuring schools’ performance in providing high quality, effective language teaching which enables pupils to progress in language learning.

There is an urgent need for an easily comprehensible but credible system of assessment which shows what competences learners have acquired and what they can do in the foreign language. GCSE does not provide this.

A graded system of language tests, similar to that used for music, based on the Common European Framework of Reference or on the Languages Ladder, would provide a much better tool for measuring both pupil progression in language learning and for holding schools accountable. And it would be likely to encourage more pupils to study a language at KS4 and to enable a wider range of languages to be taught.

Rather than setting a bar at a particular level like GCSE, such a system would provide flexibility in measuring progress, whether pupils continue with the same language from KS2, or pick up a new one in Year 7 or Year 10. It would also provide accreditation for those pupils who give up a language at the end of KS3 (whether to start a new one or to focus on other subjects) or who for a variety of reasons do not reach the high standard now being proposed for the new GCSE. It would also potentially provide the means of measuring progress between KS2 and KS4, for students who take the same language, encouraging schools to build on what has been learnt rather than ‘starting from scratch’ as so often happens.

Impact on less able students

The current system disadvantages less able pupils by being a test of short term memory rather than measuring genuine learning. Graded qualifications, mapped against internationally-recognised standards, would provide a more meaningful, relevant and motivating way of reflecting pupil performance. They would allow pupils from across the educational spectrum to gain a language qualification.

Additional measures the government should publish

The EBacc has had some effect on uptake for languages amongst high attaining pupils and should be retained.

However the government should also publish measures of foreign language performance based on assessment against internationally-recognised standards. This would recognise the achievement of:

a) less able pupils who might otherwise drop languages

b) pupils taking up a new foreign language at the beginning of KS4

c) pupils giving up a language at the end of KS3

It could also provide the means for schools to measure the extent to which they have contributed to the development of pupils’ competences in languages they have contact with at home, since it has the potential to measure both ‘before’ and ‘after’.

A reformed and upgraded GCSE could be retained, within this system, as a premium qualification for higher attaining pupils or those who have been able to carry on with the same language for 9 years.

Data warehouse

I do not believe this is a priority at this time, or that, based on the current structure of assessments,  it would help the wider public to understand the extent to which schools are helping pupils to  gain competence in a foreign language.

National sample tests

There is no need to develop national sample tests for languages, since the European Survey on Language Competences (developed by an English lead partner) already exists. The results of the first survey highlighted the failings of the GCSE exam as a reliable measure of language competence and the need to map assessment systems against more rigorous internationally accepted measures.

I strongly urge the government to participate in the next round of the European Survey, and meanwhile to reform assessment for languages as suggested in order to raise standards, improve pupil take up, and break the current cycle of disenchantment.

Share this:

The government is currently consulting on its framework document on the National Curriculum in England – deadline 16 April. Here what I responded:

I fully agree that plans for the English National Curriculum should be seen in an international context, and that there should be increased rigour/standards in relation to languages. I fully agree with the introduction language teaching in KS2 and that this should lead to higher ambitions for languages in secondary schools.

I am concerned that Academies and Free Schools do not have to follow the National Curriculum and that if they decide not to prioritise languages, vital skills will not be available for the future well being of the economy, and individuals will be ill-prepared to take advantage of international opportunities open to them.

I agree with a light-touch curriculum. But the freedom of teachers to interpret the curriculum content needs to be balanced with the need to be clear in defining the expected standards children will reach at the end of KS2 and KS3. The current National Curriculum document does not have any defined levels in relation to the language competences expected. This is likely to be a barrier to primary and secondary schools developing shared expectations of what children can and should achieve.

The rationale for the 7 languages which should be taught in KS2 is contradictory. There is an argument for limiting the number of languages to those already widely taught, for which training, resources and expertise are readily available, in order to enable, where possible, continuous progression to KS3. But the inclusion of Latin, Ancient Greek, and, to some extent, Mandarin and Italian, contradicts this rationale. The Language Trends national survey of primary and secondary schools shows that, even in a situation where the vast majority of primary schools teach only French or Spanish, only 11% of secondary schools make arrangements to allow all children to continue with the same language learnt in KS2. Allowing primary schools to teach one of 7 languages will exacerbate this problem, while frustrating clusters of schools who would like to experiment with other  languages of global importance, e.g. Arabic. I believe that government should either restrict the list to French, Spanish and possibly German, or allow a completely free choice of languages. In either case, there should be a very heavy onus put on both primary and secondary schools to ensure adequate progression pathways.

Whilst supporting the wider teaching of Latin and other ancient languages I do not believe that it is necessary to teach them from age 7. The benefits of teaching a modern language early concern the education of the ear, acquisition of more native-like pronunciation, and opportunities to interact with speakers of other languages. The teaching of ancient languages does not provide these benefits. Therefore, while I would like to see primary schools encouraged to offer ancient languages in the final years of KS2, I do not support their inclusion in the National Curriculum at the expense of a modern language. The Language Trends survey did not find a single primary school offering Latin throughout KS2, and only very small numbers offering it at all.

