JOINT STATEMENT, 25TH NOVEMBER 2021 GCSE Modern Foreign Languages

It is really great that so many organisations have come together to issue a joint statement about the DfE proposals for new GCSE MFL subject content, following the APPG statement in June.

Although it is deeply unsatisfactory that there was no process for professional bodies to be involved in  reviewing the GCSE MFL from the outset,  and that it was entrusted to a small group of unrepresentative people appointed by the DfE, it is heartening to see how many people associated with languages have been able to coordinate a response.

Let's hope that the DfE takes note of the points made rather than trotting out the same well worn clichés (see arguments below).

The DfE's consultation was misleading and skewed.  On first sight they may have seemed attractive (e.g. defined word lists and use of English for comprehension tasks) but once people took time to analyse them and realise the implications of the proposals, we saw a very strong opposition, encapsulated in the 1000+ signatories to the APPG statement and the results of polling at the ALL webinars held.  Teachers  strongly reject the abolition of themes (see Poll 3), and retaining themes would be totally inconsistent with the restrictions on quantity and criteria for selection of vocabulary made in the proposals.

I will up-date the blogpost with any other links, and arguments / counterarguments.

LINKS

Here are the relevant links:

• Joint statement
• ALL news release
• ASCL news story
• AQA news item
• HMC news
• ISMLA Twitter account
• NAHT press room
• NALA
• Pearson Edexcel

Press articles:

• Schoolsweek
• TES

ARGUMENTS AND COUNTERARGUMENTS

DfE argument: We want more young people to take up modern language GCSEs and our planned changes aim to make them more well rounded and accessible for students and teachers.

Counterargument: Of course we ALL want more young people to take modern languagues.  'Well rounded' means 'fully / broadly developed'.  The planned changes narrow the scope of GCSE considerably in terms of breadth of vocabulary and skills and could lead to considerable frustration for both teachers and pupils.  Teachers would be restricted regarding the range of resources they could use to interest the pupils, and pupils would not be rewarded for  accessing language of interest to them.

Most importantly, an essential prerequisite is to level the playing field by addressing severe grading and bringing modern language grading into line with other EBacc subjects.

DfE argument: “Ofsted research shows that students benefit from learning the building blocks of a language first, particularly focusing on vocabulary, phonics and grammar."

Counterargument: Ofsted has been selective in its research. There is plenty of research to the contrary, showing how students learn through a focus on meaning and this complements acquiring an understanding of the elements which underpin this meaning.  They enjoy meaningful enagagement with language, not just dry, form-focussed instruction.  They benefit from meaningful communication right from lesson 1!

DfE argument: “Our proposals aim to increase pupils’ motivation through this approach, and we will continue to work with professional bodies to achieve this.”

Counterargument: There are many elements which are known to motivate pupils in language learning.   This approach would prevent pupils being exposed to other forms of motivation (e.g. the pleasure of being able to understand the gist of real language, of being able to talk about things which are relevant to them etc. etc.).  

A helpful start would be for the DfE to acknowledge that the process followed so far has been flawed.  It has not worked with professional bodies from the outset to establish  a true picture of the situation.  It has worked with a small group of people who are not representative of the profession and who have a very clear agenda for driving through their own ideology.