Student Number: 580002884

Table of Contents: MovingOnIntroduction 1

1960 – 2000: Fifty years, shifty government decisions1

Historically…2

Comprehensive Schools2

Communicative Approach3

Forms of Assessment 3

National Curriculum4

Year 2000: New Millennium, New Beginning?5

Reviews of the NC 19925

‘Languages for all; languages for life’5

Move to optional MFL6

Primary Languages7

KS2 & KS3 Frameworks7

0

Student Number: 580002884

Current Conceptions8Languages Review8

ICT and Cross Curricular Links9

One size fits all?9

Alternative courses10

Out with the old government, in with the new10

Conclusion12

Bibliography 14Books and Journals14

Websites 16

Moving OnIntroduction

Modern foreign languages (MFL) have been in a constant cycle

of development panning over the last fifty years, reflected in the

English education system which is constantly evolving and devolving

alternatively in the form of either vicious or virtuous circle; some

new ideas are implemented, others dismissed. This paper will focus1

Student Number: 580002884

upon the instigated modifications and will discuss its benefits and

detriments for not only the education system as a whole, but also on

teachers, students and others concerned. The first section, ‘1960-

2000: Fifty years, shifty government decisions’ will scrutinise and

highlight the changes to MFL instruction after the introduction of

Comprehensive schools, the beginning of the National Curriculum and

their consequences. The second part, ‘New Millennium, New

Beginning?’ will focus on the developments in the new millennium and

how it will affect the ways in which MFL are taught, in addition to

what is taught. Thirdly, the last part ‘Contemporary conceptions’

will consolidate all said developments over history and demonstrate

how and if they have shaped the present and will continue to do so

in future. Have past findings played an important part in leading us

to where we are now? Has political rhetoric overshadowed theory and

evidence? However, before we can analyse the current situation, it

is necessary to examine the past.

1960 -2000: Fifty years, shifty government decisions Language learning in England for more than a thousand years

was synonymous with Latin and Greek since they were the medium

through which one could relate to God, through the Bible. (Brown

2001:52). Its emphasis on written language, repetition drills and

grammatical accuracy meant that students learnt a lot of information

about the language but were not able to use it in practice. It is

therefore understandable why the ‘Classical Method’, later renamed

as the ‘Grammar-Translation Method’ (GT) focused on ‘mental

gymnastics’ and being scholarly (Brown 2001:52). However, the

Renaissance became the impetus for the study of Mediterranean

culture, and language became much more “fashionable.” (Conway

1970:18) Inevitably, educational centres began adopting the GT

Method despite MFL needing to be taught for oral purposes.2

Student Number: 580002884

Previously they had been taught using the aforementioned in the

mother tongue (Celce-Murcia and Prator 1979:3), until a major

transformation of the British education system in the middle of the

twentieth century.

Historically…A Tripartite system, recommended in the Norwood Report of 1943

(HMSO 1943:15), stated that secondary education should be organised

around the three types of innate intellectual abilities; 15%-20% of

students were suited to O Levels in prestigious Grammar Schools,

10%-15% to Technical Schools and the remainder to Modern Schools.

(Conway 1970:20) Parents opposing the 11-plus exam and their

undeniable concern about categorisation should be accredited as a

driving force for this change, in addition to classist segregation

under the Conservative Party at the time with increasing amounts of

working class students wanting to access better secondary education,

but were excluded due to their social background. (Conway 1970:25)

Comprehensive Schools Comprehensivisation eventually came into force when Harold

Wilson and the Labour party rose to power in 1964. As Conway

(1970:11) states, “pupils are no longer expected to fit into

education moulds; they are being provided with an education which is

suitable to their ability” from which one can infer the initial aim

was to create a child-centred education, providing an assortment of

different courses in one establishment, in which teachers would

establish different students’ intellectual needs and cater for them

adequately.

Nonetheless, this substantial change did seem idealistic, as

“in some cases, the grammar school model of provision was simply

transferred to the comprehensive school, with less able pupils

excluded from language teaching or offered a diluted diet […]”

3

Student Number: 580002884

(Hawkins 1996:83). Evidently, teachers were faced with the problem

of catering for a wide range of abilities in the same mixed ability

group. This challenge, combined with the inefficacity of the GT

Method led to the need for a reconsideration of MFL teaching methods

and consideration for all students, not just those who excelled.

In consequence of the establishment of Comprehensive schools,

“increased opportunities for communications among Europeans created

a demand for oral proficiency in modern languages.” (Richards and

Rodgers 2001:7). This was unmistakably needed to satisfy the needs

of society, the economy and new demographic of students. The

adoption of the GT method undoubtedly demeaned the status of MFL in

the school curriculum with many students who found MFL difficult

wanting to be disapplied, being widely remembered by thousands of

learners with aversion. (Richards and Rodgers 1986:4) Old objectives

and methods of teaching MFL to innately gifted and motivated

students in grammar schools were no longer suitable, as language

instruction would now be applicable to the whole school population,

reasserting the necessity of an innovative approach to this new

situation. 70% of all pupils had already abandoned MFL by age 14

(McNamara 2000:84), principally due to “lack of planning, inadequate

schemes of work, unclear objectives, inappropriate approaches for

slower learners and insufficient challenges for abler pupils” (DES

1977), reiterating that Grammar Translation, an “alluring but

untried method” (Hawkins 1996:84), in the comprehensive school was

by no means adequate and led to a period of expensive mistakes.

Communicative Approach “The 1970s was a period when everyone was “going

communicative […] (as) […] Communicative Language Teaching was a

response to changes in the field of linguistics in the 1970s.”

Richards (2001:36) These changes put forward the notion that the

4

Student Number: 580002884

message carried (communicative effectiveness) had more importance

that how it was said (grammar). This is further supported by the

definition of aims in The Threshold Level for Modern Foreign Languages, in

which “it tries to specify foreign language ability as skill rather

than knowledge […].” Ek (1976:5) The ineptitude of the GT method did

nothing to enhance a student’s communicative aptitude and ultimately

paved the way for “a communicative approach, incorporating inter alia

many of the best elements of a wide variety of methods.” (Hawkins

1996:184)

In light of the widening ability of students after the school

mergers, the proposed graded tests was the preferred method of

assessment, containing formative and accumulative testing at regular

intervals throughout the academic year. Its intention was to provide

them with a sense of achievement, motivation and destination, in

that they would know what they would have to do to improve. As

stated in Pachler, Barnes and Field (2009:10), “these objectives

mainly centred on language skills required for communicating in a

seemingly authentic situation”. Not only was this because a

communicative approach determined assessment in listening, reading,

speaking and writing, but also it must be nigh on impossible for a

single skill, such as speaking, to be assessed in segregation from

other linked skills, such as listening.

Forms of assessmentSince 1951, Ordinary ‘O’ Levels were established by the

Conservative Party with the premise of examining the top 20% of

students in grammar schools in order to give them a legit,

nationally recognised certificate of attainment. (Mobley 1986)

Regarding secondary and modern schools, this was not the case which

unsurprisingly pressured the government to treat these students

fairly. As a result, the Certificate of Secondary Education (CSE)

5

Student Number: 580002884

was introduced in 1965 (Mobley 1986) but with the majority of

British schools soon after merging into comprehensives, this brought

about a redundant dual system of examination. It was entirely

logical to instigate change due to a nonsensical overlapping of the

two systems, whereby some borderline pupils were being

inappropriately entered for both exams, despite O-Level being out of

their intellectual reach, given that a Grade 1 at CSE was the

equivalent of an A, B or C had they chosen that subject for O Level.

(Mobley 1986)

Forasmuch as this incongruity of examination systems, a change

was justly initiated, in the form of the General Certificate of

Secondary Education (GCSE), introduced in 1988 under the Education

Reform Act 1988 (Mobley 1986) (HMSO 1988), tried to emulate its

predecessors. The Conservatives realised the fallacies of its own

creation and thus chose to now focus on the four language skills,

reward positive achievement with a ‘bottom up’ approach to examining

and improvement of the quality of education by emphasising the

application of knowledge, more than the ability to remember facts

for one final end of course paper (Pachler, Barnes and Field 2009:4)

National Curriculum In 1992, a National Curriculum was introduced, whose purpose

was to standardise the content of each discipline across all state

schools so that a just and representative system of assessment could

be established around the country. (SCAA:1994b) The previously

disregarded Graded Objectives initiative came back to the forefront

in conjunction with the GCSE with the move towards criterion

referencing (Pachler, Barnes and Field 2009:195); proven that in NC

1992, it included eight level descriptors of increasing difficulty,

pinpointing exactly what a student would be able to do to achieve

that specific level. Initially for KS3 in the NC Draft Proposals,

6

Student Number: 580002884

levels 2-10 were implemented as a guide of a student’s expected

attainment. Levels 9 and 10 were ludicrously ambitious; what KS3

pupil would be able to do more than “show increasing confidence with

unpredicted elements in conversations”, “speak confidently with good

pronunciation and intonation” whose “language is largely accurate,

with few mistakes of any significance” (Level 8) (SCAA:1994a). This

overestimation inescapably led to its reduction to levels 3-6 being

expected, with 7 to 8 specifications available for the most able of

students. (SCAA:1994b)

Year 2000: New Millennium, New Beginning?

Reviews of NC 1992The turn of the millennium generated change, but it certainly

did not constitute a new beginning. The Dearing Report (SCAA:1994)

was carried out as “the NC was criticised for being narrow,

prescriptive and too demanding.” (Faulkner 2009:11) In this review,

in accordance with the 1993 Education Act (HMSO 1993), the term

‘disapplication’ was coined, allowing schools to exempt students

from specific non-core subjects who had learning difficulties, or to

carry out more vocational studies. Given the fact that MFL is still

the latest subject to be statutorily introduced (Year 7), it is

plainly the subject of choice to be in the firing line.

Curriculum 2000 was the second major review which focused

mainly on KS5, introducing Advanced Subsidiary (AS) Levels, but also

placed greater importance on core subjects, hence the time allocated

and topics studied were up to the discretion of LEAs and head

7

Student Number: 580002884

teachers (Capel 2005). The at the time Secretary of State, David

Blunkett, reasoned this suspension of Programmes of Study in all

non-core subjects, including MFL; he was so determined to raise

attainment in the two main basic skills (up to 80% of students in

English and 75% in Maths should attain Level 4 by the end of KS2),

he said he would resign if these targets were not met. (Watkinson

2001:15) Subsequently, the National Literacy Strategy (NLS) was

rolled out in September 1998, and the National Numeracy Strategy

(NNS) the following year, whose mission was to “to raise standards

of achievement and rates of progression […] on the core subjects and

early year” (Ofsted 2010:7), at the inescapable detriment of the

other non-core subjects.