The expectations of the new National Curriculum for languages are very high in relation to the time currently allocated for languages in primary and secondary schools. Schools will need to allocate much more time in order to reach the levels implied. However, they may not realise this at management level, and teachers and pupils may therefore appear to be failing. This would damage morale and reinforce the view that the English cannot learn foreign languages.

I would therefore like to see the expected levels made absolutely explicit in relation to the Common European Framework of Reference, or the Languages Ladder or previous National Curriculum Levels. A debate should then follow about the appropriate amount of time needed to reach those levels, and the additional training required for teachers.  Reporting to parents is another reason why there needs to be a clear expression of levels, linked to a recognised scale, as used by other countries. These are not ‘abstract level descriptions’, but a key tool in monitoring and communicating progression.

In relation to the content, I would have liked to have seen more emphasis on ensuring that children enjoy their contacts other languages and cultures. – this is vital for the future in such globalised world.

The KS3 subject content for languages ought to distinguish between children who are continuing with the same language learned in primary school and those starting a new one. In the latter case, it should also take into account any similarities in vocabulary or grammar.

The Language Trends survey revealed a disconnect between primary and secondary schools in relation to languages, with the vast majority of primary pupils not experiencing continuity in their language learning. A key function of the National Curriculum ought to be to help bridge this divide, but the current proposals do not make clear how progression in language learning is intended to happen – in fact, KS2 and KS3 appear to be conceived as quite separate – the one being called ‘foreign languages’ and the other ‘modern foreign languages’. There should be a much greater onus on schools to ensure continuity in language learning and National Curriculum documentation which provides greater clarity for schools, enabling them to plan together in order to meet the (rightly) demanding expectations set.

There is a substantial training need for primary school teachers of languages to deliver this curriculum. There is also a need for primary and secondary schools to work together on ensuring progression in language learning. This needs to be taken forward by school management as issues go beyond the language department. The expertise exists, for example within the Association for Language Learning, but there is a need to allocate resources.

In relation to the government’s intention to conduct sample tests of pupils, I would like to see England take part in the next European Survey on Language Competences, as participation in the first one provided a salutary comparison with achievement in other countries, and opens a dialogue on factors which make a difference.

I would also like to see the government support proposals to adopt European benchmarks for languages in relation to the proportions of pupils progressing beyond a basic level (B1 and above on the Common European Framework) and the proportions of pupils studying more than one foreign language.

Share this:

Headline press coverage of the 2012 Language Trends report, of which I am the main author, has focussed on ‘Anti-European attitudes’ as creating an unhelpful climate for language learning. This is a valid issue to debate – which I will discuss below – but it was certainly not a finding of the survey, which was concerned with provision in primary schools in the lead up to languages becoming compulsory in KS2 and the situation in secondaries in the context of the EBacc and proposed reforms to exams.

The key points for me were that language learning is a reality in 97% of the 700+ primary schools who responded, but that there is a huge spectrum of practice and little consistency, leading to poor transition to KS3. As one (secondary) respondent put it, ‘they do not get a sense of a language learning journey and that is a real problem’. In KS4, the findings show that the EBacc is having only a limited impact on the top-performing pupils and that a new gap is opening up between these and less academic pupils who are often actively discouraged from taking a language beyond KS3.

Over 1000 primary and secondary teachers contributed information and opinions to the survey and the findings are detailed and important. CfBT is to be hugely congratulated for commissioning it and I am looking forward to presenting findings to teachers at Language World.

It is unfortunate that the press were not as interested in the growth of language teaching in primary schools as in the decline in French and German in secondary.  Teachers in (some) secondary schools where parents are not particularly supportive pointed to the unfavourable climate for language learning and ‘national prejudices’ against language learning. This struck a chord with me – I have previously blogged about linguistic intolerance. And just this week we have seen a clear example of linguistic intolerance being linked to anti-European sentiment – a Daily Mail crusade against EU regulations about ‘scratchy labels’ in multiple languages in clothes.

So although the report did not find evidence of ‘anti-European attitudes’ impacting on motivation to learn languages, I think this is a valid point to raise. I would be interested to hear from teachers whether they think this is affecting pupil attitudes in their school.

Another misconception being reported – and one on which I certainly want to put the record straight – is that the rise of Spanish is unjustified because French and German are the languages most needed by UK nationals in the workplace. This is only half true, for as the State of the Nation report for the British Academy shows, while French and German are the languages most frequently needed in employment, Spanish and a wide range of other languages are also needed. The point being that the growth of Spanish and other languages should not be at the expense of French and German – we need more language skills overall – and a wider range of people studying them.

Share this:

The British Academy has launched the Languages: The State of the Nation report, produced by Alcantara Communications. This publication establishes baseline data on foreign language use and deficits in the UK in order to deepen understanding of these issues and identify key priorities for action to address them.

Two new pieces of research were specially commissioned to inform the report. These include a survey of UK employers conducted in conjunction with Rosetta Stone and up-to-date language-focussed Labour Market Intelligence. These are combined with a wide-ranging appraisal of the language policies across England, Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales and a synthesis of existing evidence on language skills.

