Languages Review - Richard ('Dick') Hudson · 2015-10-28 · in September 2008 to have made progress towards the 50 to 90 per cent benchmark for entrants to languages in Key Stage

LanguagesReview

6970-DfES-Languages Review Cover 8/3/07 15:50 Page fcovi

Right Hon Alan Johnson, MP Secretary of State for Education and Skills28 February 2007

We submitted an interim report on the languagesreview on 14th December as a basis for consultation.It included provisional proposals and a number ofissues for further consideration by your Department.We now have pleasure in offering our final report.

In making the review, you asked us to look into thefollowing issues:

� With secondary schools to support them inmaking available a wider range of more flexiblelanguage courses, with accreditation, so thatmore young people keep up language learningeven if they are not doing a full GCSE course;

� Further ways of strengthening the incentivesfor schools and young people themselves tocontinue with languages after 14;

� With representatives of FE and HE, to look atwhat more might be done to widen access toand increase interest in language learningamong the student population;

� With employer organisations, to consider whatmore they can do to promote the value oflanguage skills for business and to give strongermarket signals to young people about languageskills and employability; and

� What broader communication effort is neededto get across the importance of language skillsto all sections of the population.

In making this final report we have revisited pointsmade in the consultations that preceded our earlierreport. We have held further consultation meetingson our provisional proposals and have receivedresponses by letter and e mail. We are grateful tothose who have helped us in this way, and to the sixteacher associations, who at our request, sought tostimulate busy schools to offer comments.

In this final report we have developed and extendedthe proposals in our consultation report forinvestment in teachers in primary and secondaryschools. We see these as the necessary bases for ourproposal that languages should become part of thestatutory curriculum for Key Stage 2. They also forma key element in our proposals for a renaissance oflanguages in secondary schools.

We link our proposals for investment in teaching insecondary schools, and for investment in teachingmaterials, with our development of the major themeof this report on the need for a range of motivatinglearning pathways for the whole range of pupils andtheir different learning objectives. We makeproposals to that end.

This action in support of teaching and to provide arange of motivating learning opportunities, lies atthe heart of any programme to strengthen theincentives to schools to continue with languagesafter 14. But we also invite you to considersupporting these in guidance to schools on thecontinued study of languages in Key Stage 4 andin other ways.

We confirm our earlier recommendation toincrease the number of schools having languagesas a specialism to 400, and in doing so we thinkthat it will help languages in the schools communityas a whole if the increase supported a moreeven geographical spread of specialist collegesacross England.

We welcome the emphasis you placed in ourterms of reference on the need for action tomake the case for languages to all sections of thepopulation and to encourage employers to promotethe value of language skills for business. We receivedseveral offers of help from employers’ organisationswhich are summarised in our consultation report.In this report we make a number of furtherrecommendations, and urge the Government toput its weight behind the case for languages.

1

6970-DfES-Languages Review 8/3/07 15:50 Page 1

The cost of our recommendations, in including ourrecommendation that the present support forprimary schools should be continued beyond thepresent planned support to 2008, would bring thetotal needed for languages to over £50m a year. Byfar the biggest element is the support for teaching.In addition we recommend that the additionalfinancial support for specialist language colleges tosupport key elements of the National LanguagesStrategy should be continued (currently some£8m a year) with appropriate increase as thenumber of colleges increases. We are grateful to theDepartment for its assistance with this assessment.

If you feel able to back the comprehensiveprogramme of action we have outlined in supportof languages in schools we believe you will be in astrong position to call upon schools, through actionover the next two years, progressively to lift thenumbers choosing to take languages in year ten,the first year in Key Stage 4, to the 50 per cent to90 per cent sought by Minister Jacqui Smith. Werecommend that you closely monitor the plansmade by schools to achieve this, and we outlineadministrative measures you could take in supportof such an approach. We further recommend youmake clear that you are prepared, if the decline isnot halted and turned around within a reasonabletimeframe, to return languages to the statutorycurriculum. That as you know is not our preferredcourse because we think the range proposed by theMinister gives schools scope to develop learningprogrammes for each child that best fits him/herfor life, and best motivates many more of our youngpeople to stay in learning after age sixteen. This mustbe a major objective of education policy.

Ron Dearing Lid King

2 Languages Review


Chapter 1

The Problem andthe Responsein Outline

1.1 In September 2004, learning a language inmaintained schools ceased to be a mandatorypart of the curriculum for pupils in the last twoyears of their compulsory education, usuallyreferred to as Key Stage 4. Instead it becamean entitlement for all students who chose tocontinue after their three years of mandatorystudy in Key Stage 3.

1.2 Although up to that time learning a languagein Key Stage 4 had been mandatory, in fact only80 per cent got as far as taking the GCSE, andthe take up had been drifting down since 2000.This became particularly noticeable whenconsultation about removing the statutoryrequirement began in 2002.

1.3 At the same time as the changes at secondarylevel, the Government launched a programmeto provide an opportunity for all pupils at KeyStage 2 in primary schools to learn a languageby 2010.

The Outcome and Prospects1.4 The take up of languages in primary schools has

gone very well, and a recent survey suggeststhat already some 70 per cent of primaryschools are now offering a language or are closeto doing so. The reports we have had indicatethat languages are enjoyed by children acrossthe ability range and that there is no lack ofenthusiasm, interest or keenness to learn. This

has the potential to feed through into thesecondary schools, improve performance, andencourage pupils as they reach Key Stage 4 tocontinue with languages. This is true of thetraditional study of French, German, andSpanish, and there is potential amongstcommunity languages, which over the comingtwo decades will become of increasingcommercial importance, and a potentialnational asset.

1.5 At the secondary level by contrast, the numbertaking languages has fallen sharply. Lastsummer, the numbers continuing with alanguage to the GCSE at secondary level hadfallen to 51 per cent. Inclusion of those takingother language qualifications increases this toonly 52 per cent. A survey showed that therewill be a further fall this year. The preliminarysigns were that thereafter the fall was levellingoff. However this is not certain, as numbers maybe affected by the decision to include Englishand Maths in the 5 A*-C GCSEs measure in theAchievement and Attainment Tables and in thelong term by the introduction of the specialiseddiplomas which are expected to be taken by 30per cent of those entering KS4.

1.6 The fall in numbers taking languages at KeyStage 4 is closely related to social class, and tooverall performance in Key Stage 3, and theirlater performance in the GCSE.

The Problem and the Response in Outline 3


1.7 Thus the proportion of pupils entitled to freeschool meals gaining a language qualificationin Key Stage 4 is only half that of pupils frombetter off homes. The proportion of pupilstaking languages who obtained 5 A* to C passesis about twice that of the less successful pupils.

1.8 Thus while the policy of languages for all isworking well across the whole range of socialclass and ability in primary schools; at secondarylevel, even before languages ceased to becompulsory, it was never fully achieved. Twentyper cent were being exempted as far back asthe year 2000; a third had dropped languagesby the time they became an entitlement ratherthan a requirement; and we have regressedfurther from it since then.

1.9 We gave the facts in some detail in ourconsultation report together with the reasonsfor the Government’s decision to open up theoptions at Key Stage 4 and the reasons for themove out of languages that has taken place.1

Where Next?1.10 Our judgement is that there is scope for many

more of our teenagers to do better than in thepast in languages. For the reasons we set out inChapter 4 of our consultation report, it is in theirinterest and the public interest, that more ofthem should do so. We think the low prioritymany employers give to language skills, asreflected for example in their plans for the newspecialised diplomas, is mistaken. It does nothowever lead us to the conclusion that at thisstage all pupils should be required to continueafter Key Stage 3, or with the same timecommitment. We have seen it as our task to setout how to enable many more pupils to succeedin different ways, within a framework in whichschools make a commitment to languages beinga substantial part of the Key Stage 4 curriculum,but which also recognises the need to respond

differentially to the capabilities and motivationsof pupils, in the wider cause of sustaining themsuccessfully in learning to eighteen and beyond.

1.11 The programme of action we propose in thisreport to enable many more pupils to engagesuccessfully in the study of languages at thesecondary level will take two years to complete.But if action can be taken quickly on ourproposals to support language teachers insecondary schools, this together with theopportunities for new approaches to fullyaccredited learning now offered by theLanguages Ladder, and innovative approachesto the GCSE; and with the progressive realisationof our other proposals, schools could be aimingin September 2008 to have made progresstowards the 50 to 90 per cent benchmark forentrants to languages in Key Stage 4 proposedby Jacqui Smith last year, and aim to completetheir progress to it for entrants to Key Stage 4 inthe school year beginning in September 2009,when all our proposed changes could be fullyin place.

1.12 Failing a response of that kind, from schools,head teachers and languages departmentswith corresponding support and challengefrom government and its national agencies,which we discuss further in our concludingchapter, we outline a return to some formof mandatory requirement.

4 Languages Review

1 Appendix One contains relevant statistical data.


Chapter 2

Making theCase forLanguages

2.1 Three out of the five issues we were asked toconsider were concerned with getting acrossthe importance of languages to all sections ofthe population, and in particular to youngpeople. In this you asked us to consider withemployers what more they could do topromote the value of language skills forbusiness, and with representatives of Higherand Further Education to consider what moremight be done to increase interest in languagelearning among the student population.

Higher and Further Education2.2 As an immediate measure, we asked all

universities, working with local F.E. colleges,specialist language colleges and sixth formcolleges, to seek opportunities in January andFebruary this year to visit schools to speak withpupils about the value of languages.

2.3 As we have found from direct contacts, forexample with the universities of Birmingham,Cambridge, Hull, Manchester, Nottingham,and more widely, many university languagedepartments have much experience of, andexpertise in, engaging with local schools topromote languages. These activities haverecently been positively reviewed by the SubjectCentre for Languages Linguistics and AreaStudies. We think that institutions should receivespecific support to develop this activity.

2.4 With particular reference to wideningparticipation in higher education the HigherEducation Funding Council for England HEFC(E)is funding four regional projects costing £2.5mover four years to encourage more youngpeople to study languages. These projects aretesting different methods of engaging withschools and colleges to raise the aspirationand demand among young people to studylanguages. A key feature is to provide thesecondary, FE and HE sectors with the resourcesto work together to promote language study.The regional projects are one strand of a £4.5mprogramme of work to support languages.

2.5 A sensibly financed programme over four yearssuch as that to be launched by the HEFC(E) is awell conceived response to the opportunity.

2.6 We are advised by the HEFC(E) that for anadditional £3m over four years the schemecould be given national coverage. Werecommend that this additional funding isprovided for this scheme and invite the HEFC(E)to undertake it, with part being available forany strongly conceived proposals that areunsuccessful in the current bidding round, withthe remainder being available for a secondround of bidding in a year’s time.

Making the Case for Languages 5


Employers’ Organisations2.7 As stated in Chapter 6 of our consultation

report, the CBI, the Institute of Directors, theBritish Chambers of Commerce, the Instituteof Exports, and the National Health ServiceEmployers have all indicated specific ways,outlined in that report, in which they are willingto advance the cause of languages. We invitethe Department to maintain active contact withthese organisations to foster their continuingsupport, and to consider whether from time totime there is news or developments that mightbe of interest to their members. In addition toencourage companies to support languages inschools we suggest for consideration the awardof a “kitemark” to organisations who do goodwork in this field.

Major Multinationals andOverseas Embassies2.8 Our consultation has confirmed the very real

and often well funded programmes of activityby major overseas embassies to promote thestudy of their national language, whetherdirectly or through national institutes.

2.9 Some of the corporate responsibilityprogrammes of multinational companies areextending to languages and are very impressive.Our sense is that working with embassies, wherethe company is not headquartered in Britain,there is scope over time for broadening thecommitment by such companies to supportlanguages, and intercultural awareness.

