Sector urges DfE to rethink language GCSE plans
Nine organisations have signed a joint statement urging a ‘rethink’ of the government’s plans for the teaching of modern foreign languages (MFL) at GCSE.
In 2019, prompted by the low uptake of language GCSEs, the Department for Education (DfE) asked an expert panel to review the subject content for GCSEs in French, German and Spanish, to make them ‘more accessible’. That review then led to proposals for revised subject content for the three GCSEs, which were published earlier this year together with a consultation on the changes,. The new proposals include testing pupils only on what they have been taught, and replacing the four assessment areas of speaking, reading, writing and listening (which currently each carry 25 per cent of marks in the exam) with three different assessment areas, the largest of which would carry 45 per cent of marks. Perhaps most controversially pupils would be required to know between 1200-1700 words in each language. It is these proposals than the nine organisations criticise in their statement.
The signatories are concerned the proposals do not promote the core communication elements of learning a language (listening, speaking, reading and writing) whilst also creating a risk of undermining the teaching of languages in both primary education and at A-level. The group of signatories comprises three educational trade unions and professional associations (Association of School and College Leaders, the National Association of Head Teachers and Headmasters' and Headmistresses' Conference), three language subject expert associations (Association for Language Learning, Independent Schools Modern Languages Association, National Association of Language Advisers) and three exam boards (AQA, Pearson Edexcel and WJEC Eduqas).
The organisations say that they share the DfE’s ambition to increase participation in language learning, are concerned about ‘current patterns of unequal uptake’ and recognise the ‘critical importance of ensuring that the languages curriculum is viable and enjoyable for students right across the UK’s communities’. However they note that while the proposals were based on ‘a segment of relevant published research’ they argue there is also ‘a considerable body of research’ which validates their concerns. Among these concerns are that students may not attain sufficient vocabulary to communicate in real life situations, and the ‘adverse impact of reform so soon into the lifecycle of the current specifications’.
The statement proposes that the DfE undertake a second phase of design and development for the changes, in collaboration with ‘a full range of subject stakeholders, including awarding organisations’ and to be completed by Easter 2022. They say that areas which this second phase of design work should focus on include: short-term improvements that can be made to existing qualifications within the existing content criteria; the nature and extent of vocabulary specification in the future GCSE; and the coherence of the defined content with its learning outcomes.
Commenting on the statement Geoff Barton, general secretary of the Association of School and College Leaders, said: ‘There seem to be very few people, language experts included, who agree with the DfE’s view that this reform is the way to inject new life into the existing modern foreign languages GCSE. An approach is needed which encourages a love of learning of these subjects. Requiring students to grind their way through a list of words is a fundamentally flawed approach that will not enthuse students and we urge the new ministerial team at the DfE to take a step back and rethink this reform.’
Jenny Carpenter, president of the National Association of Language Advisers, said: ‘To ensure that young people get the most from their language learning, we call upon the DfE to rethink the proposed changes to GCSE subject content. We believe that a collaborative approach to reform which involves subject associations, associations for school leaders, exam boards and the DfE is essential.’
Full statement: https://tinyurl.com/3wtnw8e5