Languages: The State of the Nation presents both a longitudinal perspective on the UK’s supply of graduates with high language competencies into the labour market and future-scoping of emerging strategic needs. It highlights a ‘vicious cycle of monolingualism’, which in turn is causing market failure in the demand and supply of skilled linguists across all sectors of the UK economy.

The report calls for concerted and joined-up efforts across government, education providers, employers, language learners and the wider community to ensure that language policies respond to new economic realities. It spells out the strategic need to further diversify, rather than replace, existing language provision and stresses the requirement for more applied and inclusive language courses at all levels. Demand within employers must be stimulated and support should be provided in the management of multilingualism. These actions will support the UK’s aspirations for growth and global influence.

Share this:

There’s something about recent exhortations by politicians of both left and right that makes me feel uneasy. Immigrants, they say, should speak English in order to be fully integrated into British society. Of course they should. It should be so blindingly obvious to everyone that it ought not to need saying. Many people chose to make Britain their home precisely because they already spoke a bit of English and they wanted their children to grow up speaking it. So why is it something worth mentioning? Listening to a radio debate on the issue the other day, I got the impression that the argument was being used to imply a whole lot more:

1. That large numbers of children are growing up in this country without speaking English.

2. That it is somehow shameful to need translation or interpretation – an indication that the individual who needs them is at fault.

3. That expenditure on such language services is therefore ‘wasted’ and works as a disincentive for people to learn English.

4. That parents should therefore make more of an effort to learn English, and to use it at home.

5. That immigrants’ own languages and cultures not only have no value, but are actually standing in the way of integration.

It seems to me that every one of these assumptions is based on misunderstanding or misinformation about the nature of multiingualism and how easily – or not – languages are learned. I’d like to examine them one by one:

1. Are children in this country really in danger of growing up without speaking English?

The latest figures show that over 1 million children attending English schools (plus another 70,000 or so in the other UK nations) have English as an Additional Language. But speaking another language in addition to English is very different from implying that there is a deficit in English caused by the knowledge of another mother tongue. Or that, in a system that sees languages in competition with each other (which they are not, as any bilingual person can tell you), the other language is likely to be the dominant language after a dozen or more years of monolingual schooling. Bilingualism should be an asset to be prized, not a disorder to be overcome.

2. Why do we provide translation and interpreting in the public services?

Overcoming language barriers in the public services is a practical necessity, as well as a legal and ethical responsibility. There are many reasons why people do not speak English sufficiently well to cope – because they have not been here long, because they have not had opportunities to learn, because they are ill, old, traumatised or mentally ill – and we Brits are hardly the best qualified nation to complain about other people’s failure to learn foreign languages. We have a shocking record, yet many of us have had far more educational opportunities, and access to language learning resources, than people who have come here looking for a better life.

3. Are such services wasteful? Do they act as a disincentive to learn English?

Decisions about translation and interpreting support should be made on the basis of need, not on the spurious grounds that providing them acts as a disincentive to learn English. How can you deny a distressed and disorientated 80 year old access to someone who speaks his language, on the grounds that it will take away his motivation to learn English? How is it saving money when the pregnant Somali woman returns to the hospital with complications because she’s not understood important advice? Or when misdiagnosis caused by a language barrier allows a serious infection to spread untreated?

4. Using English at home

If you’ve never been in this situation yourself, this perhaps seems a reasonable thing to suggest.  But how would people feel if they went to live in Japan or Germany and were asked to abandon English nursery rhymes, fairy stories, and children’s literature because the government said they should use Japanese or German at home? It’s objectionable, and it’s also very bad advice. Children need a rich linguistic input to feed their overall language development and parents’ stilted use of a foreign language is just not good enough, not rich enough in vocabulary, in emotional content or nuances of meaning. What they need are opportunities to make links between their mother tongue and English, transferring concepts between the two and deepening their understanding at the same time. So of course English needs to be present, but not at the expense of mother tongues, as the proponents of this argument always seem to imply.

5. And what about immigrants’ own languages and cultures?

In saying that immigrants should use English at home, the underlying message can all too easily be that immigrants’ own languages and cultures have no value and that the sooner they can get  rid of them and adopt proper English habits, the better for society as a whole. Yet surely social solidarity is created, not by asking people to abandon their identities, but by building bridges between them. British children who understand and appreciate their cultural background, who can converse as easily with their grandparents as with their teachers, are not only the ‘glue’ of real social solidarity at home, but vitally important for making links beyond our borders in this globally-connected world. Their languages and their cultural contacts will be a valuable resource for all of us for the future.

Is it just my imagination that I read all this into the discussion of immigrants learning English? Or is the issue actually being used as a proxy for other forms of discrimination and intolerance which have become unacceptable – a form of ‘dog whistling’? We need to take care that linguistic intolerance does not become a new focus for prejudice, an arena in which bigotry and ignorance can take root.

Share this: