Studies in Second Language Learning and Teaching Department of English Studies, Faculty of Pedagogy and Fine Arts, Adam Mickiewicz University, Kalisz SSLLT 7 (2). 2017. 295-315 doi: 10.14746/ssllt.2017.7.2.7 http://www.ssllt.amu.edu.pl Realities of and perspectives for languages in the globalised world: Can language teaching survive the inadequacies of policies implemented today at Leeds Beckett University? Saadia Gamir Leeds Beckett University, UK [email protected] Abstract Various newspaper articles report that British ministers, university repre- sentatives, exam chiefs and business bodies agree that foreign languages skills in primary, secondary and tertiary UK education are in crisis. Lower funding and policy changes have caused language skills deficiencies felt gravely in the business sectors. Funding and support initiatives pledged by policy makers appear to be election-driven, barely outliving newly elected governments. Others blame secondary school language curriculum for fail- ing to inspire students to take up a language when they reach 13 or 14. Others still argue that severe A-level examinations marking deters students from taking up a foreign language at 6th form level, producing fewer pro- spective language learners for university departments. Community lan- guages are also undervalued as small-entry languages could soon be axed from GCSE and A-level examinations. In a world increasingly intercon- nected, it is essential the importance of language learning be reinstated in all our educational institutions. This paper reviews two decades of the con- ditions of language provision in the UK in general, with an emphasis on Leeds Beckett University. It also attempts to answer two questions emerg- ing form the author’s personal teaching experience and reflections: What are the realities and challenges language teaching faces at Leeds Beckett University? And, how may we support language learners in fulfilling their 295 Saadia Gamir ambition to acquire the required skills to communicate effectively in this globalised world? Keywords: language learning; policies; funding; challenges; possibilities; Leeds Beckett University 1. Introduction UK linguistic skills base has been impoverished by successive government re- forms, policies and funding cuts at a time when the relevance of languages in the ever more diverse and interconnected global world we live in is increasing, according to the British Academy. The lack of relevant language skills is losing the country £48 billion a year in international sales, highlights J. Foreman-Peck from Cardiff Business School; national jobs are remaining unfilled because ap- plicants, 22% of them according to the UK Commission for Employment and Skills (UKCES) 2013 statistics, have no relevant language skills. To redress such alarming shortage, the British Chamber of Commerce is calling for “the next gen- eration of business owners’ to be ‘born global’ with language skills” (as cited in the Manifesto for Languages . . ., n.d.). Language provision at Leeds Beckett University (LBU) is deeply entrenched into a global perspective. It services global linguists with an array of languages ranging from the traditional French, German, Italian and Spanish to a number of lesser taught languages. Despite this thriving demand and wide-ranging offer, LBU has suffered, like the rest of UK educational institutions, from the deadly triangle of continuously changing government policies, exam board reforms and funding cuts that are squeezing language provision out of the UK. As a consequence, the number of languages offered by LBU has gone from 22 (traditionally offered until 2010), down to 19 (in 2011-13), then 15 in 2014 and finally 10 currently. This article offers a language tutor’s reflection on the challenges facing language provision in the UK in general and at LBU in particular. Using a variety of sources, ranging from government documents, charitable organisations’ re- ports and newspaper articles to statements from university representatives, ministers and industry bodies, this article highlights the causes of language skills crisis as seen by representatives of the three UK education sectors. It also re- flects on implementation policies adopted in schools at different key stages, as well as the impact of government cuts on university language provision. Further- more, this reflection focuses on how the crisis has been dealt with in the Lan- guages Department of LBU since the Higher Education Funding Council for Eng- lish’s (HEFCE) cuts in 2014. The paper ends with some proposals for improving 296 Realities of and perspectives for languages in the globalised world: Can language teaching survive. . . the reforms introduced recently, not only to face the present challenges but also to make the provision more durable and sustainable at our institution, if approved by the university leadership. With this reflection the author hopes to take part in the ongoing discussion reviewed in this paper of the challenges of language teaching by sharing personal views on reforms that, if beneficial to this university, could be em- ulated by other institutions in the country that are facing the same challenges. 2. Causes of foreign language skills crisis in UK schools 2.1. Primary education Prior to the introduction of the new national curriculum which was to make primary language teaching at Key stage 2 statutory starting from September 2014, teachers from hundreds of state and independent schools across the country responded to the 12th Language Trends 2013/14 Survey (Board & Tinsley, 2014).1 They welcomed the new policy but expressed many concerns arising from their current teaching conditions and resources. These are discussed in the following two subsections. 2.1.1. Need for further training of primary school teachers Most responding primary schools felt they needed training to boost lack of lan- guage confidence and competence prevalent among their staff, especially for Years 5 and 6. In fact, 24% of these primary schools reported that the highest level the members of staff who could be competent to teach a language is GCSE, a level they believed would not meet the challenging task of teaching the three main requirements of the new national curriculum, that is, reading, writing and grammar. Moreover, “33 per cent of responding schools (the same proportion as in the 2012 survey) [did] not have systems in place to monitor or assess pupil progress in the foreign language” (Board & Tinsley, 2014, p. 5). Such a low de- gree or lack of confidence felt by schools with regards to language teaching at primary level suggests that although this new primary languages strategy may be well-intended because it reinstates the statutory position of language teach- ing in UK schools, its designers, it appears, have aspired to introduce it without providing a strong foundation for it to stand on. Such a cart-before-the-bull ap- proach seems too ambitious and unrealistic. Adding to this, the reins that are needed to lead this cart have recently been cut as the financial support previ- ously available through local authorities or secondary school partnerships is no 1 The Language Trends Survey is an annual survey jointly conducted by the Centre for British Teachers (CfBT) and the British Council to research the state of language teaching and learn- ing in UK schools. 297 Saadia Gamir longer available to promote and implement this primary language strategy. 50% of the responding schools felt under pressure not only because of lack of finan- cial and language resources but also because they felt they did not have suffi- cient curriculum time to integrate languages properly and therefore meet the new National Curriculum requirements (Board & Tinsley, 2014). 2.1.2. Lack of cohesion at the transition from Key stage 2 to Key stage 3 The survey reported a patchy picture of collaboration or progression between state secondary schools and their feeder primary schools as 46% of primary schools had “no contact . . . with language specialists in their local secondary schools,” (Board & Tinsley, 2014, p. 6) and only 18% of state secondary schools reported having contact with all their primary schools, “due to teachers’ work- loads, financial constraints and geographical distance” (Board & Tinsley, 2014, p. 6) which itself cannot be overcome without the availability of adequate finan- cial resources. Moreover, when there is evidence of language experience being developed or started in the primary school (99% of primary schools responding to the 2014/15 13th Language Trend Survey teach languages, with 38% of them having increased their teaching resources), there is no guarantee their burgeon- ing language skill will continue developing in the high school. Such efforts are usually regarded of very low standard by the high schools and of an insufficient quality to build on, as less than one third of state secondary schools see the pupils coming to them as able to “continue with the same language they learned in primary school” (Board & Tinsley, 2014, p. 6). Moreover, the latest report shows that take-up remains very low at GCSE and post-16. With such apparent lack of systematic and consistent collaboration between schools resulting from many conspiring challenges, it appears very unlikely that the newly introduced statutory status of primary language learning will bring any positive changes to the state of language teaching and learning in UK schools in the near future. 2.2. Secondary education 2.2.1. Growing exclusion of pupils from language study at Key stage 3 Both the 2013-14 and 2014-15 CfBT-British Council reports (Board & Tinsley, 2014, 2015) highlight the fact that although language learning is a statutory right for all students at Key stage 3, a process of disapplication is practised whereby low-achieving pupils are excluded from language classes in order to free them for additional tuition in literacy or numeracy, or maths and science are prioritised to avoid performance measure pressures. The 2013-14 survey has also revealed that 298 Realities of and perspectives for languages in the globalised world: Can language teaching survive. . . a growing number of just above 7% of schools have no foreign language provi- sion “to all pupils throughout Key Stage 3.” These language teaching practices which “are rarely seen in the independent sector” (Board & Tinsley, 2014, p. 6), render language learning an elitist activity when it is in reality statutory for all Key stage 3 pupils. While Schoolsnet (www.schoolsnet.com), the number one UK independent high schools guide for parents and teachers,counts 1,373 inde- pendent private high schools spread across 178 UK regions, the Department for Education statistics published in 2014 almost treble that number (3,268) for state-funded mainstream secondary schools in England. One can only imagine the staggering number of pupils who may be deprived of their statutory right to language learning because of the disapplication practice in schools, and the loss of potential linguistic skills the country desperately needs to develop but ap- pears to be thwarting by the counterproductive practice of disapplication. 