Can we sort out Languages in English schools?

 Can we sort out languages in English schools? That's a sentence you can read 7 times putting the stress on different words in turn. How about we try, "Can WE sort out languages in English schools?" Because if WE don't do it, then who is? They will either not bother, or muck it up. And I'm not sure which is worse.

Going along with that idea of giving us the responsibility, I'm nervous of commenting on sectors I don't work in. So Primary languages, Universities, and private enterprise all have a role to play. But meddling by outsiders never ends well. So I will stick to talking about the sectors I know something about. The one thing to do first at Secondary. And what on earth to do post 16.

At Secondary level, there is one obvious and easy thing that would go a long way to changing the narrative, the incentives for SLT, the attitude of pupils, and the success of the subject: Ending unfair grading.

At Sixth Form and College, we need to see one thing: a mainstream option for continuing with languages as the norm. Universities have language courses for students NOT specialising in a philology degree: Why is there a gap from 16 to 18 where you can't just carry on learning a language? Pupils who pick a language at GCSE shouldn't be going into a dead end 2 year course just to get a grade and then quickly lose everything they learned.

Ending unfair grading

There is no reason why pupils in Languages should be given lower grades than in their other subjects. If grades were given out fairly, nobody would be clamouring for it to be changed. For grades 4 and above, on average, a pupil is given a grade lower in languages than in other subjects. If a pupil does get the same grade in languages as in history or geography, by the law of averages, this means another pupil is getting 2 grades lower. It's the way the grades are given out. FFT datalab show how this happens year after year. Because that's the way it's been deliberately set up to happen.

It is no reflection of the pupils' achievement in languages or anything to do with the teaching. When the "comparable outcomes" decisions setting the allocation of grades were first applied in 2018, the current Year 11 were in Year 4. The allocation of worse grades for them in languages was already in place. It's a historical anomaly that we've got stuck with for decades. There is some slight variation according to the SATs profile of the year group. But Ofqual's brief is to keep grading standards the same year on year, regardless of the fact that they know it's unfair.

I wrote in another post how pupils' targets clearly show them that the grades given out in languages are lower than in their other subjects. If in history or geography the target is a 6, it will be a 5 for French. This has nothing to do with the pupil's ability in French or the teaching they have received. The targets were already set, based on KS2 SATs, before the pupil started Secondary School. But the targets are a true reflection of the fact that lower grades are given out in languages. A very clear message. Pupils know, teachers know, SLT know. Taking a language is a recipe for lower grades.

But pupils inevitably blame themselves and think that it means that they are not good at languages. SLT may blame the teachers and think that they are not good at teaching. Because surely nobody would carry on giving out unfair grades year after year. Well they do. And they need to stop.

Before any new syllabuses or national centres and hubs or changes to teacher training or methods or research reviews or ebaccs, the one thing to change is grading. So that pupils can pick a GCSE in a language with the confidence that they are going to do well. The narrative of failure in languages is powerful, but as I show in this post, it is entirely manufactured.

I'm not saying that's all we need at Secondary. But it's by far the biggest and also the easiest thing.

Then we can continue to think about whether our subject is about culture and communication, or grammar and vocabulary, or useful language, or story telling. But of course the answer to that is easy too. That richness of our subject is a positive. When we try to cut teaching down and neglect one or more of those aspects, it's the worse for it. Richness and complexity is not the problem. We know what the problem is. It's unfair grading. We've seen it, we've said it, and it won't be hard to sort it.

Pupils, teachers, SLT will all feel better about the subject once we remove the disincentive.

Then we need to make sure that if pupils take GCSE, that it's not a dead end. So the second thing we need is mainstream language learning pathways post 16.

Mainstream language learning pathways post 16.

It is not the norm in England to carry on studying a language. We have A Levels for those who want academic study with intellectual heft. I wrote here about how our attitude to languages means we don't value the study of languages unless it is beefed up with linguistics or literature, history or politics. When the universities meddled with the A Level, they even wanted it to have essays in English. They put intellectual heft above actual language learning.

For a tiny minority, there is the option of A Level and then a degree in philology. I'm not going to bemoan the fact that it's only a tiny minority (2 pupils per secondary school go on to A Level French and the same for Spanish). I bemoan the fact that this is what people are worrying about. What about the 99% of pupils who are never going to want to write essays about Gustavo Adolfo Bécquer? Why is language learning not an option for the mainstream?