2.10 We accordingly confirm the proposal inour consultation report that Governmentworking with the Embassies in London shouldencourage international companies, as partof their corporate philanthropy, to sponsorprogrammes to promote intercultural awarenessand the value of languages in this to schools inthe areas where they have businesses. In supportof that, they could facilitate opportunities for

work experience overseas for 14-16 years oldpupils, and school to school exchangesbetween pupils in this country and overseascountries where they operate. Companies mightalso be asked to consider providing support forpupils in their localities, who have demonstratedan early ability in languages, to engage withsimilarly talented pupils overseas, to worktogether on some project of common interest,for example, promoting intercultural awareness,a comparative study of the attitudes in theirown countries to global warming, recycling orsport, and so on.

Getting across the importance oflanguages to all sections of thepopulation, young and old2.11 While in England, those who are proficient in

overseas languages are admired, this is at leastin part a reflection of our relatively low level oflanguage skills, rather than from any strongawareness that such skills matter and are animportant enfranchisement in a Europe wherethere is free movement of peoples, a key tomulticultural awareness in our own country andin the world, and increasingly relevant to theprospects of our young people in a world ofmultinational companies where linguistic skillsare valued.

6 Languages Review


2.12 This points to the need for an active programmeby the Government to communicate theimportance of languages not only to youngpeople, but also to parents who are influentialon the choices pupils make for their Key Stage 4curriculum and beyond.

2.13 In our consultation report we accordinglyproposed that the Department for Educationand Skills should develop a continuingprogramme to promote languages focussingon events like the Beijing Olympics of 2008, the2012 London Olympic Games and other majorinternational events such as the Rugby WorldCup in France in 2007 and the EuropeanFootball Cup in 2008.

2.14 At local level, Local Authorities could beencouraged to promote interest in localschools in towns overseas with which theyhave twinning arrangements, and promotecontact at school level through communicationtechnology and exchange visits. This doubtlesshappens to some extent already, but in schoolswhere the language is in the curriculum thismight, with the support of languagedepartments and head teachers, be promotedwith especial enthusiasm. We now confirmthose recommendations.

In addition:

2.15 We invite consideration for an annual nationalMinisterial reception for heads of languagesdepartments who in the year have made adistinctive contribution to promoting interest inlanguages, and for innovations in the practise ofpedagogy in their school, perhaps supported bya cash prize for investment in equipment or anoverseas visit for professional development, forthe most outstanding cases.

2.16 To address the low numbers of pupils achievinga very high grading at the GCSE progressing toA levels and beyond in languages, we urge thatconsideration is given to one day events at fiveor six centres, perhaps to coincide with the

European Day for Languages, where pupils havean opportunity to hear from linguists about therange of work they do in this country, forexample in the courts, in social services, inGovernment Departments, and in internationalorganisations such as the European Commission,which we know is anxious to encourage morenative English speakers to come forward forappointments as translators, and for main lineappointments in its various directorates. Thismight be supported by the appointment of a“Languages in Careers” Director to get across thevalue of language skills as a means of wideningopportunities in a whole range of careers.

2.17 We would add that major promotionalcampaigns to influence opinion requiresubstantial resources if they extend to paidpromotion using the full resources of the media.We understand that the Learning and SkillsCouncil has found it necessary to allocateindividual budgets of £6m a year, and more, topromote apprenticeships, train to gain andstudent maintenance grants.

2.18 Some substantial expenditure is a matter thatgoes beyond our competence to recommend,but we tentatively suggest a budget of £2m ayear to support a sustained effort throughevents, articles, languages days, publications, andfor material for use in schools, to raise publicawareness of the importance of languages.

2.19 Finally we suggest that the potential of seniorpoliticians in promoting the value of languagesshould be evaluated, and opportunities taken bythem to illustrate from their own experienceshow some facility in a language has beenvaluable to them, for example, in buildingrelationships. In particular we urge that theGovernment should put its weight behindthe case for languages.

Making the Case for Languages 7


Chapter 3

What Needs tobe Done –motivatinglearners andsupportingteachers

3.1 Our terms of reference invited us to:

� support secondary schools in making available awider range of more flexible language courses,with accreditation, so that more young peoplekeep up language learning even if they are notdoing a full GCSE course;

� (consider) further ways of strengthening theincentives for schools and young peoplethemselves to continue with languages after 14.

3.2 It became clear very early in our review that theproblems of Key Stage 4 languages could notbe solved in isolation from earlier and laterstages of learning. This was confirmed duringthe course of the consultation. What wasneeded was a coherent place for languages inthe school curriculum, and beyond. Muchprogress has been made since the launch of theNational Languages Strategy in 2002, but if weare to address the challenges of the unwantedfall-off in languages post 14, we need asignificant reshaping of the languages offer –what has been described as the New Paradigmfor languages.

3.3 This also prompts our first important conclusion,which is that a one menu suits all approachto secondary languages is not working formany of our children, and that we mustencourage a more varied languages offerwhich suits a range of requirements for youngpeople. The need is for a coherent languagesprogramme leading to a range of appropriateoptions if those who are abandoning languagesare to be motivated to continue.

3.4 In our consultation report we set out whatamounts to a package of reform, intended tostrengthen the existing National LanguagesStrategy and proposing both short and longerterm measures aiming to embed languages inthe curriculum for primary schools; and atsecondary level to improve the experience oflearning a language for pupils, to increase themotivation to learn, and to enhance pedagogy.In the consultation these proposals havereceived a large measure of support. Combinedwith a stronger framework and manifest supportfrom Government, we believe they provide thebasis for a renaissance of languages in schoolsand in the longer term an improvement in ournational capability in languages.

Languages in Primary Schools3.5 The programme for the progressive introduction

of languages into primary schools is going well.Schools are well on the way to the target of a

Languages for life

KS2 Framework

KS3 Framework

Specialist Vocational Personal 14+

11-14

7-11

KS1 (non statutory) 5-7

8 Languages Review


languages entitlement for all pupils in Key Stage 2by 2010. Some 70 per cent of schools are alreadyteaching languages or have made plans to doso, and all the signs are that this percentage willincrease this year, perhaps to over three quarters.We continually hear the comment that childrenenjoy their language learning in primary schools.A specifically primary experience of languages isbeing developed, linking language learning tolearning across the curriculum and making gooduse of a range of resources, of speakers of thelanguage and of excellent programmes of ICTbased learning. There has also been thenecessary financial support.

3.6 A framework for languages study in Key Stage 2has been available to schools since 2005 andschemes of work for German, French andSpanish are now being published. A robustprogramme of Initial Teacher Training is also inplace and set to continue. Local and regionaltraining opportunities have also been madeavailable. All of this means that the ground workfor a statutory languages curriculum is alreadylargely in place.

3.7 Against this background we recommendthat languages become part of the statutorycurriculum for Key Stage 2 in primaryschools, when it is next reviewed. This shouldbe as soon as practicable and if possible in timefor languages to become part of the statutoryprimary curriculum by September 2010. Inmaking this recommendation we have takeninto account the statutory requirement thatit should be introduced progressively byyear group. In the interim we urge that theexperience gained over the last few years and inthe period immediately ahead should be usedto inform our understanding of what is bestlearnt in the early years and the most successfulapproaches to learning. But while the purposesand outcomes of the learning should beprescribed through the curriculum, we wouldadvise against any one tightly prescribed

approach to teaching, as has sometimeshappened in the past. Key to the future successof this significant primary initiative will becontinuing support for teachers throughopportunities for professional development andaccess to support networks and a range ofresources, so that all primary schools have thenecessary capability to teach languages.

3.8 We recommend that the provision forteacher support in primary schools shouldbe continued, and where necessary,extended to take schools through the first twoyears of a statutory curriculum for languagesand to help them widen the range of languagesoffered, as proposed below.

3.9 French has been the main language offered inprimary schools, but as in our consultationreport, we think it important to widen the rangeof languages that can be offered, and werecommend that attention is given to how thatcan best be achieved and that this shouldinvolve continuing consultation with embassies.We envisage that these will prominently beFrench, German and Spanish. But looking furtherahead there will be increasing interest in otherworld languages, particularly Eastern languages.We should also value community languages,in which, in many localities, children will havea high level of speaking and listening skills.Decisions on such matters go beyond the scope

What Needs to be Done – motivating learners and supporting teachers 9


of this review and need to be preceded bycareful analysis and consultation, including theneed to be satisfied that the capability exists inthe school to teach the chosen languages. It willalso be important in this respect to ensure thatadvice and guidance continue to be madeavailable to primary schools on the specificlanguages which are taught, on the range ofcurricular models and on the challenges ofprogression and transition.

3.10 Indeed the full benefits of teaching languagesin primary schools will not be realised unlessthere are good arrangements for transition tosecondary schools. To this end we maketwo recommendations:

a) There should be informal classroom assessmentof every child’s learning near the end of KeyStage 2 by reference to the Languages Ladder2,so that the Key Stage 3 teacher is well informedabout the pupil’s learning standard and needs.We recommend use of the ladder because itprovides the teacher with assessment at thelevel appropriate to the child in each of the fourstrands of learning: speaking, listening, readingand writing, and because it is to a commonnational standard. Its purpose is different fromthe SATs, which in the past have beenessentially a summative means of assessing aschool’s performance with all pupils taking thesame test. The assessment we recommend isformative in purpose, fit for the individual child,not aggregated, and should not be the basisfor any league tables.

b) Wherever possible, with appropriate leadershipfrom Local Authorities, clusters of primary andsecondary schools in a local authority areashould link up to seek to achieve agreement onthe languages to be taught in primary schoolsand arrangements for progression to thesecondary schools, and to foster close contactbetween the primary teacher and the specialistlanguage teacher in the secondary school. Themore the last year of primary and the first yearin the secondary school become a continuumthe better. In this respect we fully support theproposal of the Training and DevelopmentAgency to develop a 9-14 Languages teachertraining course.

3.11 The success of languages in Key Stage 2 raisesthe question of whether it should extend toKey Stage 1. On the mainland of Europe theage at which language learning begins hasbeen coming down year by year, and in theNetherlands, for example, it now begins at agefive. In general, however, a starting age of sevenor eight reflects current European practice andthe priority over the next few years should bethe success of Key Stage 2. Where this issucceeding, it may gradually extend to KeyStage 1, and there is wisdom in leaving this toschools to decide for themselves, while ensuringthat advice is available for those who wish tomake an earlier start.

10 Languages Review

2 Following an open competition, the University of CambridgeLocal Examinations Syndicate was awarded a 5 year contract,which ends in 2008, to produce and pilot a specification andassessment materials for the stages of a new qualification tobe accredited by the regulatory authorities. The contractspecifies the stages of development and the languages to beincluded in the scheme. The qualifications, followingaccreditation, are known as Asset Languages qualificationsand accredit competence at all levels for learners of all agesand are based on the Languages Ladder – the Government'snational recognition scheme.


Languages in Secondary Schools –The Challenge of Motivation3.12 Motivating learners is a key challenge for

language teachers in secondary schools, andnot only in England. In other countries the roleof English as a world language, and the wayit permeates the culture of young people,provides an incentive to learn it and facilitateslearning. This tends to overlay the fact thatmany overseas learners of languages find it achallenging task. It is therefore not surprisingthat the major source of the abandonment oflanguages is by students who are amongst theless successful in learning generally.

3.13 Despite this, many teachers are successful withall learners. It has been put to us that 99 percent of learners who really want to learn alanguage (i.e. who are really motivated) willbe able to master a reasonable knowledge of itas a minimum, regardless of their aptitude orbackground. It is not our task in this review toprovide the recipe for motivational success. Wecan however propose what needs to be done tocreate the conditions in which it will be possibleto motivate all or most learners.3 These include:

� A more varied languages offer with a range ofappropriate outcomes (assessment)

� The possibility to recognise and celebrateachievement in small steps

� Engaging curricular content (including links withthe real world in which the language is spoken)

� Opportunities for teachers to reflect and learnfrom each other and from leading practitioners.