2.2.2. Lack of resources for continuous professional development Like their primary school colleagues, high school teachers’ access to continuous professional development (CPD) has been affected by lack of time and financial resources. The 2013/14 survey (Board & Tinsley, 2014) also points at the fact that the most common form of CPD training is the one provided by exam boards at a cost and during twilight sessions and/or during the school timetable. This means that schools wanting their staff to complete their CPD will have to find the finan- cial resources to cover the cost for training them and the human resources to cover for them while they are completing their CPD, putting extra burden on the whole school’s cost effectiveness and productivity. To counter such constraints, teachers resort “to online webinars and social media to access professional devel- opment” (p. 6). However, these online webinars do not come without their tech- nological disadvantages and complications, such as possible two-way collabora- tive features unavailability and software incompatibility, to name only two. All in all, such constraints, added to the ones mentioned above, are likely to dampen teachers’ enthusiasm for CDP, especially for language teaching, which according to the survey data, is at the bottom of the schools’ priorities, most probably due to their lack of confidence in the success of such language learning policy. Accord- ing to the survey report, 83% of state schools and 86% of independent schools believe “that implementing the new National Curriculum will be challenging,” be- cause they “are not confident that the changes being introduced by the govern- ment will have a positive impact on the teaching of languages in their school” (p. 6). Such fears have been confirmed by the 2014-15 survey, as only 17% of the 99% of the primary schools teaching languages have invested in extra teacher training and only 6% have recruited new staff to teach languages. 299 Saadia Gamir 2.2.3. Reform and language provision decline at Key stage 4 One reform introduced by the coalition government in 2010 as a performance measure for both schools and pupils which secured for languages a firm place among the core academicsubjects at Key stage 4 was the English Baccalaureate (EBacc);2 it was rapidly adopted as an alternative to the previous GCSE examina- tion. David Willetts, Minister of State for Universities and Science (2010-2014), echoed by Bernadette Holmes, Speak to the Future Campaign Director and for- mer President of the Association for Language Learning, notes that the EBacc had very encouraging GCSE results for languages in 2013 despite initial re- sistance from school leaders. “Today’s figures show 44% of the cohort has taken a modern language in 2013, a rise of 3% on 2012” (Holmes, 2013). Where the EBacc had been adopted between 2010 and 2013, an increase of 50% in stu- dents’ languages take-up at Key stage 4 had been witnessed, and for 31% of these schools the EBacc had been used to encourage students with English as a second/foreign language to take a qualification in their mother tongues. How- ever, this success did not seem to transfer to A-levels. The 2013/4 survey (Board & Tinsley, 2014) showed “no evidence yet of any widespread positive impact of the EBacc on take-up for languages post-16” (p. 6). This could most probably be because from 2013 the prospects of such continuation appear to have been weakened as only 16% (down from 22%) of state schools and 66% (down from 77%) of independent schools make the study of languages at Key stage 4 com- pulsory. The survey report gives the figure of 30% of state schools which do not provide language for all Key stage 4 pupils, even though they are required to make language entitlement available to the pupils who wish to take them. The authors of the Language Trends 2014/15 report give further underlining expla- nation for such a decline in language provision at this level saying that “the 2010–2015 Coalition Government also withdrew targeted funding for Specialist Colleges, which formerly played a leading role in developing language teaching nationally and in their local areas” (Board & Tinsley, 2015, p. 11). 2.2.4. Deep crisis of language study post-16 and its impact on university language institutions Many factors appear to have contributed to the alarming decline of language study at the A-level, the results of the British Council Survey 2013/14 (Board & Tinsley, 2014) reveal. 43% of independent schools, which have been tradition- ally providing universities with a steady stream of student linguists, reported a 2 EBacc subjects are English, mathematics, history or geography, the sciences (biology, chem- istry, physics, computer science) and a language. 