More 16 to 19 year olds are on Duolingo than do A Level languages. I don't have figures to prove that but I don't think anyone's going to question it. Because it's bound to be more than 4 pupils per Secondary school. 

That's a clue to how things could be. Online learning. Open access. Points based or counting hours of study rather than exams. At your own pace. And in the language or languages you fancy.

Online open access study. I'm not suggesting that Duolingo be mandated at college and Sixth Form. But whatever we come up with would need to rival it.

Of course we could call for taught language classes, the same way Sunak wanted all pupils to continue with maths. Although that feels less attractive than being given autonomy over your choice of language and level of learning.

Sunak's maths idea, is of course a warning. Nobody wants miserable classes of students who don't want to be there. In a subject you can't staff. With students coming from different high schools having done different levels of different languages.

If colleges wanted to offer taught courses, and you did want a qualification to aim for, GCSE isn't a bad option, if now you feel better able to make important choices than when you were 13. A GCSE either in the same language you started at High School or in a different language or languages. GCSE historically has kept that balance between useful language and learning the grammar required for more complex self expression.

Or a simply a points based system where the expectation is that you put in a certain number of hours or work through a certain amount of levels. Again, not unlike Duolingo.

The Duke of Edinburgh Award and the EPQ are examples of this kind of add-on that are taken seriously, where students clock up extra hours or other dimensions of study.

I teach A Level students who study other languages independently online. Even to the extent of this leading to next steps linked to the other language rather than the one they took for A Level. Because it links to their other subjects, their other interests, or their aspirations.

This could be happening for many more of our students.

A changed ecosystem.

What would this look like? More pupils taking GCSE languages without the kick in the teeth of unfair grading.

Attractive options to continue with language learning post 16. Incentivised by college minimum expectations and university entry requirements. Boosted by links to the subjects they study. And by the availability of easy access to cultural and academic resources and international communication.

When we used go on the Spanish exchange, our pupils were astounded that their exchange partners see it as part of a strategic plan. They have mapped out spending a year over the border in a French lycée as an EU citizen. They would like to go to the UK for an Erasmus year. And they want to do a Masters in America. We don't think like this. We just moan not enough people are taking A Level and writing essays in English to show their intellectual level. While actually secretly being quite proud of how difficult, demanding and exclusive we can make the subject.

With a language and an international outlook becoming the expectation post 16, Colleges with a high quality language programme will win out over ones who just direct pupils to work online. This will include attracting students with an international outlook to vocational courses and apprenticeships.

The ethos will infuse the whole College, with international links and cross curricular opportunities for students to follow their interests in different languages and culture.

Private language schools will spring up for ambitious students to meet their aspirations.

And universities will find that almost all students want to take a language course alongside their degree, because they haven't had a two year hiatus with no language learning possibilities.

The detail of what online resources and what incentives/requirements would make this work, will have to be thought through. But these two things - end to unfair grading and end to being a dead end at 16 - are key to making languages the norm for the mainstream.

You may not like the open access online study option. I didn't set out to propose that. It's not an idea I particularly like. But it seemed the obvious thing to plug the gap. There's another implication too. Because online language learning is here anyway. So our GCSE lessons have to clearly offer something that online apps don't. Communication, interaction, culture... all the things that an app might be bad at, these are the things that we have to be brilliant at...

The sharp eyed will have noticed that despite my promises not to meddle in sectors I don't work in, this post does rely on support from universities. If it is true as this article claims, that universities need researchers with language skills and an international outlook, then they should say so to schools. I know universities are in competition for bums on seats. And that they worry that requiring a language would bar disadvantaged students. But in fact the result is the opposite. Students are not having the opportunities because schools don't think universities require them.

But it could be put in place that universities clearly state that, "Whatever you study at our university, there will be international aspects. You will be taking some language learning alongside your main subjects. When you apply, we will expect you to show what language learning you have done to equip yourself for this."

Some students may have a GCSE at 16 in a language or languages. They would be required to show what they have done to continue with those languages or what they have done to pursue other languages. Some (but fewer than under the current kick in the teeth grading regime) may not have taken a GCSE at 16. They would be required to show what they have done to prepare to step into an international environment with a global perspective. Whether that be by taking a GCSE at college, or by some level of self study.

Students in Spain definitely think like this. And there are areas in this country where schools have the same attitude. We need to show that we genuinely think this is important for all our students.

I asked chatgpt to solve the 16-18 problem. I don't know how long this link is valid for. So read it NOW! https://chatgpt.com/share/6820bc63-7a00-8010-a7f8-3f0c946a4ed5