3.14 These are the issues which we will now considerin more detail.

Recognising AchievementThe Handicap of ‘One Size Fits All’

3.15 If we are to motivate learners, the shortcomingsof the “one size fits all” approach, in particularfor those pupils, who in general terms are faringleast well in Key Stage 3 and the GCSE, but alsofor those higher achievers who find languageslacking in cognitive challenge, leads us to anumber of conclusions. What we are proposingreflects what has already been recognisedfor science at Key Stage 4 where there arealternatives which suit the differentrequirements of young people dependingon their aspirations and aptitude for science.

3.16 Recognising that in practice much of thecontent and organisation of the secondarycurriculum is determined by the possibleoutcomes of the assessment system, we addressthis matter first. This means reshaping thecurrent GCSE, supporting a range of alternativeoptions and paying particular attention to thenew Specialised Diploma programme.

Reforming GCSE

3.17 The GCSE is the examination which drives thecurriculum at Key Stage 4 and casts its mantleover the final year of Key Stage 3. It is particularlyin these years that the context of the learningneeds to be stimulating to pupils and to engagethem in discussion, debates and writing aboutsubjects that are of concern and interest toteenagers. Although outstanding teacherscan overcome most barriers to learning, ascommonly interpreted the present GCSE doesnot facilitate this. As we said in our consultationreport, it has been suggested to us that tofacilitate teaching in such contexts, a range ofoptions might be available from which pupilsmight select a specified number. A strong casehas also been put for an alternative, more flexibleGCSE in languages perhaps with an internationalor business orientation and involving thedevelopment of a more limited range of skills


3 See also Appendix 2.


in several languages.4 Such an approach mayreflect the interests of a proportion of pupils whowould seek such more limited skills in a range ofsay three languages as more relevant, useful tothem, and more appealing than continuing withthe study of a single language.

3.18 From our discussions with the Qualifications andCurriculum Authority (QCA) we know that theyare planning a review of the GCSE and that theyare seized of the importance of an examinationthat will promote a more lively frameworkwithin which to learn a language. In our opiniona renaissance of language needs such a reviewas a matter of urgency.

3.19 We recommend that the review proceeds asa priority in consultation with the AwardingBodies, and language teachers. We also inviteconsideration of a more flexible “languages inuse” GCSE.

3.20 We now return to the widely held view, asrecorded in our consultation report, that thedemands of languages in the GCSE are greaterthan for the great majority of subjects, andthe statistical analysis that appeared to givesome support for that view in terms of thelevel of demand for the award of a grade. Werecognised that to some extent the conclusionsare qualified by recognition that factors likestudent interest and motivation affectachievement. In our further consultation wehave found strong confirmation of the viewthat the award of grades is more demandingthan for most other subjects. This needs to beresolved one way or the other by a definitivestudy, followed by publication of the

conclusions, because the present widely heldperception in schools, whether right or wrong,is adversely affecting the continued study oflanguages through to the GCSE.

3.21 We do not propose any reduction in thedemands of the Curriculum but we confirm theproposal that the issue should be resolved assoon as possible and we so recommend.

3.22 We also proposed a new approach to theassessment of speaking and listening, whichrightly account for half the marks in the GCSE,on the grounds that the present method is toostressful and too short to be a reliable way ofassessing what the candidates can do. It isinteresting that when people spoke about theoral test, that however long ago it may havebeen, it is often remembered as a stressfulexperience. We therefore proposed that theseparts of the examination should be over aperiod through moderated teacher assessment.

3.23 We recognise that any change has to be madein a way that does not weaken the validity ofthe assessment, and concerns have beenexpressed to us about that. But that has to bebalanced against the risk that a test that is oftenhighly stressful and over a short period, whilstaccurate in its awards against performance onthe day, is not a reliable test of the candidates’capability. We note that assessment of speakingfor awards for the Languages Ladder (AssetLanguages) is through accredited teacherassessment. We have been advised by one ofthe examining boards that it is piloting a newapproach to assessment, based partly on an ICTprogramme over half an hour for listening skills,and by teacher assessment over a period forspeaking. These are matters for furtherconsideration by the QCA and the examiningboards, but we remain of the opinion that thepresent forms of assessment are not the besttest of the candidates’ abilities and contributeto the loss of students to languages.

12 Languages Review

4 The Institute of Directors put to us the case for a GCSEcovering several languages, set in a business context, to helppeople in business to get through to the people they wantto contact, and to help establish a personal relationship withthem. Another proposal has been for an “international” GCSEalso containing a languages component.


The Short Course GCSE

3.24 The short course GCSE is not proving popularwith learners. It is not distinctively different inapproach from the full GCSE. We inviteconsideration of a programme that is sharper infocus, aimed at those whose interest is in basicfunctionality in a language in a range ofmeaningfully relevant contexts to the learner.

Alternatives to GCSE and the Languages Ladder

3.25 There is also a need for a wider range ofprogrammes and assessment options if morepupils are to be motivated to continue beyondKey Stage 3. There is already a range ofinteresting and successful practice in coursesleading to qualifications other than thetraditional GCSE. There are, for example, theNVQ language units, the Certificate in BusinessLanguage Competence, and an Applied FrenchGCSE is being piloted. The Languages Ladderoffers a major opportunity for schools to offerdifferent curricula, and to have achievementrecognised at whatever level is appropriateto the pupil, in speaking, listening, readingand writing.

3.26 All of these qualifications attract points in theAchievement and Attainment tables. Schoolsneed to be better informed about thesealternative routes to learning languages, and werecommend that the Department finds meansof addressing this need, particularly in relationto the Languages Ladder.

3.27 In the interests of broadening the basis oflearning to the GCSE we also invite earlyconsideration of achievement through theLanguages Ladder (as currently awarded byAsset Languages) leading to the award of aGCSE. We are advised that at the relevant points,the levels in the ladder are aligned with GCSElevels, and so, subject to satisfying the QCA thatany additional requirements for a GCSE havebeen satisfied, a GCSE award could be made.

3.28 We have already put forward ourrecommendation that the ladder is used forformative assessment at the end of Key Stage 2.We also propose that some assessment ofpupils’ progress should be available at the endof Key Stage 3. This will be motivating for pupilswho will thus be able to judge the progressbeing made towards a level 2 qualification.It may well encourage a greater staying-onrate, or at least (in the case of those who aredetermined to give up languages at 14) it willprovide a recognisable outcome, which cancontribute to the overall profile of the learnerand the school.

3.29 We therefore recommend that aqualification associated with the LanguagesLadder (currently Asset Languages) is madeavailable for all pupils at the end of KeyStage 3 at a subsidised cost for schools, andthat consideration is given to achievementthrough the Languages Ladder beingrecognised through the award of GCSE.

The Specialised Diplomas3.30 The fourteen specialised diplomas which will be

introduced into Key Stage 4 over the next fewyears, beginning in 2008, raise the need forsome new thinking. There will be provision forAdditional and Specialised Learning at level 2 for180 hours of guided learning time over the twoyears of Key Stage 4, which is available for pupilsto make their own choices of learning.A language is one of their options.

3.31 In discussions with a number of lead bodiesfor the Diplomas, where languages seemparticularly relevant, we have invitedconsideration of languages being required,notably for example as part of the Additionaland Specialised Learning. One partnership isready to do this, but the need as they see it, isnot for a GCSE level of competence in onelanguage, but a basic competence in thespoken and listening elements of several



languages, and some cultural understanding.Such learning needs to lead to certification, andwe have drawn this to the attention of the QCA.

3.32 Other groups we have seen are not so minded,at least at this point (one has the matter underconsideration). But there will be the option forthe pupil to choose a language at least as partof the Additional and Specialised Learning. It isimportant that a language option that makessense to the individual diploma partnershipsand to the pupils taking their awards willbe available.

3.33 We invite the Department to continuediscussions we have had with a number of thepartnerships to ensure that where a pupil doesdecide to chose a language in his Additionaland Specialised Learning there are suitablecontextually relevant courses qualifying forawards. We turn later to equipping teachersto respond to the language requirements ofthe diplomas.

Reshaping the Languages Curriculum3.34 We now turn to the structure of the curriculum

itself. Even within the constraints of the currentsystem, it is possible to make more appropriateuse of both the courses and time available.With the introduction of a more flexible KeyStage 3 curriculum, it will become more ratherthan less important for secondary languages

to be organised in a different way. In ourconsultation report we commented on anumber of such initiatives and here we returnto those which seem to us to be of particularvalue for languages.

Flexible Approaches 3.35 Many schools are successfully fast-tracking to a

GCSE at the end of Key Stage 3, providing formore advanced study at Key Stage 4, or forlearning a second language. This is likely tobecome more desirable as the primaryreform takes hold and pupils with significantcompetence in transactional language beginto arrive in Year 7. Allowing pupils to makeaccelerated progress does not appear to lowerstandards. On the contrary. An opportunityto move to another language may also beattractive to learners, who wish to learn anotherlanguage at a basic or intermediate level, ratherthan seek further progress in their first foreignlanguage. In the comments we have had fromstudents there has on occasion been anindication that they would have chosen tocontinue with languages if there had beenan opportunity to do this.

3.36 While the most successful learners will rightlychoose to take the GCSE before moving on tomore advanced studies or another language,other students moving on to a second languagecan have their achievements certificatedthrough the Languages Ladder, and recognisedin the Achievement and Attainment tables.

We recommend that the Department workingin partnership with its key partners providesmore systematic guidance to schools aboutthese possibilities.

Languages across the curriculum3.37 Languages may also be combined or linked to

other parts of the curriculum. This will be acommon feature of teaching in primary schools.We also see merit in developing this more

14 Languages Review


consistently and systematically in secondaryschools, providing a basis for further study anduse of languages. In its most developed formsuch initiatives may be fully integrated“bilingual” teaching and learning (or CLIL5).There are also many possibilities for lessambitious embedding of languages incooperation with subjects such as Sport,Performing Arts, and Enterprise.

We recommend that the Department increasesits support for initiatives in this area and ensuresthat existing experience is disseminated morewidely.

The Curriculum and meanings thatmatter 3.38 In addition to widening the range of study

options and curricular models, as we argued inour earlier report there is a general issue of thecontent of curriculum in particular in the finalyear of Key Stage 3 and in Key Stage 4. It iswidely held, and we believe rightly, that this isnot often at a cognitive level that is stimulatingto teenagers. We have identified manyexamples of exciting and relevant languageteaching and engaged learning, and these areagain described in Appendix 2 to this finalreport. The challenge is making such experiencegeneral rather than restricted. We now turn tothat issue.

New Curriculum Content3.39 The new languages curriculum for Key Stage 3

that has been presented for consultation byQCA provides the scope for teachers to teach incontexts that engage the interest of teenagers.It gives teachers the opportunity to motivatelearning. We would also expect that thechanges recommended in this report toGCSE and the recommendations concerning

alternative accreditation, will facilitate theintroduction of more stimulating and relevantcontent to the languages syllabus. But thatopportunity needs to be realised by concreteschemes of work and above all by teachingapproaches that translate it into practice.

3.40 The kind of content that will motivate learners –those “meanings that matter” – are illustrated inthe appendix to this report, and it is not the roleof this review to prescribe. Characteristic ofthem all, however, is that they are “real” content,whether related to other parts of the curriculum,to more creative approaches to learning or tothe understanding of language itself.

3.41 We recommend that the DfES incollaboration with key partners developclear guidelines and support for a moreappropriate and varied content to thesecondary languages curriculum. Cruciallythis should be promoted though a range ofopportunities for Continuing ProfessionalDevelopment (CPD) (see below 3.50).

A wider range of languages3.42 In our consultation report we proposed that

a broader range of languages should beencouraged in schools, both to engage learnersand to provide a more relevant pool of nationalexpertise. We particularly highlighted thepotential role of world languages includingEastern languages.