300 Realities of and perspectives for languages in the globalised world: Can language teaching survive. . . decline in this vital resource to university language faculties. This, the report suggests, appears to be a reaction to the perceived harshness and unpredicta- bility of grading by exam boards, so students hoping to achieve highest grades to secure university places have to make strategic decisions not to jeopardise their chances. In addition, the state schools responding to the survey expressed their inability to support those few students who may wish to study a language at the A-level on the grounds of lack of financial viability. Adding to this, the survey reveals another example of lack of gradual progression in linguistic com- plexity between GCSE and advanced subsidiary (AS) level, which the respond- ents believe adds to “the difficulty of predicting grades at A2” (Board & Tinsley, 2014, p. 7); as a result, these schools do not believe the reforms introduced to the A-level through the move to a terminal exam at A2 will improve language take-up at the A-level after GCSE. Another explanation for this decline in language take-up may be found in the fact that the majority of A-level students take three to four A-level subjects. Some of them take four subjects in their AS year, and very few take up to five AS subjects, as most university courses only require three A-levels to gain a place. This admission policy may contribute to the limited choice students have when they select the A-level subjects that are seen to be more likely to secure their fu- ture employment or university entry. Thus, if they have to choose between sci- ence, technology or maths (STEM) subjects they wish to continue doing at post- 16 and university level, and the languages they so enjoyed learning and excelled at in high school, they do not seem to have a lot of scope for choice. My own son, with his high grade of A* (A star) in both French and Spanish GCSE is a case in point. He had to drop both languages to be able to take the only other four sub- jects he was allowed to take and in which he excelled, too: maths, physics, ICT and sports science. How many similar students have been discouraged to carry with them their languages because of this university admission policy? Lesley Davies, director of quality and standards at the Pearson exam board, sums up this situa- tion in the following statement: “We mustn’t forget the environment we’re in – resources are tightening, and whereas before students might have done four or five A-levels, now those extra classes are being dropped” (Ratcliffe, 2013). The A-level examination results released in the summer of 2013 alarmed the three main exam boards (AQA, OCR and Pearson Exam Board) who expressed, through their executives, the need for an inquiry into the reasons behind the sharpest fall in a decade in traditional modern foreign languages take-up at A-level. With the exception of the 4.08% increase in Spanish uptake, German en- tries fell by 11.13% compared to the previous year, while French fell by 9.9%. Moreover, only 6.9% of those sitting the three languages achieved A* (Ratcliffe, 2013), while 5% sat physics, 7.3% sat chemistry, 8.8% sat biology and 19.2% sat 301 Saadia Gamir mathematics (Department for Education & Truss, 2013). Clearly, the August 2013 general sense of crisis felt and expressed by ministers, university representatives and exam chiefs shows the desperate state of school language provision in the UK that has a direct impact on the survival of university language provision. Faced with the alarming Modern Foreign Languages (FML) A-level results, Andrew Hall, chief executive of AQA, called, in a statement quoted in aGuardian issue of August 2013 (Ratcliffe, 2013), for an evidence-based research into both the unpopularity of languages and low percentage of top grades among those sitting them. He said: When we saw that languages were down again, we . . . said we need to move this away from anecdote to evidence to find out what’s happening here . . . is there some- thing in the design of the qualification?We don’t believe so [emphasis added], but researching and challenging ourselves is important. (Ratcliffe, 2013) What is interesting in his statement, however, is the apparent lack of willingness to dig deeper into the investigation, for he seems to take a partial position about what causes such deficiencies by exempting one area from investigating: the de- sign of the qualification. Although he asked whether this might be due to the design of the qualification, he immediately disregarded such a possibility, but recognised none the less that challenging these disappointing results through research was important. If any research is to be scientifically conducted and any findings are to be collected and then challenged without bias, every aspect of language teaching is to be challenged, from the way the content is selected and taught to the stu- dents to the way they are assessed, not forgetting the manner in which the con- ception of the qualification has been rationalised. There is a sense of apportion- ing blame in the exam body chief executive’s statement, but away from this body, which seems to ignore the observation, highlighted by the British Council 2013-4 report, that the harsh marking of A-level language exams is making the language option a daunting prospect for potential A-level language candidates. On a slightly more optimistic note and in the same August issue of The Guardian (Ratcliffe, 2013), Professor Michael Kelly, head of languages at South- ampton University and director of the Routes into Languages programme, at- tributed the decline of traditional MFL A-level entries “to a growing interest in a broader range of subjects including Spanish, Russian and Arabic”. The fact that maybe too many languages are offered and competing for the same candidates may explain the decreasing numbers of candidates for the traditional languages, but can the availability and variety of the lesser taught languages be blamed for