‘Languages for all, languages for life’The Nuffield Languages Enquiry (2000) was set up to probe the

UK’s capability in languages “if it is to fulfil its economic,

strategic, social and cultural aims and responsibilities” (Nuffield

Foundation 2000:10) in a response to the decline and reliance upon

English, resulting in the National Languages Strategy (NLS) in 2002

(‘Languages for all: Languages for life’) in which three self-

proclaimed overarching objectives were set out; to improve language

teaching and learning, to introduce a recognition system and to

increase the number of people studying languages. (DfES 2002b:5) The

way forward is outlined as beyond the classroom, aiming for school

and community language learning. They also typically point the

finger at the alleged inefficiency and shortage of teachers and

address this by training more specialist teachers for all levels,

including KS2 which was to be made an entitlement to all pupils by

2010 and also by promoting MFL study in Further and Higher

Education. (Ofsted 2008:30)

8

Student Number: 580002884

Move to optional MFLIt seems contradictory that the government aimed to combat the

decline by changing KS4 MFL from a statutory requirement to an

entitlement. They maintain that “the move to an entitlement at Key

Stage 4 […] should also help to focus on the languages at Key Stage

3 and, in the longer term, at primary school.” (DfES 2002a:4).

According to Dearing (DfES 2007:24), the government envisaged a

decline, and balanced it with introducing KS2 languages but did not

expect such a dramatic fall. With 36,000 pupils being disapplied

from MFL in 2001 (DfES 2002a:6), which according to Pachler (2002:5)

is “tangible”, is this figure really tangible given that their

academic future would be jeopardised? Would their visions of

reducing the time allocated to MFL and disapplying the less able

have the desired impact?

This inquiry sets the premise for following ten years, but

changing the mentality of a nation who underestimates MFL due to

English being the lingua franca of the modern world will undoubtedly

take longer; “action from Government, schools, colleges,

universities, employers, parents and learners” is needed to

counteract this pessimistic attitude and “huge cultural change.”

(DfES 2002a:8)

Developments stemming from the NLS 2002 have been numerous yet

overambitious. The government’s view was principally to address the

issues in the long term, with MFL now being considered solely as an

entitlement post-KS3 from 2004 (Ofsted 2008:40), indisputably

leading to many schools taking advantage of this new legislation.

GCSE exam entries fell 50% between 2004 and 2007, with the number of

students studying two languages negligible. (Ofsted 2008:40) Also,

the number of students opting to study languages dropped by

approximately 125,000 students between 2000 when disapplication was

first permitted, and 2007 (Macaro 2008:102), from which one can

9

Student Number: 580002884

infer that the change to the optional status of MFL may not be the

only cause.

This rightly sparked an interim enquiry by Lord Dearing,

resulting in the then Schools Minister, Jacqui Smith, appropriately

setting a benchmark in a letter sent to all secondary schools in

January 2006, stating that they should aim for the number of

entrants of a GCSE or NVQ in languages to be between 50% and 90%.

(Ofsted 2008:42) However, why was a short term solution of a return

of statutory KS4 MFL not implemented? Surely it would have made more

sense to reinstate the statutory requirement with immediate effect,

rather than holding out for an eventual increase of the number of

MFL GCSE entries? Astonishingly, it was again not recommended and

the review instead pursued the promotion of a “better climate for

learning languages across KS3 and KS4” (Ofsted 2008:10). In order to

entice, or bribe schools to promote MFL uptake, “performance

indicators measuring both attainment and participation in languages

will be included in the KS4 achievement and attainment tables from

2008” (Ofsted 2008:10). On the other hand, how does the Government

now intend to attract students, given that the choice is now in

their hands alone?

Primary Languages NLS 2002 set out an entitlement for all KS2 pupils to be given

the chance to learn a language in class time by 2010 (Ofsted

2008:5). Over half of primary schools surveyed were making good

progress in implementing languages, although sufficient time for

languages was lacking, given the prominence of Maths and English

governed by the NLS and NNS. Contrarily, some schools have made the

most of compulsory PPA time, introducing MFL into the timetable by

other teaching staff or outside visitors. (Donnelly 2007)

Asher and García (1969:335) state that “there is no direct

evidence that the child has a special language learning capacity

10

Student Number: 580002884

which is absent in the adult”, whereas Penfield (1959) states “the

time to begin […] a general schooling in secondary languages […] is

between the ages of four and ten.” Therefore, given this contrasting

research, one must consider if there is an optimum age to begin

learning MFL? Therefore, one must consider if statutory primary

languages in the curriculum is a viable option to entice learners to

continue MFL learning, or whether it would be better to return to

compulsion in KS4.

