The DfE in England has been conducting a general review of the curriculum, including assessment, and published an interim report in March 2025. This suggested that evolution, not revolution, would be the order of the day — which probably comes as a relief to most teachers. For example, it has been stated that the exam regime is basically fit for purpose. However, in the world of languages, there is clearly a case for something more revolutionary.
Before I summarise various findings from a recently published set of articles in The Language Learning Journal, let me offer my own view of things.
There is a lot to be celebrated in terms of achievement, enthusiasm, and curriculum development. In many schools, languages thrive with motivated pupils and teachers. This is often the result of pupil intake factors and SLT support. Grassroots curriculum initiatives such as EPI should be researched, recognised, and celebrated.
Primary languages provision is very mixed, with (according to the recent research study) pockets of success in teaching a single language, and many cases of a lack of timetable provision, poor teacher expertise, and weak curriculum design. Transition to Key Stage 3 remains an intractable problem with no obvious solution.
The all-pervasive GCSE exam is taken by fewer than 50% of pupils. Most students in England drop languages at 14; some don't even do a language up to that level — for example, if they have to do extra maths and English, or have special needs. The GCSE suits many higher-achieving students, but the requirements of Ofqual and school accountability mean that many students end up achieving low grades. In any case, grading is harsh for MFL.
An MFL A-level is taken by a tiny minority of generally high-achieving pupils. In the mid-1990s, over 30,000 students took A-level French. The number now is below 7,000. A-level remains a stimulating course, but for a small minority of students. Spanish has gained ground, but overall post-16 languages is in a very weak position. Grading remains harsh. There is no alternative post-16 pathway, apart from the IB, which is offered in a tiny minority of schools. Financial support for it has recently been stopped by the DfE.
The low uptake at A-level means that universities have closed down departments, and they rely heavily on overseas students to make up the numbers in subjects like French.
Languages are increasingly the preserve of the middle classes — students in independent schools, grammar schools, and comprehensive schools in wealthier areas. In many relatively deprived areas, uptake and enthusiasm are very low.
Languages curricula are traditional, with an overemphasis on grammar, accuracy, and writing. The predominant curriculum model is a so-called synthetic one, based on the idea of building blocks — a jigsaw approach founded on the so-called three pillars of phonics, vocabulary, and grammar.
The huge wealth of linguistic and cultural knowledge possessed by immigrant populations is barely taken into account in languages provision. In any case, the intercultural element of language learning comes a distant second to linguistic progress.
The emphasis has remained on French, Spanish, and German — largely due to reasons of teacher supply, tradition, as well as geographical proximity and middle-class affinity with a certain type of British culture.
There is no significant alternative assessment pathway beyond GCSE, IGCSE, and A-level. The Asset Languages / Languages Ladder pathway was abandoned in 2013.
Lanvers and Graham (2022) wrote:
"With the UK entering its fourth decade of this crisis with no end in sight, it is timely to ask how current policy directions for language learning beyond the compulsory phase (currently age 14 in all 4 UK nations) align with learners' psychological needs in relation to language learning."
The Language Learning Journal asked scholars and teachers in the field to give their own research-informed perspectives, along with proposals in response to the DfE's curriculum review, which had identified MFL as a problem area.
Pachler et al. (2025) list what they consider to be the backdrop to any curricular reform:
-
a marked rise in geopolitical instability,
-
a profound political repositioning in relation to internationalisation, leading to and following Brexit,
-
a significant amount of economic turmoil in the wake of Brexit and as a result of the economic policy of the second Trump presidency,
-
a marked weakening of democracy linked to growing political divisiveness and tribalism around so-called ‘Culture Wars’, often closely associated with the increasing ubiquity of mobile device use and social media,
-
a rise of anti-immigration politics across the political spectrum,
-
an increased awareness and impact of climate change, and
-
a significant increase in the wealth gap between rich and poor, linked to growing economic inequality.
The above points already hint at how we need a broader view of curriculum aims than we have been used to in the past, where the stress has been on using languages as a practical tool for communication and the famous "liberation from insularity".
On reading various submissions, a few recurring ideas stand out to me:
-
Two papers supported the idea of an alternative assessment provision for MFL, along the lines of a Languages Ladder, possibly incorporated within GCSE. This sort of nationally recognised system of assessment (akin to music grades) would allow progress to be recognised in any of the four skills: listening, reading, speaking, and writing. Students would enter an assessment, probably done online, when they are ready. An emphasis could be placed on speaking and listening. Some authors urge the creation of digital adaptive systems so that students can self‑pace, get feedback, and practise in multiple modalities with tech support.
