DfES Languages Review: Interim Dearing Review Report Recommendations Consultation
31 January 2007
Response from the Independent Schools Council
The Independent Schools Council (ISC) represents 500,000 children in 1,276 independent schools. ISC exists to promote choice, diversity and excellence in education; the development of talent at all levels of ability; and the widening of opportunity for children from all backgrounds to achieve their potential. ISC schools cover the full pupil age range and the full range of academic ability. Although some schools are highly academic, most schools are far less selective than a state grammar school and many senior schools, and the majority of junior schools, are not academically selective at all.
Executive summary
ISC has watched with concern the steep decline in languages teaching in the maintained sector. The United Kingdom operates in a highly competitive world marketplace (both educationally and economically). The UK needs to train its young people to compete in this challenging market. It is unsafe and unsatisfactory for the UK to depend, to the current extent, on the independent sector training a hugely disproportionate number of highly qualified students in "hard" subjects, including MFL.
In academic terms, the UK independent sector now produces 60% of the MFL A -level A grades from entrants from schools. This is a worrying percentage.
However, high level academic results at A-level are only one part of the picture. Foreign language fluency in most countries is only loosely related to academic ability. The norm, increasingly, is for fluency, or at least conversational competence, in a second language to be taken for granted in other countries. The UK mindset, speaking very generally, has been that language skills are something of an add-on. Our view is that they need to be a normal and natural part of the educational experience from the very early years, when the ability to learn another language is in some respects at its greatest. In other countries lessons in many subjects will be given in a second language: this promotes not just linguistic skills but also intellectual and memory skills.
We recommend an approach to languages with the following characteristics:
- Language learning should be seen as normal and natural, not as exceptional or difficult
- Language skills should be developed from an early age through universal provision from qualified teachers who are fluent or near-fluent in the language(s) being taught
- Policy for development of language skills should be informed by research on language learning and on intellectual development, so that the years when language learning is, in some respects, easier are not "lost"
- We recognise that the dominance of English as a world language means that there is not a single obvious choice for a second language in UK schools. The choice in any individual school of which language(s) to teach may therefore be less important than developing linguistic skills in themselves. Developing linguistic skills depends on properly trained teachers who are fluent or near fluent in the language being taught.
Detailed response
ISC welcomes the opportunity to interact with the production of the Dearing Review of Modern Foreign Languages at this interim stage. There are two main messages driving ISC's responses to the questions raised in this consultation:
- i) Opportunities in MFL have long been provided in independent schools right from primary level as independent schools see the benefits that its study produces in students. Independent educationalists therefore believe that high quality MFL tuition, which involves amongst other things engaging children at the right time in their development using staff trained to deliver proven methods, should be made available nationally.
- ii) Encouraged by the Dearing Review's ideas to increase networking and partnership, independent schools would welcome the opportunity to discuss with those working on the review how the significant expertise that already exists within the independent sector might be harnessed to support a national strategy for all young people.
- We propose that language learning should be embedded in the National Curriculum for primary schools in the next review of the primary curriculum based on a well-founded understanding of what content and approach to language learning is most suitable for children in primary schools, and how best to build on that in Key Stage 3. In saying this, we recognise that there will have to be some compensating adjustments to the primary curriculum elsewhere. Do you agree?
ISC would support a move towards embedding language learning in the National Curriculum for primary schools. It is extremely important, as the Dearing Review recognises, when looking at the decline in the study of foreign languages at Key Stage 4, to appreciate how those currently at Key Stage 4 and those who have passed through this Stage in recent years have, in the context of their educational career, learnt MFL. Studieshave found significant differences between second language learner groups who begin Second Language Acquisition (SLA) at an older age and those that begin languages at an early age. Although some aspects of language learning appear to become easier with age, in line with the general increase in cognitive development;work by Hahne 2001, cited in Scherag et al 2004, has found the later SLA occurs, the more disadvantage is seen later on certain grammatical tasks even where subjects perform at near-native levels on lexical tasks. Problem areas for early immersion students are different, but can be corrected as the students pass to higher levels of cognition. It is very difficult for secondary age students of foreign languages to make up for the fact that they started to learn a language late in linguistic terms. Even though it is not the sole factor that influences the competency of UK students, as the Dearing Review notes, European countries that start their children at a young age, produce young people with a greater degree of linguistic competence. The formerly longstanding policy in the UK of only beginning languages at secondary level has certainly contributed towards generations of people being frustrated by language learning. This creates the perception picked up by the Dearing Review that language learning is necessarily difficult. It also leads to second language learning being widely considered as either irrelevant or peripheral; because so few people have second language skills, many cannot and do not expand their lives and their businesses in ways which draw positive economic and social benefit from language skills.