KS2 & KS3 FrameworksStemming from the ‘Languages for All’ policy was the creation

of KS2 and KS3 MFL frameworks. Initially, a KS3 framework was

introduced with its theoretical underpinning being raising

standards, closing attainment gaps and providing a basis for target

setting. (DfE 2009) However, teachers obviously found it difficult

to cater for students due to the amalgam of prior and no prior MFL

KS2 knowledge, paving the way for an the overview of MFL in the

primary school. Consequently, a new KS2 Framework, focusing on 5

main strands: ‘Oracy’, ‘Literacy’, ‘Intercultural Understanding’,

‘Knowledge about Language’ and ‘Language Learning Strategies’ (DCSF

2005) was introduced, making it necessary to modify the existing KS3

Framework to be in alignment with the proposed 2008 Curriculum, to

‘bridge the gap’ between the two key stages. MFL at primary school

were now to become an entitlement by 2010 under new Labour

legislation (DfES 2002b) and teachers at KS3 had to be able to teach

their new cohort of Year 7 students accordingly. Therefore, the new

KS3 Framework had reduced its objectives from 35 to 5 strikingly

similar ones to the KS2 Framework. The very fact that they mirror

each other proves the need for effective transition and progression

through the different Key Stages.

11

Student Number: 580002884

Current Conceptions

Languages ReviewRecent developments include the ‘Languages Review’ (DfES 2007)

which reviewed the National Curriculum and examined the methods how

14-16 year olds could be encouraged to study MFL. Recommendations

included proposed statutory KS2 MFL from 2010 which overtly

reasserts the government’s vision of the prominence of primary

languages, in addition to “making secondary school courses more

engaging and accessible” (Pachler, Barnes and Field, 2009:16)

This report spurred on a review by the QCA, who in 2007

published a new National Curriculum 2008, reiterating the importance

of languages, especially through Assessment for Learning (see more

in DSCF 2008), key processes and language skills including

recommendations to “use their knowledge of English or another

language when learning the target language ” and “develop techniques

for memorising words, phrases and spellings “ as it “can help pupils

to remember new language and to understand how the target language

works”. (QCA 2007:167) Controversially, these key processes mean

that “pupils are probably better at passing exams these days” (Ellis

2012) leading to the reverberant statements that exams are getting

easier (Shepherd 2012) when in fact, the pupils are better prepared.

ICT and Cross Curricular linksNon-European languages such as Mandarin and Arabic can now be

chosen, “depending on local needs and circumstances” (Pachler,

Barnes and Field, 2009:21). However, is it fair to say that only

those ‘appropriate’ areas, assumedly multicultural, can study them?

Would it be a better idea to give all schools more free reign, not

solely between French, Spanish and German and in turn lead to

increased motivation? Instigating cross curricular language learning

12

Student Number: 580002884

could prove useful (DfES 2007:14); “languages across the curriculum”

are a common feature in primary schools, so why not integrate the

KS2 and KS3 even more? It could be introduced via “bilingual

teaching and learning (CLIL)” or in conjunction with subjects such

as Sport or Drama. (DfES 2007:15) However, one must consider the

implications; we are used to having a topic based approach in the

National Curricula, which is “organised around themes, topics, or

other units of content” but through cross curricular links, “it may

be difficult to develop a logical or learnable sequence for other

syllabus components if topics are the sole framework.” (Richards

2001:159) This idea means well by increasing target language usage

across the curriculum, but by focusing on how it is taught, will it

have a detrimental effect on what is taught?

Emphasis was put on ICT to aid MFL teaching and learning; it

makes classes more engaging and “motivate[s] and give[s] pleasure to

pupils of all ages” (DfES 1990:53) by using Interactive Whiteboards,

multimedia and bespoke software, such as MYLO. The NC expects

students to “communicate in the target language individually, in

pairs, in groups and with speakers of the target language, including

native speakers” (QCA 2007:169); this can be carried out

interactively via email and videoconferencing with native speakers

abroad. Nevertheless, with technology constantly upgrading and the

need for teachers to retrain frequently, “should fundamental changes

in communications currently taking place influence rather than

respond to the content of language courses and pedagogical models?”

(McNamara 2000:235)

One size fits all?Dearing concluded that “a one menu suits all approach to

secondary languages is not working for many of our children” (DES

2007): more needed to be done to cater for the range of students’

requirements. The ‘New Paradigm for Languages’ (DfES 2007:8)

13

Student Number: 580002884

indicated the three possible post-14 pathways to follow: specialist

(GCSE), but what about those students who find that “other subjects

appear easier, more interesting and more relevant to the future”?

(Ofsted 2008:41) Is this because the GCSE is not interesting to

their personal life, nor relevant to their vocational future? Ofsted

(2011:1) quotes the proportion of students taking a language at KS4

has dropped from 61% in 2005 to 44% in 2010, with newspaper

headlines depicting this throughout the years, such as ‘No increase in

take up of languages ‘ (Lipsett 2008) and ‘Science and languages on schools’

endangered list’ (ITV 2012). Nonetheless, with a decrease in the number

of entrants, but an increase in the top grades, it “would seem to

indicate that higher performing pupils are more likely to choose

languages than their lower performing peers (thus rejecting the

alternative hypothesis that language exams have become much ‘easier’

vis-à-vis other subjects.)” (Canning 2008:11)

Williams et al. (2004) and Court (2001) also assert that boys

not only underperform, evidenced by the average 10% gender

attainment gap in GCSE MFL (BBC News 2011a, 2011b, 2011c) but are

also less enthusiastic and their “interest (or lack of it) appeared

to play a more significant part as a reason for failure.” (Williams

et al. 2004:22) Social status also plays a part as “deselecting

subjects in the ‘feminine’ half of the curriculum - foreign

languages included - can become a way of confirming or asserting

their masculine identity.” (Court 2001:9) All the above factors help

to paint the picture to explain some of the personal reasons why

students opt out of MFL.

