Actually, that title is unfair. In science an experiment is never a failure. If you discover something doesn't work, then you have learned something. Unless you fail to learn, in which case, yes, it's a failed experiment.
There are three main reasons why it failed. One because of teaching. Two, because of learning. And thirdly because of politics.
In terms of teaching, it seems like a great idea to have a curriculum where pupils learn and are tested on a defined body of language. A curriculum where they meet the words repeatedly at carefully planned and tracked intervals in different contexts so just as words were about to be forgotten, they are reinforced. And knowledge accumulates.
But in practice, it's impossible for the classroom teacher to construct that meticulous fine tuned instrument. I do not have the wherewithal (is that really one word?!) to create such a thing. What I can create is a core snowball of pupils' language where their repertoire rolls from one unit to another and picks up more and more language once it has something to stick to. For me, the vocabulary list approach means trying to create an even covering of language. And an even covering will melt much quicker than a snowball. The incredibly perfect layering required to make an even covering that will survive, is beyond me to resource and teach. We need something much more robust, without fear of some of the things we teach melting, and something which won't fall apart in the real world of the classroom.
In fact, I can't even write single texts based on this approach, let alone a whole curriculum. Because when I sit down to create a text for a resource, I don't know what words are or are not on the list. Or what words are due for a fresh encounter. I write the text using the words that the piece of writing needs. But how to write a text about Marie Curie if we don't have the words Polish or chemistry? Of course I can gloss them. But that's not the idea of what we are supposed to be doing. It's what we've ended up doing, especially when pupils are asked questions such as "What do you like to do in your free time?" or "What do you like to eat when you go to a restaurant?" Because they can't all say "rabbit". So we have made the vocabulary approach work. By ignoring it. And teaching the words pupils need.
That's from the teaching point of view. And already that last point is moving into the learner's point of view. But it's not just about having to teach vocabulary that's not on the list. It's about the whole perversion of language learning. Language is not about making sentences for the sake of practising prescribed words. Language learning is about saying things you want to say. Fortunately our learners always, even when you try to make them create sentences from a predetermined list, always try to say things you weren't expecting. But most importantly, learning that way doesn't actually work.
I have an example in this post where pupils who had written some practice sentences in Year 10, when it came to Year 11 were basically starting from scratch. The pupil who had written a true story remembered it clearly. Not word by word. But he could retell the story fluently a year later. There are two sides to this. Firstly it made the language memorable when he wrote it, because he was deploying his full knowledge of how the language worked, challenging himself to articulate bits of knowledge into a something that made sense. Secondly, it was memorable when he was rewriting it a year later. Because it had personal meaning. You can see from the original post that the two versions a year apart are quite different. I am not talking about memorisation here. I am talking about consolidated language learning that has long lasting impact on his ability to deploy his knowledge to express himself. In a way that the pupils who had just done some sentences to practise the Spanish could not keep up with. Meaning matters. We have to start with meaning, not with a list of words to practise until they are memorised.
This language learning focused argument is of course the most powerful argument. But there is also a political side. Because the "learn the prescribed content and be graded on it" approach is part of the right wing perversion of the knowledge curriculum idea. It sees learning as accurate recall of important knowledge, in order to meet the demands of the gatekeepers. It denies pupils agency, creativity, expression. You can see this is a philosophical rephrasing of the very real issues outlined above in the sections on Teaching and on Learning. And you can see the political assumptions it is based on.
So...
Imagine if we are given a list of words to be learned at KS3. And this is then policed for conformity as to whether pupils know those words. What would happen to our carefully constructed and robust schemes of work and resources then? What would happen to the careful balance of communication and grammatical progression? Can you imagine having to throw out everything that works? And "deliver" something that has already failed? It would be heartbreaking and I think I would have to leave teaching.
This could only come to happen because of the narrative of "failure". Severe grading and other systemic failures are perfectly designed to make continuing with language learning impossible for all but a tiny minority. We need to challenge these systemic failures, and challenge the narrative that something is "wrong" with teaching. With the utmost urgency and forthrightness. Before they make things even worse.