3.43 The Secretary of State has already acted onthese proposals and in February the newsecondary curriculum went out to nationalconsultation proposing that the statutoryrequirement to offer a working language of theEuropean Union in Key Stage 3 is removed. Thiswould be replaced by guidance promotingmajor languages, which may include French,German, Spanish, Italian, Mandarin, Urdu andother major spoken world languages dependingon local needs and circumstances.


5 Content and Language Integrated Learning. Typically(as at Tile Hill Wood – see Appendix) this might involvethe teaching of Geography through a foreign language.


3.44 In our earlier report we also raised the issue ofcommunity languages and the ability ofschools to respond to the potential of pupilswith an existing (perhaps mainly spoken)capability. These are a national asset, to whichmore thought needs to be given in terms ofnational policy. Funding appears to be difficultto access and local provision is very variable.We were pleased to note that the Departmentrecently announced the establishment of a newNational Resource Centre for SupplementaryEducation which will support the developmentof more and better supplementary schools,through, in particular, the extended schools andspecialist schools programme. Supplementaryschools are run by almost every ethniccommunity group in England including AfricanCaribbean, Afghan, Somali, Greek, Jewish,Turkish, Russian and Iranian. They offer childrensupport in national curriculum subjects, as wellas the opportunity to learn their community’smother tongues and to understand more abouttheir ethnic or national culture and heritage.

3.45 We recommend a review of present practicesto identify what seem most suitable fordevelopment at local level and the fundingand support structures that may beappropriate, perhaps most especially inthe extended school day.

Supporting Teachers and Pupils3.46 If we are to realise the ambitious programme of

reform outlined in our recommendations, actionwill be needed to support implementation byteachers in the classroom. This was a viewexpressed in our initial report and it wasstrongly endorsed in the consultation process.To that end we need to ensure that appropriateprofessional development is available and alsothat the means exist for teachers to access it.

Training and professional development

3.47 In the consultation report we said that“investment in teachers is a key to the future

of languages”. This view has been confirmed bythe responses to the report. We need to buildon the many examples of rich and rewardingpractice in our schools, providing opportunitiesfor language teachers to observe and practicenew approaches and to reflect on the learningprocess. Although we do not propose aunique method, we do believe that successfullanguage teaching has a number of commoncharacteristics, and these are set out in thesecond Appendix – the original Chapter 5 ofour consultation report on teaching, slightlyedited in response to consultation.

3.48 The central importance of such teachereducation is immediately obvious in primaryschools and we have discussed that inparagraphs 3.7 and 3.8 above. But there is noless a need in secondary schools if they are toachieve the adoption of successful strategies forlanguage teaching and the motivation of pupilsacross the ability range. Our approach meansthat the teacher has not only to be successfulwith the more successful learners, but with thewhole range of aptitudes, and interests, andthey have to be able to teach to a range ofqualifications. They need to be highly skilled inthe use of information technology, and inintegrating its use in their lessons. They needtime to work with primary schools to integratethe teaching in the first year at the secondaryschool with the last year of primary learning,across the main feeder schools. They needopportunities to think through how languagelearning can be integrated into parts of otherlearning (CLIL), for example citizenship, orgeography, so that the language can be usedin motivating contexts without detriment tolearning in the target discipline. There is aparticular need to help teachers at Key Stage 4to develop their teaching plans to cover a widerrange of options. A generation of teachers havebecome accustomed to work to predeterminedtopics in the GCSE as a means of structuring

16 Languages Review


their teaching. The topic-free Languages Ladderwill represent a pedagogical challenge. Finally,and uniquely, language teachers need regularopportunities for refreshment at the sourceof their language and culture – the targetlanguage country or countries.

3.49 Of particular importance, as we stressed inour consultation report, will be the need toretain existing secondary teachers in the systemas the reforms outlined here take hold. To thatend the DfES should work with schools, SIPs,Local Authorities and others to ensure that arange of opportunities are made available toschools in more challenging circumstances. Inparticular we recommend the provision ofretraining modules for secondary teacherswishing either to support Primarydevelopments or to develop skills as LeadingTeachers. These modules should be at nocost to schools and we further recommendthat they attract a bursary for teachersrecommended by their schools.

3.50 For professional development teachers need theopportunity to work with colleagues, to observe,to practise and to have access to expertise.The retention of teachers, as proposed above,will facilitate the release of class teachers todo that. The responsibility for providing suchopportunities lies in part with the schoolsthemselves and their use of existing resourcesfor continuing professional development. Thisin itself however is not enough to embed thechanges being proposed, and in additiontherefore we recommend

1 The launch of a National Teacher ResearchScholarship (NTRS) scheme for languages,enabling teachers to work together and withuniversities, advisers and other nationalagencies to develop their pedagogy and findsolutions to the challenges of secondarylanguage learning. This could be adevelopment of the current National

Secondary training programme forlanguages which involves face to facemeetings, distance learning and coachingand is based on local networks of teachers.

2 The targeting of Heads of Department whoare key to in school change through regionaltraining programmes coordinated byComenius Centres and SLCs. This wouldbe further reinforced by the NTRS.

3 More systematic provision of on-linedistance training resources for secondaryteachers, perhaps linked to the proposedOpen School for Languages.

4 Provision of model teaching programmesfor the range of qualifications outlined inthis chapter.

Information and Communications Technology

3.51 We have made earlier references to the valueof ICT in teaching and learning languages.Young people’s familiarity with ICT offers a greatopportunity to language teachers. It seems tous that a determined commitment to use thisworld, which is so familiar to young people, isa key to increasing the engagement of youngpeople of all ages with languages. Newtechnologies can facilitate real contacts withschools and young people in other countries.They can also provide stimulus for creativeand interactive work. A number of respondents



have for example commented on the powerof the Interactive Whiteboard (with appropriatetraining) to transform approaches to LanguageTeaching.

3.52 Developments in ICT move so fast that therewill be a continuing need for information,updating and training. To facilitate this processwe recommend that the Department continuesits provision of information on languages andICT – for example through CILT and BECTA –and finds ways to support and disseminateinnovations in this area.

Technology and the Open School for Languages

3.53 We also recommend a major initiative in thisfield – the Open School for Languages. As wellas supporting teachers and teaching, the newtechnologies have a role to play in supportinglearners directly. Although we do not think thatin schools technology can replace face to faceteaching of languages and interaction betweenlearners and between learner and teacher, weare struck by the potential it offers for pupils toaccess language in their own time and withoutthe pressure of peer observation. Technologycan also provide access to a wider range oflanguage than some schools can currently offer.

3.54 We therefore see a strong case for developing amore concerted national framework for openlanguage learning in schools, similar to theFurther Maths Centres. This Web-based resourcewould make available a range of materialin different languages and with contentdesigned to engage learners and support newdevelopments in the secondary languagescurriculum. It should support face to facelearning opportunities, including intensivecourses and provide some facility for trainingteachers in the best use of appropriate methodsand materials.

3.55 We recommend that the DfES should nowscope a detailed project with a view toinviting tenders from suitable institutions or

consortia to establish an “Open School forLanguages” over the next three years.

Immersion Courses

3.56 Languages do not need to be taught in lock-step, weekly doses. We see value also in theprovision of more intensive immersion coursesfor four purposes in particular:

1. To help level up the language knowledge ofchildren coming from primary schools tosecondary schools, perhaps at the end of thesummer term or just before the new schoolyear. This is to help a successful transition, whichwe have identified as a key need if the primarypolicy is to be a success.

2. To assist pupils in the final year of Key Stage 3who have fallen behind, and need anopportunity to catch up.

3. For pupils who at the end of Key Stage 3 wantto start a new language.

4. To provide a more engaging and appropriateexperience for Key Stage 4 pupils, includingthose taking combined courses or thespecialised diplomas. In some cases these couldbe linked to work or other experience abroad.

3.57 We recommend support for the expansion ofsuch provision on a local and regional basis.Such activity should be underpinned by ourproposals for an Open School For Languages(see above 3.52-3.54).

International and Intercultural Experience

3.58 We have been confirmed in our view thatinternational links, including visits, exchangesand work experience are of major benefit inthemselves and are greatly to be encouragedif children are to see the “point” of languagelearning and to relate it to the realities of the21st century. We suggest a higher priority foropportunities for overseas work experience orvisits, with some financial assistance where thereare problems of finance for families.

18 Languages Review


3.59 Much is already being done to encourage suchexperience and this should be continued. Wealso recommend additional action to makesuch experiences more widespread andeasier to organise. This will involve:

� Advice to LAs on supporting such visits bylooked after children and for schools that have ahigh proportion of pupils on free school meals;

� Promotion of existing national and Europeanopportunities to schools in challengingcircumstances;

� Financial support for the organisation ofwork experience, in collaboration with themain Embassies;

� Support and guidance on overcomingadministrative and legal issues associatedwith visits.

Support Networks for Teachers3.60 For the kind of changes that are proposed in the

Report to be effective, there will be a need forcoordination and support at a national andregional level. This will be of particularimportance in relation to the continuingprofessional development of teachers.Fortunately language teachers are relatively wellserved, by Specialist Language Colleges, and bya range of national and regional organisations.Less happily these structures often overlap andcompete and national coverage is notguaranteed. We do not therefore need to inventnew structures but rather to strengthen them,to increase their impact and where necessaryto simplify and rationalise them. We inviteconsideration of such simplification.

The Specialist Language Colleges

3.61 There are nearly 300 schools that are first orsecond specialism Language Colleges and havean established role in supporting othersecondary and primary schools. Since 2004,SLCs have received extra funding (on average

£30,000 per year) to support Primary or KeyStage 4 languages in other schools. In ourconsultation report we stated that furtherattention needed to be given to the roles thatthe Specialist Schools are playing in support ofKey Stage 4 and we proposed concerted effortsbe made to increase the number of schoolswith languages as a second specialism with aview to achieving the target of 400 Colleges andthereby improve their geographical coverage.

3.62 We now recommend that the impact of thisadditional funding is reviewed, and that onthis basis the funding is continued in themost effective way. Consideration shouldalso be given to whether such funding couldbe extended beyond the Language Collegesto other good schools with successfullanguages departments.

3.63 We further recommend that concertedefforts are made to increase the numbers ofsecond specialisms in languages. We alsorecommend offering a further or annualopportunity to specialist schools to take uplanguages as a second specialism ‘out ofcycle’ with special attention being given toimproving geographical spread.

National and Regional Support Organisations

3.64 In the consultation report we mentioned therole of the British Council in supporting theinternational dimension, the Specialist Schoolsand Academies Trust (SSAT) and its networkssupporting specialist schools, and in particularCILT, The National Centre for Languages, whichoffers a comprehensive range of supportservices for language teachers. There is alsoan active subject association – ALL.

3.65 We recommend that public support forthese bodies is maintained and wherepossible refocused to address specificconcerns relating to languages post 14.



3.66 At a regional and local level there is need forprofessional leadership of teachers to overseethe arrangements for professional developmentto which we give particular emphasis in thisReport, and to organise the use of secondarylanguage teachers, who may become surplus torequirements in the short term. Such supportcan be offered to schools by the nationalorganisations referred to above, LocalAuthorities, especially when they havemaintained a post of Languages Adviser, bythe Specialist Language Colleges and by theCILT network of Comenius Centres. In somecases Higher Education Institutions are also ina position to give regional support.

3.67 But many Local Authorities have eitherwithdrawn or much reduced the support theyonce gave to language teachers throughLanguage Advisers. There is therefore no singleroute through which such strategic support canbe directed in the secondary sector. Insteadthere are a number of support organisationswith complex and overlapping roles. In itsevidence to the Review, CILT itself commentedon this complexity and suggested the need forsome rationalisation.