Alternative courses Pachler (2001:5) said that “the real danger is that after a

mere three years of FL study young people will have very little to

show for their efforts.” The Languages Ladder was thus produced in

14

Student Number: 580002884

2003 in conjunction with GCSE levels (DCSF 2007:4), but allows for

informal assessment at the appropriate level in each of the four

macroskills. (DCSF 2007:2). A less stressful assessment with a

visible purpose and outcome in the form of an Asset Languages

certificate with “recognition of achievement in Key Stage 3” (DCSF

2007:3) “may well encourage a greater staying-on rate.” (DfES

2007:13).

However, there is still the need for a nationally recognised

qualification for those who wish to have a more vocational or

personal course. This is justly provided in the form of an OCR

Certificate in Business Language Competence and Edexcel NVQs and

Applied French GCSEs. Nonetheless, despite these measures, will they

be enough to counteract the damage caused from decades’ worth of

political uncertainty over the best needs and ways forward for the

MFL curriculum?

Out with the old government, in with the newIn 2001, Pachler (2001:6) indicated that “what is needed is an

overhaul of the curriculum and the current examination prescriptions

together with an improvement of the ‘usefulness’ of the subject”.

Nine years later in a White Paper entitled ‘The Importance of

Teaching’, the Secretary of State for Education, Michael Gove, did

just that by introducing the English Baccalaureate (EBacc). It will

be presented to “[…] any student who secures good GCSE or iGCSE

passes in English, mathematics, the sciences, a modern or ancient

foreign language and a humanity […]” (DfE 2010:44) for assessment in

2018, which will purportedly give “numeric marks or even percentages

[…] to distinguish between top candidates.” (Meikle 2012a) There

will also no longer be “dumbing down” (Boyle 2012) as each

examination body “will have to bid for five-year contracts to run

individual subjects exclusively” (Meikle 2012b) in the form of

15

Student Number: 580002884

English Baccalaureate Certificates (EBCs). (Mansell 2012) The EBacc

will be used for ranking in performance tables, “a powerful

incentive for schools to drive the take-up of […] especially foreign

languages.” (DfE 2010:44) With the proportion of pupils studying MFL

consistently on the decline (DfE 2010) (Ofsted 2008), “[it] will

encourage many more schools to focus more strongly on ensuring every

student has the chance to pursue foreign language learning to the

age of 16.” (DfE 2010:44); an optimistic outlook for MFL enthusiasts

as they are now “in their rightful place, a place sought for by many

years.” (DES 1990:86)

This juxtaposes an inclusive, comprehensive system for all.

“Pupils will of course be able to achieve vocational qualifications”

but schools will of course prefer students to study EBacc subjects

to raise their league tables profile, confirmed by the fact that

“youngsters are being asked to change a year or less before they are

due to sit exams” (Press Association 2012), especially to languages

and that already “two thirds of schools are letting only the

brightest pupils take traditional academic subjects at GCSE […].”

(The Telegraph 2012), providing further evidence that the Ebacc and

naturally MFL are still exclusive, mirroring its status in the past

when they were taught to gifted and talented pupils in grammar

schools and that languages are indeed not for all.

However, will this no longer ‘free’ reign of choice affect

less able pupils? Gove has mentioned his objective of “raising

aspirations and closing the gap between richer and poorer pupils”

(Boyle 2012) but he is still inherently elitist, known for his

reminiscent ideas of how the future of education should be according

to his own; the EBacc being “initially styled as a return to O-

levels” and return to traditional end-of-year exams. (Meikle 2012a)

Examination methods are already “too stressful” (DfES 2007:12) and

this proves that Gove’s best interests are in the more gifted and

talented, also corroborated by the British Dyslexia Association who16

Student Number: 580002884

worry that these changes “could disadvantage candidates with some

learning difficulties.” (Meikle 2012b) Despite this unmistakable

inequality, Gove has retorted by announcing that “those who find the

new exams difficult could either take them at 17 or 18” (Boyle

2012), which, of course, under the eyes of everyone except Gove

still segregates those pupils.

The White Paper (DfE 2010:44) also states that at the time,

“fewer than four per cent of students eligible for free school meals

[…] secure this basic suite of academic qualifications”.

Additionally, Ofsted (2008:41) asserts that “in areas with high

deprivation learning a language in school was given little

credence”, providing statistical evidence of the negative

correlation between socioeconomic background and languages uptake.

Gove aims to rule out inequality, but how does he intend on

doing this by eliminating coursework and modular assessments,

introducing five potentially distasteful compulsory subjects and

league tables. This move is not student-centered, rather enabling

him to compete with other countries with better education systems,

and to improve UK rankings. Before it has even been finalised, there

is already skepticism and alternatives considered; there has been an

increase in schools opting for International GCSEs. Independent

schools have adopted them for a long time, but in 2010, 250 of their

state counterparts chose this qualification rising to 1,170 schools

in 2012. (Morrison 2012) Wales which has long followed suit has now

also started to diverge from England’s education system by rejecting

the Ebacc (BBC 2012e) and even the Chief Regulator of the exam

watchdog Ofqual has expressed concerns over the new examination

system in a letter sent to Michael Gove, questioning whether “the

new qualification will be able to achieve all of what is being

expected of it” as it “will not be a reliable indicator for league

tables, because of the subjectivity involved in marking such exams.”

