DfE intrusion has gone too far

This post is for teachers in England.

Do you remember when, not too long ago, Ofsted were at pains to tell schools that they had no preferred teaching style?

In our subject area we’ve had the TSC review of MFL pedagogy (2016), the establishment of NCELP and a revised GCSE for first examination in 2026. All of these have involved the hand of government in various forms (notably the choice of authors and panel members). Meanwhile Ofsted decided it wished to place an emphasis on curriculum, arguing that this is the cornerstone for a school’s success. Its series of research reviews (selective and flawed) have reinforced the notion that learning is about turning declarative knowledge into automatised skill. This is tied up with a view of language learning based on the idea of building blocks (phonics, vocab and grammar - the ‘three pillars’). 

This is a one-sided view of language learning and curriculum design, frequently criticised in the second language acquisition research literature. But it is the perspective we see in the TSC review and NCELP lessons. It is also where the DfE wanted GCSE to go, though I expect the changes in the new exam to be evolutionary, not revolutionary. Exam boards are experienced and pragmatic rather than ideological.

Viewed in a historical context, language teachers are being edged back towards a very traditional way of teaching, where knowledge takes priority over communication. The pendulum swings. This is a cul de sac, in my view, since experience has taught us that the so-called synthetic, building block syllabus does not work for many students, especially those with less aptitude and motivation. Teach them words, teach them rules and communication will come later. We’ve been there. I anticipate a move back towards practical communication in years to come. NCELP may see its funds taken away (governments have form on this) and as standards and take-up fail to rise, we’ll look for an alternative solution. It was ever, as they say, thus.

Teachers would do well to be very wary of research reviews, Ofsted guidance and DfE-inspired initiatives. Although we always get the caveat that ‘there is no best method for every circumstance’ (e.g. TSC, 2016’),  it is hard not to detect a strong nudge towards a methodology based on dubious, politically inspired research claims. I hope many stick to their guns and avoid slavishly playing to the Ofsted gallery.If I wete still a Head of Languages I would only go so far in ticking the boxes and would happily justify my department’s practice to any inspector.