3.68 We therefore propose time limited action toensure that there is effective local support in allareas proposed in this Report through a 3 yearprogramme for supporting local and regionalconsortia of LAs, SLCs, and Comenius Centres,for example – who take responsibility forcoordinating and promoting lasting change inschools, and in particular coordinate appropriatesupport for schools where the take up oflanguages has fallen to low levels in Key Stage 4,and where the school is prepared to commit toa recovery programme. It has been beyond thescope of the Review to find a solution to thiscomplexity.

3.69 We therefore recommend that as a matter ofsome urgency the Department reviews the

range of support available and develops amore coherent model for supporting changewhich it funds for an initial three yearperiod. Priority for such regional change agents,working closely with SIPs, will be support forschools seeking to raise take-up of languagesin Key Stage 4 from a low level.

Beyond Sixteen3.70 It was part of our brief to consider the possible

influence of post-schools sectors (FE and HE)and also of business. In large part the relevantissues are dealt with in Chapter 2, on promotinglanguages. There are two areas, however, inwhich decisions taken outside the statutoryyears of education have a direct backwasheffect on languages in schools.

The role of the Learning and Skills Council (LSC)

3.71 We referred in our consultation report to theimportance the LSC placed on language skillsfor employment. Increasingly decisions in thepost-16 field are driven by skills prioritiesidentified by regional and sector bodies. Thisdirection of travel has been confirmed in theFurther Education and Training Bill and theLeitch Review of Skills, both published in 2006.There are grounds for concern in this respectthat there will not be a strong voice forlanguages in setting the funding prioritiesfor the nation. We therefore confirm our

20 Languages Review


recommendation that the Secretary of Stateshould identify languages as one of hispriorities in his annual grant letter tothe LSC.

The influence of Higher Education

3.72 Although beyond the remit and competence ofthe review, the recent decision by one majorUniversity (UCL) to include languages as acriterion for selection of undergraduates hasalready attracted comment. Several HeadTeachers have observed that if such a view wasmore widespread it would have a significantimpact on the take-up of languages post 14. Wetherefore urge universities to consider whether,and in what ways, they can show that theyvalue languages, albeit in ways that do notimpact adversely on the widening participationagenda. We are aware, for example, of a recentproposal that where a candidate for entry doesnot have a language at GCSE level they mightbe required to continue their studies atuniversity, or show evidence of studying alanguage, or a proven interest in languages.

3.73 We have referred in Chapter 2 to the HEFC(E)programme for promoting languages in schoolsas part of its widening access agenda, and howthat could be expanded to give nationalcoverage.

Coherence and Commitment3.74 Work is continually taking place on the

curriculum, learning programmes and Key StageFrameworks. It is clear that there should becloser coordination of the timetable for revisionof the framework and curriculum and that theseshould always be considered together. TheDepartment should see that this is so.

3.75 We therefore advise that the Departmentaccepts a responsibility for ensuring that thework is closely coordinated. We urge inparticular that the programme for languagesin primary schools, Key Stages 3 and 4 are

developed as a coherent whole. Piecemealchanges are not the best way of doing the job.Above all, the Department and its Ministersmust make a long-term commitment to thesuccess of this Strategy, and this must bereflected in its priorities and commitmentsfor the next funding period.

3.76 The success of a programme such as we haveoutlined, as finally determined by Ministers, willdepend crucially on a long-term commitmentto it by the Government, extending beyond theDepartment for Education and Skills, which isreflected in its priorities and commitments forthe next funding round.



Chapter 4

SupportingAction andConclusion

Action needed4.1 Our appointment reflects the Government’s

concern to remedy the scale of movement outof languages at the end of Key Stage 3. Ourproposals in the preceding Chapters addressedthe five areas for action identified in our termsof reference, and in making proposals we havenot hesitated to range more widely in theinterests of the coherent development of apolicy of “Languages for All.” Our proposals forincluding languages as part of the statutorycurriculum for primary schools at Key Stage 2reflect that.

4.2 Turning specifically to secondary schools, wesee our proposals in Chapters 2 and 3 as thebasis for a renaissance of languages in KeyStages 3 and 4. They will have a progressiveimpact and should be fully in place bySeptember 2009.

4.3 But if they are to realise their potential, they willneed to be supported by a strong programmeof communication to schools.

4.4 A year ago the Minister of State, Jacqui Smithasked schools to set a benchmark of between 50and 90 per cent of pupils taking a language inKey Stage 4. But this was not supported by anynew policies. It was communicated in a low keyway and it appears to have been little noticed.

4.5 Nevertheless, we think that in the interests ofa curriculum that responds to the abilities,aspirations and needs of every child, herapproach, which leaves more choice in thehands of parents, pupils and teachers than ispossible with any mandatory requirement, hasmuch to commend it. We believe, on the basisof the measures proposed in this Report,and with the concern of all the associationsrepresenting teachers and head teachers to seea recovery of languages, that a new approachto schools by the Secretary of State, stating theimportance he attaches to languages, andsetting a 50 to 90 per cent benchmark, backed bya strong programme of communication, has thepotential for producing the required response.

4.6 We think that including data about languagesin the Tables will focus schools’ attention onlanguages both in terms of the choices thatpupils make and how well they succeed. Afterappropriate piloting we recommend twoperformance indicators: one measuringattainment at GCSE level and one measuringparticipation and attainment at more modestlevels so that this is captured and valued as well.But we see this as information for parents, not asa basis for comparison between schools, and tosupplement the information for parents in theSchool Profile.

22 Languages Review


4.7 Ofsted school inspections are only at intervalsof 3 years and are ‘light touch’. The inspectoris concerned with the overall performance ofthe school, not specifically with languages.However, we understand the HMCI, ChristineGilbert, has already committed to adding ajudgement to inspection reports on the extentto which schools are setting challenging targetsfrom this September. We would expect that inthe context of a letter to schools from theSecretary of State and the changes that arebeing made to the self evaluation form toprompt schools about their languages provision,this will encourage healthy dialogue betweenthe influential inspectors and head teachers.

4.8 In addition to general school inspections, Ofstedalso carry out three yearly subject surveys whichlook in depth at the quality of teaching andlearning in specific subjects and other relatedissues. Given the fragile state of languages takeup at the moment, we recommend that thelanguages subject survey is expanded to covermore schools and that an interim report is madeavailable to the Secretary of State mid cycle tomonitor the impact of the measures that we areproposing.

4.9 School Improvement Partners have a key role.One of the urgent measures that we tookfollowing our consultation report was to speakto School Improvement Partner (SIP) managersto encourage SIPs to raise the issue of languageswith head teachers. We appreciated being givensuch a generous hearing. We think this needs tobe a continuing function of the SIPs. Thereforewe recommend that the take up of languagesat Key Stage 4 is added to the list of specificissues that they must discuss with schools. Totarget effort the Department should providedetails of schools where language take upappears relatively low or in rapid decline. Inthese circumstances, schools and their SchoolImprovement Partners will need support todecide how best to get back on track and we

would encourage the Department to giveurgent attention to setting out options andguidance for School Improvement Partners touse. The role we envisage for the SchoolImprovement Partners is thus one of identifyingproblems, and identifying means to progress aswell as one of challenge.

4.10 In recommending that schools are setbenchmarks of between 50 and 90 per centfor the continuing study of languages, werecognise that the scale of the recession is suchthat the achievement of these figures for manyschools will take time, and that the changes wehave recommended for the opportunities forlearning a language, and changes in the GCSEexamination, with appropriate new curricula,will not be fully in place until September 2009.We think it realistic to recognise that schoolswould be committing themselves to aprogramme of progressive action which maynot be fully realised until September 2010. Webelieve that in very many cases, schools will beable to make quicker headway, but it is realisticto recognise that for some schools wherelanguages have fallen to a very low level, it willtake such time to provide the kind of learningexperience that pupils need.

4.11 In the communication to schools which wepropose, it would be helpful in recognition ofour emphasis on offering a range of learningopportunities, to make clear that the continuedstudy of languages in Key Stage 4 may lead toan acceptable range of outcomes recognisedby the GCSE, the Languages Ladder and otherlanguages qualifications.

4.12 We have considered whether the Secretary ofState’s call on schools to set these benchmarks,should be supported by a statutory direction.We have verified from consultation with theDepartment that this course of action is opento the Secretary of State. But there was suchstrong opposition from the two head teachers

Supporting Action and Conclusion 23


associations to a directive that we think that inthe interest of having the goodwill of headteachers, it is probably better on balance toproceed as above. The first opportunity to assesswhether there has been a positive response willbe in September 2008. At that time, thecurriculum choices made by pupils early in 2008,will become apparent. But our reforms will taketime to work through and it would be unrealisticto expect any substantial change in decisionsbeing taken as early as February next year. Abetter means of judging the response of schoolsto the proposed benchmarking could beobtained from a report by the Chief Inspector inthe Autumn of 2008 since this would take intoaccount the plans and measures schools weretaking to achieve their benchmark.

A Return to a Mandatory Requirement4.13 A return to a mandatory requirement at this

stage was only supported by one of the sixteacher and head teachers associations, but if arecovery of languages cannot be achieved bythe approach we propose, we would see areturn to a modified mandatory curriculum asbeing the necessary consequence.

4.14 In our consultation report we outline thesubstance of such a requirement. It would notapply to pupils who were only at level four inEnglish and mathematics (the level expected ofan average 11 year old) although they wouldmaintain an entitlement to languages study.Nor, recognising the crucial importance ofmotivating many more of our young people tosucceed in their learning to age sixteen andbeyond, would we think it right at Key Stage 4to require more than the equivalent of thecurriculum time needed for a short course GCSE.This would imply a much slimmer statutoryprogramme of study than that which existedprior to 2004. This is directly relevant to thepotential success of the new specialiseddiplomas, where the time for Additional and

Specialised Learning at level 2 is only 180guided learning hours.

4.15 While the mandatory requirement would belimited as outlined above, we would expect asubstantial majority of pupils to be following afull programme of language study leading to afull GCSE or the equivalent and the Governmentto make that clear in its guidance to schools.

In conclusion4.16 When the Government decided in 2003 that

Languages and Design & Technology shouldno longer be compulsory in Key Stage 4, itfully expected a reduction in take up. But thisdecision was balanced by the introduction oflanguages into primary schools, when it iswidely agreed that children take readily tothem. While the introduction of languages intoprimary schools has gone very well, and wehave been encouraged by that to recommendthey become a mandatory part of the Key Stage2 curriculum, the fall in the study of languagesat Key Stage 4 has gone further than theGovernment might have expected or wished.

4.17 Even when full weight is given to theGovernment’s concern in 2003 to motivatemany more of our young people, and especiallythose who come from relatively disadvantagedbackgrounds, to succeed in education, to their

24 Languages Review


own and the national good, it is clear that actionis required to recover the situation.

4.18 An effective response lies in a revitalisedlearning experience, which through providingdifferent routes to learning, will be moremeaningful and motivating than at present tothe whole range of young people. As part of asuccessful policy, language teachers need bettersupport. Inevitably the experience of the last fiveyears has been very disappointing to them andhas severely affected their careers. Our proposalstherefore include investment in teachers andteaching, and recognition of their achievement.

4.19 This action in schools needs to be supported bya continuing programme to get across to thewhole country – parents, employers and pupils– that languages matter.

4.20 We have consulted extensively over the last 4months. One of the points that has repeatedlybeen made to us, is that a quick fix is not theanswer: a simple return to a mandatoryrequirement will not motivate those whocurrently find languages both difficult andlacking cognitive interest, and schoolscommitted to finding ways of motivating alltheir pupils to be successful learners, wouldnot respond with commitment to a simplestatutory enforcement.

4.21 Nevertheless, with the many pressures on headteachers, a supporting framework will be

need for such action with the need to maintainthe goodwill and commitment of head teachers,who feel themselves needing to respondcontinually to the developing needs of societyand adapting to them.