(BBC 2012f; Ofqual 2012)17

Student Number: 580002884

In the White Paper, it says that “teachers, not bureaucrats or

Ministers, know best how to teach” (DfE 2010:41) but why was there

no prior consultation with said teachers? It was “the result of the

coalition agreement rather than any meaningful input from teachers,

parents or young people” (Bangs 2012); this and the lack of

information gives reason for 22% of education professionals to be

cynical.(Marszal 2012) Even the former Labour Minister for Schools,

Andrew Adonis, has recently released a critique entitled ‘Education,

Education, Education: Reforming England’s Schools” (Benn 2012): this

proves Labour’s hesitation before it is even formally introduced by

the Conservatives. This change will of course be implemented before

2015, which leads to the question: with the next general election

set for that year and if Labour were to regain power, what would

then happen? (Cookson 2012)

ConclusionAfter decades of insecurity, trials and errors, it seems as if

theory and practice have been ignored by the current government

again and are implementing an education system which is to their

taste, leading to the Ebacc which is the “sad result of political

rhetoric and empty intervention”. (Boyle 2012) By examining the

past, we have discovered that the Grammar-Translation Method for MFL

was deemed ineffective, the Communicative Language Approach was

highly praised and applied willingly and the O-Level/CSE system did

not work leading to the appropriate two-tier system in GCSEs. If

through history it is possible to see what works and old ideas

constantly coming back to the forefront such as Graded Objectives,

why is the Conservative Party altering it by having one final

summative exam, and reflecting back on O-Level style instruction,

including the option of studying Latin and Greek once more? In

reality, students are currently unmotivated to learn MFL as they18

Student Number: 580002884

deem them immaterial, so what gives ancient languages more

relevance? Gove has stated that despite eradicating the legislation

put forward by Labour for compulsory languages by 2012, he now wants

to make languages statutory from KS2 which is indeed a good decision

to entice learners to study languages, including Latin and Greek

from an early age. Gove self-proclaims to be “presiding over the

greatest renaissance in Latin learning since Julius Caesar invaded”

(Eaton 2011), subsequently introducing them from the age of seven is

unreasonable (BBC 2012d); would it not be beneficial to continue

with MFL which the students will be able to use in the future, and

not study a dead language which has no relevance except academic

prestige, which is of course what Gove desires.

Education policy cannot develop effectively with the imbalance

and unpredictability of a country’s political situation and

political party preferences. Cookson (2012) states that “[education

policy] isn’t suited to the short-term solutions that come with the

electoral cycle of politicians. It does much better when it evolves

at a steady pace over longer periods of time.” Therefore, creating

the ideal education system is problematic when political parties

have varying ideas and ethos and changing legislation as soon as

they assume power. This has been seen throughout history, is indeed

occurring now and will no doubt happen in the future when opposition

parties can have their say heard. It seems as if political

interests are at heart of their policies and regretfully not those

of the students they have a duty to serve.

Clearly this creates several implications for teachers,

existing and prospective. Not only does government turbulence affect

the morale of teachers who have to quickly adapt to new situations,

such as the quick switch to the proposed Ebacc in 2015 and

historically, what with the comprehensivation of schools and the

change in demographics, in addition to change from the GT Method to

CLT. Additionally, with such low motivation and uptake levels, job19

Student Number: 580002884

prospects for teachers have been limited with MFL departments near

closing. (ITV 2012) The lack of GCSE students leads to lower numbers

of A Level students, in turn Higher Education and ultimately PGCE

students. Therefore, with lower numbers of teachers, there

inevitably has to be less provision of MFL instruction. However, it

could be considered that the Ebacc could be a driving force in

changing this situation – by making languages compulsory and

emphasizing their importance in personal and national development,

will it increase motivation? Byram (2007:297) believes that

“motivation comes from a transitive verb ‘to motivate’, rather than

from a passive ‘to be motivated’.” Focus has now shifted methods of

teaching as a definitive factor for the decline, in addition to

national pessimistic attitudes. However, after taking everything

into account, by shifting back to old aforementioned methods that

have proven to be ineffective and by returning to compulsion, end of

year exams with a high academic focus, it does seem as if we are

going “bacc to the future.” (Leney 2008)

Bibliography

Books and Journals1993 Education Act. London: HMSO Asher, J. and García, R. (1969) The Optimal Age to Learn a Foreign Language.The Modern Language Journal, 53: 334–341Brown, D (2001) Teaching by principles: An interactive approach to languagepedagogy.London: Pearson Longman. Byram, M (2007) Thoughts on the Languages Review. Language LearningJournal, 35:2, 297-299Canning, J (2008) Five years on: The Language Landscape in 2007. Southampton:Subject Centre for Languages, Linguistics and Area Studies

20

Student Number: 580002884

Capel, S (2005) Learning to teach in the secondary school: a companion to schoolexperience. London: Routledge. Celce-Murica, M and Prator, C (1979) Teaching English as a second or foreignlanguage, Massachusetts: Newbury House Publishers.CILT (1991) Graded Objectives and the National Curriculum. London: CILT.Conway, E (1970) Going comprehensive: a study of the administration ofcomprehensive schools. London: George G Harrap and co LTD. Court, K (2001) Why Are Boys Opting Out?: A Study of Situated Masculinities andForeign Language Learning: Working Paper 57. Lancaster: CRILEDavies, B (2004) The gender gap in modern languages: a comparison of attitude andperformance in year 7 and year 10. The Language Learning Journal, 29:1, 53-58.DCSF (2007) The Languages Ladder: Steps to Success. London: DCSF