It is wrong to assume that any space made for language learning is necessarily to the detriment of other "core" subject areas. Second language learning has frequently been shown to enhance academic skills in ‘other' areas, particularly reading, writing and mathematics. The functional plasticity of the brain is widely assumed to be driven by language, and brain density is demonstrably higher in bilinguals and those highly proficient in a second language. A real commitment needs to be shown at primary level to language learning so that our young people are given the best chance to fully develop their potential not only in languages, but in ‘other' subjects as well. However, to achieve these effects real time has to be devoted to MFL. The current ‘entitlement' at primary level sees only 3% of primary schools providing weekly lessons of at least 20 minutes to all Key Stage 2 year groups.[iii] This will not achieve any widespread national improvement in linguistic abilities, as lack of proper financing and support for schools will have negative effects (not just on MFL, but also on subjects displaced to make room for MFL). The ideal of starting languages early is only desirable if adequate preparation, training and funding are in place: in reality, it may take time and will certainly require detailed planning to introduce nationwide if it is to be effective - the danger is that insufficient money is allotted to the training of primary teachers in MFL or that untrained native or near-native speakers of a language are brought in. If a language is taught ineffectively (or wrongly) in the early stages, it is very difficult to make good the damage. It can certainly be argued that this is the case with any subject, but given that it has been clearly identified that young people need to be encouraged to take up MFL study, we need to be extra certain to guard against negative experiences at this early stage. Imaginative primary teaching of MFL in the context of the culture of the country/countries where the languages are spoken can be highly effective, and enjoyable for the pupils, and have all sorts of cross-curricular links.
Young people should not just ‘have the opportunity' to learn languages, phraseology which as demonstrated leads to relatively slight and possibly detrimental provision, but ‘be guaranteed regular weekly teaching' in languages as happens in most of Europe.
The exact age at which children will most benefit from starting to learn a language and what methods should be used to teach them must, as noted in the question, be extremely ‘well-founded'. Policy on second language learning must be demonstrably driven by the most up to date research in second language teaching and learning. This involves both looking at current good practice, as suggested in the Dearing Review, and also reviewing the results of studies by leading Second Language Acquisition (SLA) researchers. ISC would be keen to facilitate contact with independent schools already practising a wide variety of teaching methods. ISC would encourage the Dearing Review to back-up its recommendations with a strong evidential basis. It is not possible to change attitudes towards MFL teaching within education and crucially within wider society, unless people are convinced, not simply assured, of its positive benefits.
- We propose that over time primary schools should be enabled, with the help of specialist language schools and local secondary schools, to offer some choice in the language learnt?
Choice of languages is desirable even at primary school level. However, it is more important to develop language skills effectively in a single foreign language than to offer an array of languages not all of which are well taught by trained native or near-native speakers. The primacy of English as the main international language means that there is no "natural" choice of a second language. We would therefore recommend concentration on developing language skills through effective teaching of a second language (without prescription of what this language should be) as the primary objective, with further choice as highly desirable. The second language taught at primary school should of course be a language which will continue to be taught at secondary level in schools which the children are likely to attend.
We would question the assumptions in the phrase "language learnt". This implies separate teaching of a language. In other countries it is common for tuition in other subjects to be given in a second language, and we would recommend active consideration of this possibility.
- We propose that the provision for teacher support in primary schools should be continued and where necessary extended at least until 2010. Do you agree?
The need is to review research into the effectiveness of a variety of teaching methods for primary age children, and then to identify teachers who are capable of delivering the full range of most effective methods. To obtain the intellectual benefits of MFL learning it is not enough and indeed possibility counter-productive (see Crystal 1998) to provide non-specialist teachers who have a low-level of competency. Independent schools use specialist language teachers (bi-lingual teachers and teachers whose degree is in MFL) because students seem to make most progress when teachers can offer a full range of teaching methods and are fluent or near-fluent.