4.22 We believe that this Report offers a balancedway forward with the prospect that from 2010 allour young people will have 7 years of required

study of languages, the majority of whom, inthe light of that experience, and the range oflearning experiences in languages offered inKey Stage 4, will be continuing to age 16 withincreasing numbers doing so beyond this. Weunderline the word beyond, because we needmore of our young people to be continuinglanguages through to level 3 and on toUniversity. With the changes we have proposed,we believe that this is a realistic aspiration.

Supporting Action and Conclusion 25


above, in which we seek to balance the

needed for the recovery we seek. Accordinglywe make proposals to address that issue

Appendix 1

Chart 1: Percent of cohort entered for at least1 MFL

Chart 2: Percent of cohort taking a language

Chart 3: Language entries in maintainedmainstream schools

Chart 4: Percent taking languages (boys v girls)

Chart 5: Relationship between KS3 attainmentand language take up at GCSE

<3 3 4 5 6 7

7% 11%

22%

42%

64%

84%

KS3 Average level

% ta

king

at l

east

1 M

FL

Note: MFL includes only French, German and Spanish

0102030405060708090

40

50

60

70

80

90

2006200520042003200220010

% o

f coh

ort

Any MFL boys Any MFL girls

Figs for 2005 and 2006 are end KS4Figures for earlier years are for 15 year olds

0

5

10

15

20

25

under10%

10-20%

20-30%

30-40%

40-50%

50-60%

60-70%

70-80%

80-90%

90-100%

% taking at least 1 MFL

% o

f sch

ools

2006 2004


0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

200620052004200320022001

% o

f coh

ort

Any MFL French German Spanish Other

0

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

200620052004200320022001

% o

f pup

ils a

ttem

ptin

g

Note: From 2005 onwards, figures refer to pupils at the endof KS4 rather than at age 15

26 Languages Review


Chart 6: Language take up linked to GCSE

Chart 7: Language take up and free schoolmeal status

Chart 8: MFL take up and percentage of cohortachieving A*-C in MFL

Chart 9: Percent of cohort taking at least1 language in French, German or Spanish

Chart 10: Subjects showing increased take up

Figs for 2005 and 2006 are for pupils at the end of KS4vGCSEs were designed to replace part 1 GNVQs

2006prov

200520042003200220010

20,00040,00060,00080,000

100,000120,000140,000160,000180,000

Pup

ils A

ttem

ptin

g S

ubje

ct fo

rG

CSE

s an

d A

war

ds

for G

NVQ

s

Social StudiesPhysicsReligious Studies

Full GNVQs Part One GNVQs vGCSEsPhysical Education

Biology Chemistry

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

% ta

kin

g a

t lea

st 1

MFL

Independent Maintained All schools

275,000

313,000

38,000

20253035404550556065707580

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

% o

f coh

ort

% Take Up A*-C (% of cohort)

Note: From 2005 onwards, figures relate to pupilsat the end of KS4 rather than at age 15

% ta

king

at l

east

1 M

FL

0

10

20

30

40

50

6050%

27%

Non FSM FSM

Free school meal status


% A

chie

ving

5+

A*-

C

0102030405060708090

41%

77%

Did not take a MFL Took at least 1 MFL


Appendix 1 27


Chart 11: A level entries

Chart 12: AS level entries

200620052004200320022001

Tota

l num

ber

of e

ntrie

s in

MFL

25,000

26,000

27,000

28,000

29,000

30,000

31,000

32,000

33,000

34,000

35,000

Figures are for 16-18 year olds

20,000

22,000

24,000

26,000

28,000

30,000

32,000

200620052004200320022001

Tota

l num

ber

of e

ntrie

s in

MFL

Figures are for 16-18 year olds

28 Languages Review


Appendix 2

Solutions inthe Schools

1 It became increasingly clear during the courseof the review that a major objective of teachingin Key Stage 4 must be to engage pupils with“the meanings that matter” to them. It alsobecame evident that much good practicealready exists in our schools and that whatneeds to be done therefore is not so much toinvent new approaches to language learningand teaching but to provide opportunities forteachers to share good practice, to learn fromwhat works, to adapt it and make it their own.

2 This view was confirmed by our discussionsaround the Interim Report, by the furthercontributions of practitioners and in particularby the arguments of a number of experts in thefield of languages pedagogy to whom we arevery grateful. In this Appendix we set out someof the issues which we believe will need tobe addressed if our aspirations for a morewidespread and successful pedagogy are tobe realised.

Is there a “right way” of teaching?3 The best way of teaching a language has

been debated for decades and the debatecontinues. Teaching has become moredemanding in terms of the need to win theengagement of the pupil than in previousgenerations, when greater reliance could beplaced on a pupil’s duty to listen and learn. Thisposes a particular challenge to teachers whosesubject requires hard learning, and languages isone of these. As Professor Eric Hawkins once

famously said teaching a language is likegardening in a gale…

4. While the debate will doubtless continue, thereis widely held consensus about languageteaching, with which we concur, which claimsthat successful language learning takes placewhen –

a Learners are exposed to rich input of the targetlanguage

b They have many opportunities to interactthrough the language

c They are motivated to learn.

In addition we agree with the view that wasput to us that learners need to understandboth what and how they are learning if theyare to have long-term success. We need to“capitalise on language learners’ relativecognitive maturity”6 which means that theyare able to understand and talk about howlanguage works and to benefit from feedbackon their performance.

5 According to a number of commentators, oneof the problems that has bedevilled languageteaching methodology has been the perennialpendulum swing between creativity, rotelearning and understanding. In fact successfullanguage learning is likely to include all threeas part of the process of exposure to andinteraction with the new language. Theseprinciples and understandings can beincorporated into a wide range of practicalapplications depending on the interests,aspirations and learning styles of individualpupils, as well as the experience, personalityand goals of particular teachers.

6 We have also understood that there areparticular challenges facing the languageteacher in her or his task. Learning a second

Appendix 2: Solutions in the Schools 29

6 Professor Ros Mitchell of Southampton University.


language is concerned with forms as much aswith meanings. Much of the meaning, inparticular for beginners, is already known andthis affects both the process of learning andpupils’ motivations. In addition oracy skills are farmore important for language learning than forother areas of the curriculum. Listening andspeaking have equal weight with written skillsin assessment schemes and the aural/oralmode is most common in classroom interaction.Teachers also face a particular challengebecause of the perception that the model ofperformance should be the native speaker,whose mastery of the language no non-nativeteacher (let alone learner) is likely to equal.

7 Finally the rest of the curriculum is not neutralto the acquisition of foreign languagecompetence. It is known that the internalisationof a second language takes time and in a school(or any institutional) framework, that learning issurrounded by a “gale” of English. This is whythe issue of learner motivation is so importantfor successful learning.

8 As a contribution to thinking in schools onteaching languages we now give someexamples of existing practice of schools thathave been notably successful. In referring tothem we recognise that there will be othersthat are equally good, and we do make a keyrecommendation in the Report on the need

for language teachers to have increasedopportunities for professional development inwhich looking at successful practice will be avaluable element. It is our hope that this veryshort incursion into matters of pedagogy andthese examples of existing good practice willprovide a basis for further development andreflection on successful language teachingand learning.

The curriculum and “meaningsthat matter”9 A central element in our understanding of the

reasons for the fall-off in languages take-up post14 has been the issue of engagement (or pupilmotivation). In UK conditions we can notrely solely or perhaps even primarily on theinstrumental motivation which says that aforeign language is economically and culturallyindispensable (as is the case with English inother countries). Although we should, and do,make the case for more vocationally orientatedcourses, if all or most pupils are to continuewith the often-demanding task of learning alanguage, the subject matter must really engagethem here and now. The examination syllabuseshave been criticised because the topics chosendo not engage the interests of teenagers. Wehave responded to that elsewhere, but the formof teaching adopted can make a difference, andwe have found excellent examples of that.We have not found only one way of achievingthis end. In some cases it appears to bea matter of making better use of theimmediate surroundings of the classroom. Theconventional suspension of disbelief involvingan unreal journey to “MFL Land” is dispensedwith and replaced with the game, the intrinsicenjoyment of competition (in particular with theteacher), and an approach to language whichenables pupils to say what they want to say. Thiscan also be developed to offer access – even at afairly basic level – to real meanings, and realcultural experiences.

30 Languages Review


10 In a number of schools we have also seen pupilsengaging with language itself – showinginterest in decoding meaning – almost for itsown sake. Some elements of the primary literacyframework (and increasingly the Key Stage 2Framework for Languages) will encourage suchapproaches, as can the Key Stage 3 Frameworkand Strategy. Some schools have foundvery successful ways of encouraging suchengagement almost entirely in the targetlanguage. In other cases, for example in aBlackburn Grammar School, a deliberateattempt is made to use cognates and to operatebilingually in the classroom with considerablesuccess and motivated learners.

11 Another characteristic of such engagementcan be the links which are made to “real life”whether the immediate world of the teenager(making friends with others) or the more adultworld of future work. One such example is thevideo-based, ICT resource entitled “Spanish Flirt”,a learning soap opera about English and SouthAmerican teenagers. Others involve more“vocational” approaches.

Creative use of the target language –Cheam High School

Languages staff at Cheam High School inSutton are committed to ensuring that allpupils enjoy a stimulating and rewardinglanguage learning experience throughoutKey Stages 3 and 4. There is a hugeemphasis on consistent use of the targetlanguage by both teachers and pupils.Schemes of work and lesson plans arecarefully constructed in order to address thewhole range of learning styles and to allowpupils to achieve at the highest levelpossible. Visual and kinaesthetic activitiesprovide excellent support for all learners butteachers expect the very highest standardsof their pupils in all four skills. Drama, musicand authentic materials are prevalent inlessons. And yet the department does notsee any of this as being incompatible withhigh achievement at GCSE and preparingpupils to use their languages at home andabroad, now and in the future. Pupils areencouraged to say what they want to say inthe target language, to use the language forreal purposes and to express feelings andemotions in the target language. Thedepartment produces schemes of work thatwill allow learners to engage emotionallyand conceptually with the vocabulary andstructures of the language that they arelearning. A year 9 module of work forexample is based on the film “Au revoir lesenfants” and pupils are able to talk withconfidence and passion about theexperiences of young people living underthe fear of Nazism during the second worldwar in France.



12 Many schools and networks have developedlanguages courses linked to the demands ofemployability. As well as the “VIPs” project, theBlack Country 14-19 pathfinder has majored onsuch “vocational” approaches. This is also atheme being developed in the South Westthrough a series of seminars bringing togetherteachers and local businesses and entitled“Making Languages our Business”.

13 We have also seen inspiring examples oflanguage being used as a vehicle to access realmeaning across the curriculum and beyond.This might involve using language to organisean international football tournament as part of aschool’s aim to establish the importance of theinternational dimension and respect for otherlanguages and cultures both in the school andwithin the local community. (Ashlyns SLC inHertfordshire). In other schools links have beenmade between languages and the performingarts, often involving pupil mentoring of youngerpupils including those in local primary schools.

Languages and Drama at Notre DameSLC Norwich

This lively project, which integrates languageand drama, brings German to life throughpantomime and provides creativepreparation for AS level German whileencouraging others to learn the language.

The performance of Aschenputtel(‘Cinderella’) requires the students to domore than learn their lines. They write andlearn the script, organise costumes andprops, sound and lighting; moreover, allrehearsals take place in German. In keepingwith tradition, the panto, which has beenperformed for over 500 learners of all ages,allows the audience to interact with thecharacters on the stage.

Students from Notre Dame andneighbouring schools are more motivatedto learn German as a result of the project,which has attracted attention from theUniversity of East Anglia’s internationalvisitors. The resources are available to otherschools interested in adopting the projectvia the website.