DCSF (2008) The Assessment for Learning Strategy. London: HMSODES (1977) Modern Languages in Comprehensive Schools. London: HMSO. DES (1987a) Curriculum Matters: Modern Foreign Languages to 16. London: HMSO.DES (1987b) Curriculum Matters: Modern Foreign Languages to 16: The responses.London: HMSO.DES (1990) Modern Foreign Languages for ages 11 to 16. London: DES. DfE (1995) Modern Foreign Languages in the National Curriculum. London: DfEDfE (2009) The Key Stage 3 Framework for languages.. London.DfE (2010) The Importance of Teaching: The Schools White Paper 2010. London: TheStationary OfficeDfES (2002a) Language Learning. London: HMSODfES (2002b) Languages for All: Languages for life. A Strategy for England. London:HMSODfES (2007) Languages Review. London: HMSOEducation Reform Act (1988). London: HMSOEk, Jan Van (1976) The Threshold Level for Modern Language Learning in Schools.Strasbourg: Council of Europe Faulker, K (2009) A Recent History of Primary and Secondary Education in EnglandPart 2 . London: CILT.Grauberg, W (1997) The Elements of Foreign Language Teaching. Clevedon:Multilingual Matters LTDHarris, M (1990) Initial Advice- Modern Foreign Languages Working Group. London:DES.Hawkins, E (1984) Awareness of Language: An Introduction Cambridge:Cambridge University Press, 1984

21

Student Number: 580002884

Hawkins, E (1996)30 years of language teaching London : CILT.Littlewood, W (1981) Communicative language teaching: An introduction.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Macaro, E (2008) The decline in language learning in England: getting the facts rightand getting real. Language Learning Journal, 36:1, 101-108.McNamara, T (2000) Language Testing. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Mitchell, R (1988) Communicative Language Teaching in practice. Southampton:CILT.Mobley, M (1986) All About GCSE. London: Heinemann.Nunan, D (1988) The Learner-Centred Curriculum. Cambridge: CambridgeUniversity Press.Ofsted (1993) Modern Foreign Languages Key Stage 3: First Year 1992-1993. London:HMSO.Ofsted (2008) The Changing Landscape of Languages. London: OfstedOfsted (2010) The National Strategies: A Review of Impact. London: HMSO.Ofsted (2011) Modern Languages: Achievement and challenge 2007-2010. London:Ofsted.Pachler, N (2002) Foreign Language Learning in England in the 21st century.Language Learning Journal, 25:1, 4-7. Pachler, N, Barnes, A and Field, F (2009) Learning to teach ModernLanguages in the Secondary School. London: Routledge.Purcell, S (1997) Teaching grammar communicatively. London: CILT.Richards, J (2001) Curriculum Development in Language Teaching. Cambridge:Cambridge University PressRichards, J and Rodgers, T (2001) Approaches and Methods in LanguageTeaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. SCAA (1994a) Modern Foreign Languages in the National Curriculum: Draft Proposals.London: SCAA SCAA (1994b) The National Curriculum and its Assessment: Final Report. London: SCAASEAC (1988) Chief Examiners’ Conference in Modern Languages. London: SEACThe Norwood Report (1943)Curriculum and examinations in secondary schools.London: HMSO The Nuffield Languages Inquiry (2000) Languages: the next generation,London: The Nuffield FoundationWatkinson, M (2001) A national literacy strategy for all: how can we ensure that theliteracy classroom meets the needs of every child? EdD thesis: The OpenUniversity.

22

Student Number: 580002884

Williams, M, Burden, R, Poule, G & Maun, I (2004) Learners' perceptions oftheir successes and failures in foreign language learning. The Language LearningJournal, 30:1, 19-29

WebsitesApplied French GCSE. Available from: http://www.cilt.org.uk/secondary/14-19/gcse/applied_french_gcse.aspx[accessed 29th November 2012]Bangs, J (2012) English baccalaureate: another dog's dinner of a plan for exam reform. Available from: www.guardian.co.uk/education/2012/sep/17/english-baccalaureate-exam-reform [accessed 4th December 2012]BBC (2012a) Exam results 2011, Full course GCSE. Available from: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/special/education/11/exam_results/gcse_fc/html/french.stm [accessed 29th November 2012a]BBC (2012b) Exam results 2011, Full course GCSE. Available from: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/special/education/11/exam_results/gcse_fc/html/spanish.stm, [accessed 29th November 2012b]BBC (2012b) Exam results 2011, Full course GCSE. Available from: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/special/education/11/exam_results/gcse_fc/html/german.stm, [accessed 29th November 2012c]BBC (2012d) New curriculum 'to make languages compulsory from seven'. Available from:http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-18384536 [accessed 5th December 2012]BBC (2012e) Wales should keep GCSEs as part of stronger Bacc, review says. Available from: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-politics-20508863 [accessed 3rd December 2012]BBC (2012f) Gove challenged over exam changes by watchdog Ofqual. Available from: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-20610137 [accessed 5th December 2012]Benn (2012) Education, Education, Education: Reforming England's schools by Andrew Adonis – review. Available from: http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2012/nov/02/education-reforming-schools-adonis-review [accessed 5th December 2012]Boyle, B (2012) The Ebacc is a sad result of political rhetoric and empty intervention. Available from: http://www.guardian.co.uk/teacher-network/2012/sep/24/ebacc-assessment-not-learning [accessed 2nd December 2012]Cookson, T (2012)What is the EBacc all about? Available from: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/secondaryeducation/9672897/What-is-the-EBacc-all-about.html# [accessed 4th December 2012]

