Skip to main content

The 2014-15 Language Trends survey

For thirteen years there has been an annual Language Trends survey which "charts the health of language teaching and learning in England". It is currently administered by  the CfBT Education Trust and British Council. As a Head of Department I used to dutifully complete its questionnaire every year. This year a total of 648 primary schools, 529 state-funded secondary schools, and 128 independent secondary schools responded to the survey, published yesterday, yielding response rates of 22, 27 and 26 per cent respectively.

The survey revealed a couple of significant trends.

Most notably, perhaps, is the fact that the policy of compulsory languages in primary schools is having the desired immediate impact. The report found that 99% of the schools who responded now offer languages in some form, with 12% saying they began this academic year. That's the good news.

The not so good news is the fact that, unsurprisingly, there is a larger percentage of primary teachers who have no more than a GCSE qualification. In addition, secondary teachers continue to report a wide range of experience in their pupils arriving in Y7. 44% of reporting primary schools said they had no contact with their secondaries.

I don't wish to go into the primary languages debate to any great extent, but it is probably fair to say that the quality of languages provision in primary schools is variable, sometimes excellent, sometimes poor. This is to be expected given the varying skills possessed by teachers and the pitifully poor financial support there has been for training. Further, even if there was more liaison between primaries and secondaries (hard to do in practice with so many different feeder schools in some areas), it is unlikely that Y7 teachers would be able to assume a good deal of embedded knowledge on which to base further progress. This will always be a messy area.

At KS3 a growing phenomenon has been noted this year, namely the "disapplication" of more and more pupils from languages, particularly in areas of social disadvantage, to allow them more time to work on maths and English. This is clearly the consequence of Ofsted pressure on schools to improve their RAISEOnline scores in the core subjects. I find it of cultural note that SLTs default to languages when they are looking for something for pupils to drop. Why not art, music or design technology? The answer is that languages are perceived as both hard and less important.

I do think there is an equal opportunities issue at stake here. Notwithstanding the fact that language learning can make a serious contribution to the development of literacy and communication skills, it is surely only fair that all students should get to have a go at learning a language during the whole of KS3. The status of MFL has already fallen at KS4, where 44% of schools who responded exclude some pupils from language study. Are we to let it wither at KS3 too? This is a concerning trend.

The report reaffirms what we know about A-level study. Enrolment has declined for a range of reasons including harsh grading compared to other subjects, poor arrangements for languages at KS3 and KS4, tight budgets (making it hard for schools to run small groups) and student perceptions of the risk of taking a subject which produces lower grades. The DfE is hoping its new MFL GCSE and A-levels will be more motivating to students. Regular readers of my blog will know what I feel about that!

As regards preferred languages, Spanish has seen rising take-up in secondary schools, whilst French and German continue on the decline. This has to do with the perception that Spanish is easier, especially phonologically, has cultural associations which young people value more highly and the fact that there has been a growing supply of qualified Spanish teachers over time.

This is, alas, not a golden age of language learning and teaching. Was there ever such an age? I would love to see better timetabling at KS2, KS3 and KS4, a greater degree of compulsion at KS4 to raise the status of MFL, less conservative A-levels, fairer exam grading and a broadening of post 16 provision to allow more students to continue a language after 16 without fear.

The executive summary of the survey is here.
The full report is here.

Comments

  1. Hi

    Are you aware of any paper comparing the recent compulsary language learning policy in primary schools with the failed primary policy from the 60s?

    ta
    Mura

    ReplyDelete
  2. No. A researcher from Birmingham Uni, I believe, did a survey of primary languages (under the last Labour governement). Practice was variable. As I understand it the 1960s experiment was seen as a failure.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. hi can you recall any details of the Brum reseacher or their survey?

      ta
      mura

      Delete
    2. It's here: http://www.nfer.ac.uk/publications/PLF01/PLF01_home.cfm

      Delete
    3. great thanks

      Delete

Post a comment

Popular posts from this blog

What is the natural order hypothesis?