Vocational International Project (VIPs)– Sheffield

The Vocational International Project wasdeveloped by Sheffield Local Authorityfollowing a fall in the number of studentsstudying languages in Key Stage 4 and abelief that a business language course orcourse with a vocational content wouldmotivate students and benefit them in theirfuture careers. VIPs provides as an alternativequalification pathway, based on the NVQmodel, along which students continue theirstudy of languages in Key Stage 4. VIPspromotes a vocational approach toEuropean languages, teaching them ina business context.

Students engage in active learning activities,with a strong focus on the spoken word andindependent learning with ICT. There arealso opportunities to visit local companiesto meet employees using languages in theirjobs, illustrating that a little language canmake a big difference.

Students appreciate the usefulness ofthe course for their future employmentopportunities, both in terms of content andskills learnt. Over 1,000 Key Stage 4 studentshave been involved over three years,meaning greater numbers opting tocontinue language learning post-14.Students achieve NVQ level 1 and/or 2.

32 Languages Review


14 Such cross-curricular work is further developedby those schools that are able to link subjects inthe curriculum through “Content and LanguageIntegrated Learning” (CLIL).

15 Many of these innovative and engagingapproaches to language learning are effectivewith all children. Although not exclusive toSpecialist Language Colleges, it is noteworthythat many such approaches do come fromspecialist schools. This is to be expected,but it also raises a challenge in relation todissemination, resourcing and teacher training.

New approaches to assessment 16 Notwithstanding the criticisms of the current

specification for the GCSE, these examples showthat successful teaching is taking place at KeyStage 4. Credit must also be given to theExamination Boards for their contribution to theincrease in language competence that hastaken place of the last 15 years. An increasingnumber of schools are also using GCSE to fasttrack pupils as a basis for more advanced studyor perhaps a new language in Year 10 or 11.

GCSE in Year 9 at Dereham Neatherd

Dereham Neatherd School is well know forits excellent fast-track GCSE results inLanguages but as a Specialist LanguageCollege its aim is to raise achievement acrossthe whole ability range for all its pupils – andat the same time meet its Language Collegetargets. In order to do this the Head ofDepartment broke the department’s workdown into five key areas – communal andclassroom displays, pupil organisation,teacher organisation, teaching methodologyand regular assessments in all four skills.Examples of this shared approach include:

� all staff working from medium-termplans which have been written by thedepartment with pupil achievement inmind and staff planning a unit of work,in advance of it being taught, fromthese plans;

� common mark grids that allow forcomprehensive tracking of pupilachievement;

� departmental inset to ensure thatteachers working in the same departmenthave the same set of high expectations ofpupils and are able to deliver effectivelanguage lessons;

� getting pupils to think for themselves,mind-map their ideas and work out rulesand patterns with a partner. This forms ahuge part of the teaching methodology;

� Fair and enjoyable assessments thatencourage pupils to reflect upon theirachievements in each skill area.

GCSE results have reached 70 per cent A*–Cand the department is happy to be able tomake a difference to their children’s GCSEgrades and also to their enjoyment oflanguage learning and their perception ofhow learning a language can help them inmany other ways.

CLIL at Tile Hill Wood School

Tile Hill Wood is an 11-18 all girlscomprehensive school in Coventry, WestMidlands with over 1,300 students on roll.

This CLIL (content and language integratedlearning) project sees Year 7 pupils learningGeography, RE and PSHE through themedium of French with lessons deliveredjointly by language and subject teachers.Pupil attainment in French has risensignificantly with achievement in theother subject at least as good as the non-bilingual groups.

The immersion method is hugely popular –93 per cent of pupils have opted to continuewith such learning in Year 8.



17 We nevertheless think teaching will benefit fromchanges in the current specifications, so thatteaching can take place within a frameworkthat engages the interests of teenagers. It isalso right to recognise that the GCSE is notappropriate for all learners. For some pupilsmore applied approaches or the portfolioapproach of NVQ may be a better solution.Others may be better served by the LanguagesLadder. Since 2005 increasing number ofschools have also been registering to usethe Language Ladder tests through AssetLanguages. The range of applications has beenwide, demonstrating the flexibility of this newsystem which can be used to assess progressat the end of Key Stage 3, on transition toSecondary from primary for partial competencesin a new language in Key Stage 4, or followingan intensive experience of language learning.

Getting away from lockstep approaches18 We should not assume that language learning

works best when offered in small doses over along period, and only in a class of 30 with ateacher. The flexible curriculum of the future willneed a range of approaches, and some of thesemay actually be conducive to better languagelearning, in particular when time is at apremium. Indeed many experts believe thatmore intensive approaches are more effective,and this is certainly a feature of adult learningof languages.

Intensive and flexible – Junior CULP(Cambridge University LanguageProgramme)

In July 2004, the Cambridge UniversityLanguage Centre ran a one week intensivelanguage course for 11 Year 9 studentsfrom Impington Village College, whichincorporated face-to-face tuition and on-linework. As a result of the success of the pilotthe Junior CULP project was establishedwhich provides a 120 hour, year longintensive language course for studentsfrom six local schools: Impington VillageCollege and St Ivo, St Peter’s School andHinchinbrooke School in Huntingdon andNetherhall School and Comberton VillageCollege in Cambridge. Students receive 70per cent of their language tuition at theUniversity Language Centre, in blocks ofintensive language study. They participate inSaturday sessions as well as three week longsessions of tuition spread at intervalsthroughout the academic year.

The impact on students is very positive withmany participants continuing their languagestudies into Key Stage 4.

Initially set up to enable reluctant learnersto have the chance to learn a language inan innovative way combining excellentclassroom teaching in groups of about20 with cutting edge specially written e-learning materials and methods whichincorporate independent learning basedupon the learner’s preferred styles oflearning, the project soon attracted manyother groups of learners in Key Stage 3,including the gifted and talented, the highlymotivated and the average learner who iscommitted. Schools typically report that theeuphoria of involvement washes off intolanguage classes back at school.

34 Languages Review


Using new technology19 Another key feature of CULP is the use of

technology to support both flexibility andgreater learner autonomy. Such access tolearning through technology is now becomingfar more widespread in language learning fromprimary through to advanced studies. Manylanguage colleges, for example Monkseatonand Shireland are playing a leading role in theuse of technology to support and monitor thecurriculum, often in cooperation with the OpenUniversity or other HEIs.

20 As the example from Rotherham shows not onlydo such approaches increase independencethey also directly affect pupil motivation asthe project rather than the language becomes“the point”.

21 As schools develop more and more links withschools abroad, the use of ICT also becomes amajor support for communication betweenpupils (e-mail links), for joint curricular work(on line and video conferencing) and for theexchange of data. Much exciting joint curricularwork has been going on, for example in Devonwhere St Peters School has used technology tounderpin real exchanges between pupils. Suchlinks and exchanges are supported by the BritishCouncil-administered Global Gateway website– www.globalgateway.org – or other portalssuch as E-Languages – www.elanguages.org orE-Twinning – www.etwinning.net . An exampleof this from East London is reported below.

Languages beyond the classroom22 It is also important that pupils see that

languages exist beyond the classroom.This begins with the cultural and cross curricularwork described above, but there are otherexamples of the outside world impacting onclassroom learning.

23 Increasingly, universities are linking withand supporting schools. There are manyexamples of mentoring and support fromUniversities and their students. The SubjectCentre for Languages Linguistics and AreaStudies based at Southampton has publisheda report on such initiatives.

Engaging pupils through ICT, Rotherham

With the aim of engaging pupils moredeeply in the learning process, Year 10pupils at Brinsworth ComprehensiveSchool were asked to create interactiveexercises (games) for their peers usingauthoring software. Each group was free toresearch and develop their own ideas on asub-topic of the theme of healthy living,while still working within a clear set ofagreed objectives. A resource bookletcontaining essential vocabulary andgrammar models and examples was issuedto each pupil. The pupils used the Internetto identify suitable text and used theirmobile phones to create video clips, alongwith other material, to incorporate into theactivities. Pupils demonstrated their finalproducts, which were peer-evaluated usingcriteria based on the linguistic, technical andpedagogic merits of the materials. All pupilsthen completed the carousel of activities,consolidating their knowledge of the topic.



24 As well as universities, businesses can enrich theschool curriculum through Education Businesspartnerships of various kinds. CILT has beencoordinating a “Business Language Champions”programme on behalf of the department andGoethe Institut has developed a Project Engageto bring the world of business into schools.

25 For many schools and communities languagesare not “foreign”. They are part of everydayexperience. In addition to the increased facilityfor obtaining recognition for communitylanguages, offered for example by theLanguages Ladder/Asset, community languagescan become part of a whole school experiencewhich underlines the value of languages andthe importance of intercultural understanding.

26 Languages are also intrinsic to the internationaldimension in schools, and the significantgrowth of links with schools abroad, supportedby the British Council also offers a newdimension and purpose for language learning.By 2010 every school should have such a link.There can be little doubt of the benefits thatsuch international collaboration can bring to ourchildren and their learning. Indeed many haveargued that this intercultural dimension is oneof the main motivational drivers for languagelearning as well as a major rationale forlanguages in our schools.

Community languages at WoodbridgeHigh (a non selective mixedcomprehensive)

Since 2000 the school has considerablyexpanded the provision of CommunityLanguages classes in the school. 9 languagesare taught including Urdu, Bengali, Panjabi,Turkish, Chinese, Arabic, Greek as well asSpanish and French. Community Languagesteachers are recruited through the localpress. As part of the school’s promotion ofinternationalism the TAFAL (Teach a Friend aLanguage) project was set up aiming to raisethe profile of home languages spoken bystudents. It was run as a competition inwhich native speakers teamed up with afriend who had no prior knowledge of thelanguage and together they produced ashort conversation which was presented toa judge The project encouraged the youngpeople involved to consider the importanceof each other’s home language.

Aston University: Languages for Life

Higher Education Outreach Programmefor Schools

Aston University’s Languages for Life projectwas set up in 2001, initially to researchattitudes to European language learningamongst young Asian women, and toidentify why these potential students wereunder-represented on language courses.As a result of the findings from the research,Aston University used funds from its“Widening Participation” budget to establisha programme of outreach visits to localschools. Undergraduates from the Schools ofLanguages and Social Sciences are recruitedas ambassadors, and talk to pupils fromYears 9 to 12 about their passion forlanguages and their reasons for makinglanguages part of their university degree.

36 Languages Review


Building on what exists27 Our investigations tell us that solutions to the

challenges of motivation and engagementalready exist in our schools (and beyond!).The challenge is to make them more widelyavailable. This will require both disseminationand support for teachers. We are in this respectfortunate since many of the organisationsand mechanisms which will enable us makerelatively rapid progress already exist.

28 The Department’s International Strategy calls foraction to equip our children, young people andadults for life in a global society and work in aglobal economy. A key goal is that by 2010every school in England is in partnership with aschool/college elsewhere. The British Councilprovides support for schools to developinternational partnerships and enables pupilsand staff alike to engage positively with othercultures and languages. This includes supportfor Joint Curriculum Projects (grants areavailable to schools to work for 2-3 terms on acollaborative project with a partner school inone of the following countries: China, France,Germany, Japan, Portugal, Russia, Spain).Teachers’ Professional Development (staffcan apply to spend 1-2 weeks in a school inFrance, Germany, Portugal, Russia or Spain toexplore a topic of personal and professionalinterest to them). Immersion Courses (groupsof students can embark on 1-2 week intensivelanguage courses in French, Spanish, German,Russian, Japanese, Arabic and Chinese). StudentFellowships (students aged 16-18 can carry outan individual research project at a school inFrance, Spain or Germany. Students are assigneda mentor teacher in the school and are hostedby a family for two weeks.)