23

Student Number: 580002884

Davies, G (2011) Information and Communications Technology and Modern Foreign Languages in the National Curriculum: some personal views. Available from: http://www.camsoftpartners.co.uk/ictmfl.htm [accessed 14th November 2012]Donnelly, J (2007) Tackling the modern languages crisis. Available from: http://www.teachingexpertise.com/articles/tackling-the-modern-languages-crisis-1604 [accessed 14th November 2012]Eaton, J (2011) A Latin Renaissance Mister Gove? Available from: http://drjonathaneaton.blogspot.co.uk/2011/07/latin-renaissance-mister-gove.html [accessed 6th December 2012]Ellis, N (2012) Exam reform ignores need for a broad curriculum that develops skills. Available from: http://www.guardian.co.uk/teacher-network/2012/oct/02/exam-reform-curriculum-skills [accessed 4th December 2012]Higgins, C (2012) Arts leaders voice deep concerns over lack of cultural subjects in Ebacc. Available from: http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2012/nov/02/arts-leaders-concerns-ebacc-schools [accessed 2nd December 2012]ITV (2012) Science and languages on schools "endangered list. Available from: http://www.itv.com/news/wales/2012-12-05/science-and-languages-on-schools-endangered-list/ [accessed 5th December 2012]Leney, F (2008) Bacc to the future? Available from: http://www.tes.co.uk/article.aspx?storycode=2599398 [accessed 6th December 2012]Lipsett, T (2008) No increase in take-up of languages. Available from: http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2008/dec/03/languages-gcses-secondaryschools [accessed 28th October 2012]LLAS (2006) Review of Languages at KS4. Available from: www.llas.ac.uk/news/Review_of_language_learning_KS4.doc [accessed 27th November 2012]Mansell, W (2012) New exams set to be introduced without trials. Available from: http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2012/oct/01/gove-new-exams-pilots [accessed 2nd December 2012]Marszal, A (2012) GCSE reforms: Fewer than one in four teachers support Gove's GCSEreforms, survey finds. Available from: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/secondaryeducation/9596642/GCSE-reforms-Fewer-than-one-in-four-teachers-support-Goves-GCSE-reforms-survey-finds.html [accessed 4th December 2012] Meikle, J (2012a) EBacc 'could marginalise' pupils with learning difficulties such as dyslexia. Available from: http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2012/sep/18/ebacc-marginalise-pupils-dyslexia [accessed 2nd December 2012]

24

Student Number: 580002884

Meikle, J (2012b) GCSEs are dead: the EBacc is the future, says Michael Gove. Available from: http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2012/sep/17/gcse-ebacc-michael-gove [accessed 2nd December 2012] Morrison, Nick (2012) The flight to IGCSE: an alternative to the English Baccalaureate? Available from: http://www.guardian.co.uk/teacher-network/2012/oct/05/igcse-more-engaging-alternative NVQ (NQF) Languages. Available from: http://www.edexcel.com/quals/nvq/lang/Pages/default.aspx [accessed 29th November 2012]OCR Certificate in Business Language Competence. Available from: http://www.cilt.org.uk/secondary/14-19/alternative_accreditation/cblc.aspx. [accessed 29th November 2012]Ofqual (2012) Letter to Secretary of State. Available from: http://www.ofqual.gov.uk/files/2012-11-19-letter-glenys-stacey-to-secretary-of-state.pdf [accessed 5th December 2012]Press Association (2011) Pupils forced to switch GCSE courses as schools chase Ebacc results. Available from: http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2011/jul/13/ebacc-limited-choice-gcse-school-pupils [accessed 2nd December 2012]Roberts, Y (2011) The flaw in Michael Gove's league tables. Available from: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/jan/13/english-baccalaureate-flaw-michael-gove [accessed 2nd December 2012]Shepherd, J (2012) GCSE and A-levels are easier, Ofqual finds. Available from: http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2012/may/01/gcse-alevels-easier-says-ofqual [accessed 5th December 2012]The Guardian (2012) 2015 and beyond: what's next for school reform? Available from: http://www.guardian.co.uk/teacher-network/teacher-blog/2012/oct/22/2015-school-reform-predictions [accessed 4th December 2012]The Guardian (2012) Year 12s are being told their qualification is now worthless. Available from: http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2012/sep/18/year-12s-qualification-worthless [accessed 2nd December 2012]The Telegraph (2012) Only brightest students to take new EBacc. Available from:http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/educationnews/9590878/Only-brightest-students-to-take-new-EBacc.html [accessed 4th December 2012]Ward, H (2010) System blamed as fewer pupils than ever study languages at GCSE. Available from: http://www.tes.co.uk/article.aspx?storycode=6033906 [accessed 28th October 2012)

25