this decline? The latter may be attributed to the way students are encouraged to take them. At the moment, a language is pre-selected for the Key stage 3 302 Realities of and perspectives for languages in the globalised world: Can language teaching survive. . . entrants by the schools (including those with a language college status) they go to, and only in Key stage 4 can these students choose a second language if it is provided. By the time they reach post-16, even if they had been judged very suc- cessful linguists, other factors (mentioned above) contribute to their abandoning languages at A-level. In an ideal world, UK schools’ human resources and financial capabilities need to be supported consistently and continuously, as is the practice in continental Europe, in order to introduce students from the primary level to more than one language. The new National Curriculum aspires to achieve this, but there is no clear strategy indicating that language learning should be a statutory requirement throughout a UK child’s school life from the primary through to high school and A-level, nor does it provide a clear budget or strategy of continuation between stages that would lead to a smooth progression to university. In his January 2015 blog discussing the closing of language departments and the decline of language skills, Dominic Cummings, adviser to former Educa- tion Secretary Michael Gove, quoted the results of research conducted forThe Guardian with a FOI (Freedom of Information Act) request, saying: The number of universities offering degrees in the worst affected subject, German, has halved over the past 15 years. There are 40% fewer institutions where it is possi- ble to study French on its own or with another language, while Italian is down 23% and Spanish is down 22%. (Cummings, 2015) This appears, in a big part, to be the result of the dwindling number of students taking GCSEs mainly, in the 3 European languages by 39% over 12 years “(in spite of the slight increase in 2013 and 2014)” (Cummings, 2015). GCSE language results A-level school leavers A-level & university A-level candidates for (2013) with languages stem subject entries languages (2003-2012) (1996-2012) (1996-2012) French 15.5% 10% Drop by 26% Physics 3.1% French over a decade 45% German 9.4% 11% Drop by 28% Maths & fur- 6.8% German ther maths 22% Spanish 25.8% 33% Chemistry 5.1% Spanish (Only rise over the dec- ade) Total 50.7% 54% 15% 67% Figure 1Drop in the number of A-level language candidates (1996-2012) Figure 1 shows how the decline in language take-up at A-level has affected language sustainability at university level in less than two decades. So, while over the past decade A-level and university STEM subject entries witnessed a 15% increase, the same decade witnessed an average 45% drop in A-level leavers 303 Saadia Gamir with French and German. And despite the 33% increase in Spanish speaking A- level leavers in the same period, and the exceptional 2013 50.7% rise in GCSE entries for the three combined languages, there has been a dramatic drop of 67% in the number of A-level candidates for the three languages, or an alarming 90% drop accumulated over 16 years, if we add the 23% drop in Italian. The 90% drop mentioned above represents the 90% loss of potential lan- guage candidates for university faculties. This state of affairs is only going to worsen with the decrease of opportunities for young people to continue taking languages at GCSE and A- level, as highlighted by Jocelyn Wyburd (2015), Chair of UCML in her letter to the Minister of State Schools, Nick Gibb MP in 2015. Such further decrease may be worsened (see Board & Tinsley, 2015) by the re- cent language provision policies. 2.2.5. Government policies and assessment implications The Department for Education (2014) conducted a consultation in July 2014, which led in the following year to a progressive introduction of the new govern- ment reforms (accredited by the exams regulator, Ofqual) of GCSE and A-level specifications. These were to become effective for French, German and Spanish from 2016 and for other lesser-taught languages from 2017. As a consequence, the three UK exam boards announced their decisions not to include a broad range of small-entry languages in the new reformed GCSE and A-level qualifica- tions. This decision could seriously jeopardise UK’s “future trade, diplomatic and cultural relationships with many future economic success stories” (de Bois, 2015). The future of these “small-entry,” or lesser-taught languages, many of which are “community languages,” looks as follows: · AQA has decided to discontinue its A-level provision of Bengali, Modern Hebrew, Punjabi and Polish, and is considering discontinuation of other small-entry languages at GCSE. · OCR will discontinue it’s A-level provision of Dutch, Gujarati, Persian, Portuguese and Turkish, and GCSEDutch, Gujarati, Persian, Portuguese and Turkish. · Edexcel will not redevelop its Arabic, Modern Greek, Japanese and Urdu programmes, and, like AQA, it is reconsidering its provision of other small-entry languages. According to AQA officials, the decision is due to two reasons. The new government changes to the exam system and qualifications require that not only the reading and writing, but also speaking and listening skills must be assessed. D. Bassett (2015), Director of Public Policy at AQA claimed in April 2015 that “it will become increasingly difficult to recruit sufficient experienced senior examiners with 304