-
Listening and speaking (and communication in general) should have a higher priority. We need to go beyond the building block model of three pillars and incorporate other strands, including communication and intercultural competence.
-
Language learning should become more personalised, leveraging digital tech and AI, with Duolingo seen as an example of how many adult learners now choose to learn a language.
-
The knowledge and experience of the many multilingual language users in England should be recognised and used in some way in schools.
-
The intercultural aspects of language curricula should be decolonised, recognising a wider range of cultural perspectives. Decolonising might include moving beyond the commonly taught languages. There’s concern that GCSE themes or exam contexts often assume middle-class or “posh” cultural referents (ski holidays, high‑end restaurants etc.), which can alienate many students.
-
Inclusivity: Some papers point out that current systems tend to favour students from certain social/economic backgrounds — e.g. those who have travelled, those with resources, those whose families speak more than one language. Reform must address inequalities in access, uptake, and attainment.
-
The idea that topics should connect to students’ real life, diverse backgrounds, and multilingual or non‑standard identities ties in with calls to decolonise content — and to make it more socially just.
-
The harsh grading of MFL is referred to more than once in the papers. This could be an easy, quick win.
-
Primary languages should be reorganised to place less emphasis on “progress in one language” and more on language awareness — one way to bring in the wide range of languages used in England. This would be partly a pragmatic solution, given lack of time and teacher expertise. It is easier to upskill teachers in basic linguistics than in a particular language. The WoLLoW initiative is referred to in more than one paper in this context, as is the Linguistics in MFL project.
-
Some papers emphasise the need to upskill teachers — not just in language competence, but in linguistics, metalinguistic awareness, and in understanding multilingualism/identity.
-
Any reforms should be sensitive to local contexts: what works in urban multilingual settings might differ from rural monolingual ones, or schools with lower resourcing.
What do I think about this?
My initial reactions are:
-
Owing to the unsolvable problem of transition between primary and secondary school, the language awareness approach seems worth pursuing. (It is not new, of course, and has been advocated in the past, notably by Eric Hawkins back in the 1980s.) I don't think it should exclude primary schools pursuing "single language" teaching where expertise and previous success allow.
-
Incorporating linguistics and language awareness within the primary and secondary languages curriculum seems feasible and desirable, as long as it does not take much time away from the main goal of giving students some skills in communicating in a modern language.
-
We need to offer alternatives to GCSE and A-level which are recognised and carry weight. This would need financial support and buy-in from schools — which could only really come by allocating value-added points within the school accountability system. Heads need a reason to encourage more pupils to do languages. GCSE is not motivating enough for most students who might otherwise be willing to have a go at basic conversational, AI-supported languages work. We should revisit the Languages Ladder.
-
Severe grading at GCSE and A-level needs to be addressed once and for all. Cultural content in these courses needs to be tweaked. Teachers will not want wholesale reform but might welcome a greater focus on communication, and less on the traditionalist "three pillars" (a dubious way to look at language acquisition).
-
Teacher supply issues mean that there can be no short-term roll-out of other languages beyond French, Spanish, and German. Initiatives such as the Mandarin Excellence Programme are no doubt welcome but should remain at the margins.
-
Initiatives such as NCLE and Oak Academy are welcome but are only effective at the margins. Oak resources need rewriting to become much less like NCELP. We should detach ourselves from the TES Pedagogy Review (Bauckham, 2016). It contained many good ideas, but its overall view of language acquisition was flawed and out of step with mainstream research.
-
We should be wary of initiatives such as the long-standing CLIL (Content and Language Integrated Learning), which risk diverting attention from teaching basic conversational ability in a language.
-
Making MFL compulsory at KS4 is not the way to go. Teacher supply makes it impossible and we know from past experience that thousands of pupils were demotivated and disapplied from exams. Let's make GCSE more communicative and attractive and offer other pathways.
The DfE are looking at evolution, not revolution. That's what we'll get, no doubt.
There should be more DfE-led support for lexicogrammatical approaches such as EPI. The NCELP vocab + phonics + grammar model is inadequate.
Since MFL teacher supply is inadequate, there should be more incentives for potentially talented teachers to get trained. Whatver the methodology or curriculum backdrop, there is no substitute for good teaching.
Comments
Post a Comment