Primary schools that do not have specialist linguists will definitely need continued support if the young people they are charged with educating are going to derive any positive benefits from early exposure. This support needs to be sustained and sustainable. The help that could be offered by networks of schools with specialist language expertise should not be underestimated. However, structures and funding will need to be put in place at a national level that have a realistic chance not just of providing support for a handful of engaged primary schools, but of ensuring that every primary school can offer the kind of provision that really benefits young people.
It is vital that teacher support for state primary teachers who deliver MFL is readily available. Not all secondary MFL teachers have left those secondary schools where MFL now features weakly in the curriculum; some have stayed in the profession, and in the same schools and are teaching other subjects (for which they have not been retrained). The experience and expertise of these teachers could usefully be harnessed to support primary colleagues (and, at the same time, do something to restore the self-esteem and confidence of the teachers involved).
ISC would be keen to explore ways of drawing on the expertise of the language specialists in the independent sector. Independent schools often offer a wide range of MFL choice (i.e. go beyond French, German, Spanish - and include Italian, Japanese, Mandarin and Russian). Where schools do offer a range of options in MFL, they need support in enabling pupils to select which language(s) to study - i.e. support in terms of information about the language and its potential positives and negatives ... so as to avoid languages getting the tag of "easy", "more useful" etc (e.g. it is not necessarily a positive thing for Spanish that the majority of pupils choose it because it is "easy" - they soon find that this is only in the initial stages).
4. We propose that there should be non-statutory formative classroom assessment at the end of Key Stage 2, using the language ladder to facilitate continuous progression in learning from primary to secondary school, and thus avoid the frustration and regression that can occur when the move takes place. We have no wish for this to form the basis of any league table: the purpose is formative. Do you agree?
Formative classroom assessment can never guarantee avoidance of "frustration and regression". Any such assessment would need to be devised in a really imaginative way to avoid the sort of stresses teachers, pupils and parents experience with other KS2 tests. Any KS2 assessment would need to be consulted upon widely so that it could be formulated to meet the needs of the diversity of MFL learners and educators.
5. In addition to a new Key Stage 3 curriculum which is on the stock, we say a new specification for the GCSE is urgently needed. Do you agree?
ISC would agree that the current GCSE specifications should be revised. Any revision, however, must be developed as the result of wide consultation. At the moment, there is too much to deter the less able and not nearly enough to challenge the more able (and not nearly enough to lay the proper foundations for more advanced study).
- We propose that the assessment of speaking and listening in the GCSE is changed to make it less personally stressful and hence a more reliable test of a candidate's capability. Moderated teacher assessment over a short period would be a better way. Do you agree?
ISC would advise that before any recommendation is made to move towards moderated teacher assessment of speaking and listening skills rather than a formal examination, pilots should be run to see whether teacher assessment is a strong method of assessment for languages. Concern has been expressed that assessing large classes over a period of time might be so difficult in practice and that it would not allow teachers to truly reflect the abilities of individual pupils in their marking.
Teacher assessment could benefit both learner and teacher and might be more reassuring for the less able and potentially more challenging for the able but lazy (e.g. would guard against the very able child who can "swot it all up the night before", but whose contributions in lessons are minimal). BUT if such a system were to work effectively, it would require:
- very small class sizes, particularly for the realistic assessment of progress in speaking and listening
- a different GCSE specification, which would put more emphasis on verbal exchange and less on artificial role plays and regurgitation of pre-learnt speeches (which don't really reveal much about how much has been understood or how well the pupils can manipulate the language - i.e. current specifications tend to reveal much more about how good a memory a pupil may have).
7.We propose that the Languages Ladder (Asset Languages) is now promoted for general use by schools. It will provide an important opportunity to recognise progress for learners from the primary years through to A Levels and beyond. Do you agree?
There is widespread support for the Asset Languages Scheme. However, there are some practical difficulties, such as the expense of training teacher administrators and the cost of frequent and multiple entrance of candidates which it would be useful to resolve before promoting the scheme. Equally, if class sizes are too large, the Asset Languages approach will not have any real chance of success.
