EU referendum, brexit and the aftermath

Again on the subject of language teaching we touched on a while ago, here are two more articles on language exams.

https://www.theguardian.com/education/2019/may/11/modern-language-teaching-under-threat-from-tough-exams

There is so much nonsense in attitudes to teaching languages, you hardly know where to start.

Part of the reason for these declines is both the difficulty of languages compared with other subjects

Languages are no more nor any less difficult than other subjects. How difficult they are depends entirely on the quality of the teaching and the ability of the person being taught. Surprisingly, both vary. Obviously, neither factor is greatly helped by back-loading stress-inducing exams without much continuous assessment, prompting quickly-forgotten cramming and misperception of the point of language learning, but languages are not any more difficult than anything else.

and what many experts believe is harsh marking.

This is, of course, not an aspect of the languages being 'examined'. There is still the much bigger issue that you don't want some exam to 'test' some very small part of what has been meant to be learnt. We need much more questioning of this as an 'assessment method' (and not just for languages, it can be just as bad in completely different subjects).

This means that at GCSE, languages have typically been marked half a grade more severely than other Ebacc subjects. And the introduction of new GCSEs has made the problem worse.

I don't even understand how anyone could measure this. The exams must be exceptionally geared towards regurgitation by rote to even enable such a comparison.

As a result, languages at GCSE are increasingly becoming elite subjects, said Suzanne Graham, a professor of language and education at Reading University. “GCSE modern foreign language entries tend to be highest in independent, selective schools and converter academies, and lowest in schools in more challenging economic circumstances and those with lower levels of attainment overall,” she said. “Low uptake of languages is especially acute among those from more economically disadvantaged backgrounds or those with special educational needs.”

This is something that I have observed very often since I've lived here, albeit anecdotally, of course. It's hard to ascribe to those behind this aspect of the education system any intention towards making languages a privilege of more moneyed pupils, but it may at the very least be a logical outcome of the manifestation of such attitudes towards languages. This is, of course, a particular problem for linguistically-talented pupils from less moneyed backgrounds, who thereby don't get to develop a key strength, whereas language-related jobs, perhaps even language teaching, end up getting done by less qualified people.

A Department for Education spokesperson said: “Giving more young people the chance to learn foreign languages helps broaden their horizons and will ensure this country remains an outward-looking, global nation. That is why we made the teaching of a modern or ancient foreign language compulsory in the national curriculum for primary schools in 2014 and why we have included languages within the English baccalaureate performance measure.

This is very interesting. I'm not against making a language compulsory, even considering the perception that it may be imposed, as language teaching is as important as other compulsory subjects, but it is nonsense to give a choice between an ancient and modern language (which this quote seems to suggest, and I'm too lazy right now to look up what the case actually is). I think in an ideal world every pupil would have instruction in at least one modern/living and one ancient language (learning these actually involves very difficult skills, as an ancient/'dead' language can't be learnt by listening), but I think it is much better to also offer the option of learning two living languages, i.e. making two languages compulsory, with the minimum of one being modern.

I haven't looked into, and don't understand, the finer points of the 'English Baccalaureate'.

The other article is mostly figures:

https://www.theguardian.com/education/2019/may/11/language-exams-how-hard-are-they-and-is-there-a-crisis

Pupils typically know about 1,000 of the most common words when they take their GCSE. But word lists published by exam boards suggest that relatively uncommon vocabulary is often used in reading and listening comprehension exams.

This is an appallingly unambitious outcome at GCSE level. Truly shocking. 1,000 words don't get you anywhere close to speaking any language well, not even English, whose native speakers are sometimes said to use comparatively few words in any given day. (I've never believed that.)

I wouldn't put a figure to the number of words that ought to have been learned by that stage, but 1,000 is definitely not nearly enough.

Are there socio-economic differences?
Yes. In the relatively prosperous area of Kensington and Chelsea, west London, 71% of learners took a GCSE in 2016-17; in Middlesbrough the figure was 29%. While three-quarters of selective school pupils took a modern language GCSE, in sponsored academies it was only 38%.

I suspect that a key factor influencing this is the much more cosmopolitan nature of London, but I'm sure other figures could be given for affluent areas outside London.

What is the government doing about it?
The government announced a new centre of excellence at York University to work with schools to help more young people learn foreign languages, and the designation of nine schools in England as language hubs, to improve the teaching of Spanish, French and German. It included language GCSEs in the English baccalaureate, created in 2010. And learning a modern or ancient language has been compulsory in primary schools since 2014.

I really don't understand the concept of 'language hubs' in the context of schools--are they all boarding schools or would families interested in sending their children there all have to move and change jobs to be nearer them?

Is there a modern languages crisis?
The number of pupils taking GCSEs in a foreign language has nearly halved since 2003: in 2002 76% of pupils took a GCSE language, now just 46% do. A major factor in this slump was the decision by the then Labour government in 2004 to make language optional at GCSEs. At A-level, this trend has been exacerbated by the move away from AS-levels, as significant numbers of pupils chose a language as their fourth option at AS-level.

These seem to be the most significant factors in recent history.

What impact is Brexit having?
Just over a third (34%) of state secondary schools report that leaving the EU is having a negative impact on attitudes of pupils and parents towards the benefits of learning a language, according to the British Council’s annual language trends survey of 692 primary schools and 785 secondary schools in England. But Brexit will make the UK economy’s need for languages greater, according to the CBI.

Well, there is little doubt in my mind that the comparative lack of language skills (I mean lasting, applicable skills, as opposed to the teaching that mostly seems to get measured) is a significant cause of 'Brexit'. Shutting the stable door, etc. (and snottyotter is going to suspect me of doing something clever again)

How important are language skills to the UK economy?
According to the CBI, foreign language skills, cultural awareness and understanding global business is vital to the UK’s economy and competitiveness internationally. But lack of these skills is estimated to cost the UK economy 3.5% of GDP.

I've always found this tendency to constantly assess educational policy against its impact on the 'economy' extremely annoying, whether it concerns languages or any other subject. Good education is a human right and essential for human flourising. Everything else will sort itself out as a consequence of that.