The natural order hypothesis states that all learners acquire the grammatical structures of a language in roughly the same order. This applies to both first and second language acquisition. This order is not dependent on the ease with which a particular language feature can be taught; in English, some features, such as third-person "-s" ("he runs") are easy to teach in a classroom setting, but are not typically fully acquired until the later stages of language acquisition. The hypothesis was based on morpheme studies by Heidi Dulay and Marina Burt, which found that certain morphemes were predictably learned before others during the course of second language acquisition. The hypothesis was picked up by Stephen Krashen who incorporated it in his very well known input model of second language learning. Furthermore, according to the natural order hypothesis, the order of acquisition remains the same regardless of the teacher's explicit instruction; in other words,

What is "Input Processing"?

Input Processing (IP) was proposed by Bill VanPatten, Professor of Spanish and Second Language Acquisition from Michigan State University. Bill may be known to some of you from his podcast show Tea with BVP. He is one of those rare university academics who makes a specific effort to engage with practising teachers. IP was first proposed in a 1993 article (published with T. Cadierno in the Modern Language Journal) entitled "Input processing and second language acquisition: A role for instruction." My summary of it is based on an article "Input Processing and Processing Instruction: Definitions and Issues" (2013) by Hossein Hashemnezhad. IP is a little complicated to explain, but I'll do my best to summarise the key points before suggesting how it relates to other ways of looking at classroom language teaching. Is this actually any use to teachers? I apologise in advance for over-simplifying or misunderstanding. To paraphrase Dr Leonard McCoy from Star Trek &q

Delayed dictation

Image: pixabay.com What is “delayed dictation”? Instead of getting students to transcribe immediately what you say, or what a partner says, you can enforce a 10 second delay so that students have to keep running over in their heads what they have heard. Some teachers have even used the delay time to try to distract students with music. It’s an added challenge for students but has significant value, I think. It reminds me of a phenomenon in music called audiation. I use it frequently as a singer and I bet you do too. Audiation is thought to be the foundation of musicianship. It takes place when we hear and comprehend music for which the sound is no longer or may never have been present. You can audiate when listening to music, performing from notation, playing “by ear,” improvising, composing, or notating music. When we have a song going round in our mind we are audiating. When we are deliberately learning a song we are audiating. In our language teaching case, though, the

Using sentence builder frames for GCSE speaking and writing preparation

Some teachers have cottoned on to the fact that sentence builders (aka substitution tables) are a very useful tool for helping students prepare for their GCSE speaking and writing tests. My own hunch is that would help for students of all levels of proficiency, but may be particularly helpful for those likely to get lower grades, say between 3-6. Much depends, of course, on how complex you make the table. To remind you, here is a typical sentence builder, as found on the frenchteacher site. The topic is talking about where you live. A word of warning - formatting blogs in Blogger is a nightmare when you start with Word documents, so apologies for any issues. It might have taken me another 30 minutes just to sort out the html code underlying the original document. Dans ma ville (in my town) Dans ma région (In my area) il y a (there is/are) des banques (banks) des cafés (cafes) des

Pros and cons of pair and group work

Most teachers have made frequent use of pair and group work for many years, notably since the rise of communicative language teaching in the 1980s. Even before then it would have been common for pupils to work in pairs on simple role-play and dialogue tasks. So pair and group work is standard practice, if not universally supported by language teachers. It’s always worth evaluating, however, whether a practice works - whether, in this case, it helps students develop their proficiency. Pros Rod Ellis (2005) summarises the advantages of pair/group work (based on Jacobs, 1998) “1. The quantity of learner speech can increase. In teacher-fronted classrooms, the teacher typically speaks 80% of the time; in groupwork more students talk for more of the time. 2. The variety of speech acts can increase. In teacher-fronted classrooms, students are cast in a responsive role, but in groupwork they can perform a wide range of roles, including those involved in the negotiation of meaning. 3. There can