A joint curricular project in, Hackney

Year 11 GCSE French pupils from Our Lady’sConvent High School, in the LondonBorough of Hackney, joined with theirFrench partner school, Lycée Jean Macé inthe eastern suburbs of Paris, to take part in ayear-long Joint Curriculum Project entitled“Man and Nature in a Rural and UrbanEnvironment”. In a bid to extend cross-curriculum opportunities at Our Lady’s,as well as increase the number of pupilsopting for French at KS5, a working groupof teachers from the Languages, Science,ICT and Geography departments cametogether to plan and oversee the variousproject activities.

Having introduced themselves to each otherby e-mail and via video-conferencing inthe target language, the pupils from bothschools came together to take part in a jointfield trip to the Jura mountains in France.The pupils worked in mixed teams to studyat first hand some of the geographicalfeatures of the region, to explore aspects oflocal industry and how it had changed, andto consider environmental questions suchas water resources, waste treatment andpollution in a rural setting.

In preparation for the return visit of theFrench group to London, both sets of pupilscontinued to correspond, particularly inorder to design the itinerary for the visit.The focus was to be the regeneration ofeast London, the Thames barrier, and thechanging role of the River Thames, themeswhich required a certain amount of self-reflection on the part of the UK pupils on theurban environment within which they live.



29 The Specialist Schools and Academies Trust(SSAT) has built up a support network forlanguages based on lead practitioners in theregions. They are described as “innovative andoutstanding teachers”, who share their goodpractice with colleagues in other schools andcontribute to Trust conferences and events.Their work includes building regional networks,authoring case studies, publications andresources, leading professional developmentworkshops and supporting and mentoring. TheSpecialist Language Colleges themselves havebeen asked to support the National LanguagesStrategy and have received additional fundingfor this purpose. Although many of themare choosing to support local primarydevelopments a number are addressingthe issue of Key Stage 4.

If more Language Colleges were able to offersuch support this would begin to make a realdifference.

30 Finally CILT – the National Centre forLanguages and its national network ofComenius Centres not only provides a uniquesupport services for language professionals, ithas also in the last year established a series of14-19 Learning Networks across the country.With each one concentrating on a particularstrand of curriculum innovation, the networksaim to work together to provide appropriateand relevant language study for all in the moreflexible, responsive 14-19 curriculum. All types ofestablishment are involved – specialist languagecolleges, schools with other specialisms, sixthform colleges, FE colleges, HEIs, local authoritiesand business partners – with different sectorstaking on the role of lead institution. Networksare designed to have local, regional and nationalimpact, providing a coherent structure for futuredevelopment of language provision.

31 In sum it is clear that for the development ofa more coherent, relevant and engaging KeyStage 4 languages offer, many elements arealready in place both in the practice of schoolsand universities and in the appropriate supportorganisations. The task then is one of buildingon what is good, focusing on effectiveimplementation and providing the frameworkwhich will encourage positive progress.

SLCs supporting Key Stage 4 Provision:3 examples

Hockerill Anglo European College hasstarted masterclasses in French and Germanfor local secondary schools and has heavilysubsidised long-weekend study visits toFrance and Germany for participatingstudents.

Aylesbury High School has helped to fundtrips to the Europa centre for Y9 students inpartner schools to help encourage languagestake-up in Key Stage 4. The school hasemployed a teacher to deliver twilight Italianlessons for pupils in own and partner schools.

Desborough School employ a SpanishForeign Language Assistant to share withpartner secondary schools. They are offeringtraining to MFL staff on the use of languagesin a vocational context and the introductionof alternative accreditation.

38 Languages Review


Appendix 3

LanguageLearning inAnglophoneCountries

Australia1 Approximately 50 per cent of students take a

language in Australian Schools. Regional Asianlanguages as well as French and German are themost popular.

2 Language learning is compulsory in 4 of 8 statesin Australia. The age to which this applies variesfrom state to state. There is no entitlement inthe other states.

3 The National Statement for Languages inEducation in Australian Schools recently set out aplan to promote languages and emphasizedtheir role in intercultural understanding.

New Zealand4 Language learning is not compulsory in New

Zealand at any level. Languages have beendesignated as a “key learning area” in a newcurriculum that is currently under consultation.Schools may be required to offer a language,but it is not expected that it will becomecompulsory for students to take a language.In years 7-8 (roughly KS3) approximately 57 percent of students take a language.

USA5 There is a wide variety of language provision

across the various states of the USA. MFL is notcompulsory in any these and take-up rangesfrom 2-60 per cent. Some states require MFL foran honors diploma, but not for a standarddiploma.

6 In 1997 31 per cent of primary schools offered alanguage and 86 per cent of secondary schools.In 2000 33.9% of students were enrolled in alanguage in US public secondary schools.Spanish is the dominant language by aconsiderable margin.

Ireland7 MFL is not compulsory in Ireland, although Irish

students learn English and Irish throughout theperiod of compulsory education. The majorityof Irish students take at least one Europeanlanguage to Leaving Certificate level, partiallybecause the National University of Ireland stillrequires Irish, English and a foreign languagefor matriculation.

8 Languages are a requirement for accreditationin both the Leaving Certificate Applied andLeaving Certificate Vocational Programme.

Scotland9 There is no statutory requirement to include

modern foreign languages (MFL) in thecurriculum in Scotland. (The only aspect of thecurriculum for which there is a statutoryrequirement is religious observance.) However,students are “entitled” to 500 hours of MFLteaching between P6 and S4 (ages 10-16). Howthis is delivered is determined by educationauthorities in collaboration with their schoolswho are encouraged to develop their owninnovative ways of meeting the entitlement.Almost all primary and all secondary schoolsoffer at least one MFL as part of their curriculum.

Appendix 3: Language Learning in Anglophone Countries 39


10 The entitlement applies to all learners at alllevels. Approximately 80 per cent of Scottishstudents at S4 (age 16) took an MFL in session2005/6. In the same session, over 90 per cent ofpupils in the last two years of primary school(ages 10-11) were learning a foreign language.A number of primary schools introduce anearlier start to language learning, including inthe nursery class in some cases.

11 Earlier this year, the Scottish Executive issuedits Strategy for Scotland’s Languages forconsultation.

Wales12 Wales is a bilingual country, with 21 per cent of

the population able to speak Welsh as well asEnglish. The study of at least one modernforeign language is a mandatory element of theNational Curriculum for all 11-14 year olds.Pupils are also taught English and Welshthroughout their compulsory education. Thereare opportunities for young people to continuewith language learning beyond the age of 14and currently 31 per cent of 14-16 year olds arefollowing a course of study that includes aqualification in a modern foreign language.

13 The Welsh Assembly Government is currentlysupporting development work in primaryschools with the aim of providing opportunitiesfor schools to offer a modern foreign languagefor pupils in Key Stage 2 (pupils aged 7-11 years)on a non statutory basis.

14 The Welsh Baccalaureate Qualification, which isto be rolled out at Advanced and Intermediatelevels from September 2007 and is being pilotedat Foundation and Intermediate levels in 14-19learning, includes a compulsory languagemodule.

Northern Ireland15 Modern Languages are part of the secondary

curriculum and 11-14 year olds (Key Stage 3)have to study at least one European language.As with all other subjects (with the exception ofdeveloping skills, Learning for Life and Work, PEand RE) and in order to provide greater choiceand flexibility, languages are not compulsory forpupils aged 14 and over (Key Stage 4 and post-16). However, schools have to provide access tolanguage courses and as a minimum, have tooffer at least one of the official languages of theEuropean Union.

16 Although languages are not part of thestatutory primary curriculum, there is some adhoc provision in primary schools and somepiloting of modern languages is underway.

40 Languages Review


AcknowledgementsWe are extremely grateful to all of you whocontributed to the consultation. We list the widerange of organisations that sent in their views below.In addition, many hundreds of individuals gave theirtime to attend meetings, to respond to the on-lineconsultation and in many cases to present detailedarguments in writing. You are sadly too numerous tomention individually, but all of your ideas have beenconsidered and many of them are reflected in theconclusions of our review. Thank you.

Organisations

Airbus UK

Arsenal Football Club

Assessment & Qualifications Alliance (AQA)

Association for Language Learning (ALL)

Association of Graduate Recruiters (AGR)

Association of School and College Leaders (ASCL)

Association of Teachers & Lecturers (ATL)

Association of University Language Centres

Association of University Professors and Headsof French

Bath and NE Somerset Local Authority

Bayer

Birmingham Local Authority

BMW

Bolton Local Authority

The British Academy

British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC)

The British Council

British Exporters Association (BEA)

Cambridge Assessment

Cambridge University Language Centre

Canterbury Christ Church University

Centre for Applied Language Research

Chartered Institute of Linguists

The National Centre for Languages (CILT)

Confederation of British Industry (CBI)

Degussa Ltd.

Department for Trade and Industry (DTI)

Deutsche Bahn

Durham Local Authority

Edexcel

Engineering Council UK

E-Skills

Eurostar

Faculty of Modern and Medieval Languages,Cambridge

FEdS Consultancy

Financial Services Skills Council (FSSC)

Footstep Productions

Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO)

French Embassy

Fujitsu Services

GCHQ

General Teaching Council

German Academic Exchange Service

The German Embassy

The Goethe Institut

GoSkills

Government Skills

Harcourt Education

Her Majesty’s Treasury (HMT)

Hertfordshire County Council

Higher Education Funding Council England (HEFCE)

Hodder Education

Hodder Murray

Home Office

HSBC

Hull Local Authority

Independent Schools Council

Independent Schools Modern Languages Association(ISMLA)

Institute of Directors (IOD)

The Institute of Export (IOE)

Acknowledgements 41


Invest in France Agency

The Italian Institute

Japan Airlines (JAL)

Lambeth Local Authority

Learning & Skills Council (LSC)

Leicestershire & Leicester City Learning Partnership

Local Government Association (LGA)

London Borough of Tower Hamlets

London Stock Exchange

Luton Borough Council

Ministry of Defence (MoD)

National Association of Head Teachers (NAHT)

National Association of Language Advisors (NALA)

National Association of Schoolmasters Union ofWomen Teachers (NASUWT)

National Foundation for Education Research (NFER)

National Union of Teachers (NUT)

Nelson Thornes

Newham Local Authority

NHS Employers

NIACE

The Nuffield Foundation

OCR

Ofsted

The Open University

Oxford University Press

People 1st

The Philological Society

Professional Association of Teachers (PAT)

Qualifications and Curriculum Authority (QCA)

Quality Improvement Agency (QIA)

Reuters

SAP UK

Scottish CILT

Secondary National Strategy

Sector Skills Development Agency (SSDA)

SEMTA

Sheffield Local Authority

Skills for Health

The Spanish Embassy

Specialist Schools and Academies Trust (SSAT)

Staffordshire Local Authority

Suffolk Local Authority

Telefonica Foundation

Training and Development Agency (TDA)

UK Trade & Investment

Universities UK

42 Languages Review


You can download this publication or order copies online at:www.teachernet.gov.uk/publicationsSearch using the ref: 00212-2007DOM-EN

Copies of this publication can also be obtained from:

DfES PublicationsPO Box 5050Sherwood ParkAnnesleyNottingham NG15 0DJTel: 0845 60 222 60Fax: 0845 60 333 60Textphone: 0845 60 555 60Please quote the ref: 00212-2007DOM-EN

ISBN: 978-1-84478-907-8

PPSLS/D16(6970)/0307/23

© Crown copyright 2007

Produced by the Department for Education and Skills

Extracts from this document may be reproduced for non-commercial education ortraining purposes on the condition that the source is acknowledged. For any otheruse please contact contact HMSO [email protected]

6970-DfES-Languages Review Cover 8/3/07 15:50 Page bcoviv

Languages Review - Richard ('Dick') Hudson · 2015-10-28 · in September 2008 to have made progress towards the 50 to 90 per cent benchmark for entrants to languages in Key Stage

Documents