Widespread promotion of the scheme would be necessary as there will be many schools who are not yet aware of what the language ladder is and how it operates.
8. We propose that current regulations on language provision are withdrawn and that schools should be able to offer one or more languages based on clear non-statutory guidance from the Department. Do you agree?
DfES could usefully look at some of the very imaginative ways relatively small independent schools manage to offer a range of MFL.
It is important, however, to ensure that pupils are provided with continuity in their choice of language throughout their education if they wish. This will require some national plan to enable local co-ordination between secondary schools and their feeder primary schools.
9. We propose that schools should also be encouraged to value and wherever possible make provision for some learning of the languages of their local communities and to reflect those languages and cultures in the curriculum. This can be a powerful way of involving parents in the educational process. Do you agree?
As with any other MFL provision adequate funding and training for staff involved in such schemes would be needed for the young people to benefit. There is a lot in favour of pupils having some familiarity with Hindi, Urdu, Polish, and so on. However, the range of first languages in many schools is in the high tens, and it is impossible to give familiarity across this number. The primary purpose of language teaching has to be to develop linguistic skills, rather than to be able to remember some common phrases in twenty or thirty languages.
10. There has been long, sustained argument that the standards for the awards of grades are more demanding than for other subjects, and that this has contributed to the flight from languages, both because of the concern of students to get good grades and the concern of schools to do well in the 5 A* to C achievement and attainment tables. We propose that it is resolved. Do you agree?
ISC schools have often find that grades at GCSE, AS and A2 are unreliable between languages (e.g. German coursework moderated by the board far more harshly than French; Spanish listening comprehensions recorded at fast native-speaker speed, but at laboriously artificial speeds in other languages). Even with the same Awarding Body, there are glaring and unacceptable variations, particularly when it comes to the marking and moderation of the speaking tests and the coursework. There are many areas where it is the system of marking/moderation, which leads to unfairness. Frequently, it is the system of assessment, rather than the task itself, which leads to the problem of very able students getting mediocre grades (e.g. if, in a centre's entry of only six GCSE German candidates, only one candidate fails to write sufficient for a coursework piece, is it really fair to reduce the coursework mark for the whole group?). Awarding Bodies will need to be encouraged to consult with each other to address this difficulty.
13. We propose that sufficient provision should be made for the continuing professional development of language teachers in secondary schools. Do you agree?
It is vital that CPD is provided to language teachers both in primary and secondary schools. It is important that teachers are supported to provide the most effective provision and that the young people are given continuity in their teaching as they develop. Hence, the need for a national programme in which all schools might participate, including independent schools working in partnership with the maintained sector, to receive CPD and teachers exchange skills and knowledge amongst themselves.
14. a) Do you agree the Consultation Report sets out the fundamental issues relating to MFL learning and take-up.
14. b) If No, what issues should we consider?
- It should be emphasised that any new initiatives must be properly funded and planned in order to ensure that all young people have the opportunity to benefit from MFL learning.
- One important area noted in the Review, but not the subject of any consultation questions, is the issue of full immersion experiences. Plans to support teachers who enable pupils to participate in trips, exchanges and work experience undertaken abroad need to be drawn up as at the moment this is a veritable minefield of Health and Safety and safeguarding requirements. These plans should not just be for more guidance documents, but should allow for active support in this difficult area.
Second Language Study and Basic Skills in Louisiana, Baton Rouge: Louisiana Department of Education, 1986
Neurolinguistics: structural plasticity in the bilingual brain, Mechelli A, Crinion JT, Noppeney U, O'Doherty J, Ashburner J, Frackowiak RW and Price CJ, UCL 2004.
The Provision of Foreign Language Learning for Pupils at Key Stage 2, Dr Patricia Driscoll (Christ Church University College Canterbury), Dr Jane Jones (King's College London) and Dr Gee Macrory (Manchester Metropolitan University), 2004. http://www.dfes.gov.uk/research/data/uploadfiles/RR572.pdf
The Cambridge Encyclopedia of Language, Second edition, Crystal D, 1998, Cambridge University Press