Examining the last ten years

In 2000, the QCA commissioned a report to evaluate the current KS2 MFL provision in England. The most commonly occurring taught language was French, followed by German, Spanish and Italian; and teaching was timetabled up to 45 minutes in state- maintained schools and some schools even provided MFL in FS (QCA, 2000, Part 1 section, para. ii-iii). One observation was that schools offering MFL may be perceived by parents to have higher standards (QCA, 2000, Part 4 section, para. v). The report showed that the Government‟s MFL scheme of work for KS2 and QCA guidelines were welcomed as help to tidy up what is presently a „rather piecemeal provision‟.

Just one year later, in 2001, the QCA undertook a project to study the feasibility of introducing the teaching of a MFL into the statutory curriculum at KS2. Again, this project reported a “supportive attitude” (QCA, 2001, p.3), but the barriers to implementing a national entitlement for all pupils were due to the lack of resources and infrastructure rather than linguistic development. The outcome of this project was: “We therefore advise against the extension of statutory requirements for modern foreign languages into key stage 2 at the present time” (QCA, 2001, p.3).

In 2002, the DfES published the National Languages Strategy and introduced “The Primary Entitlement for Language Learning”:

Every child should have the opportunity throughout Key Stage 2 to study a foreign language and develop their interest in the culture of other nations [by the end of the decade]. The Key Stage 2 language learning programme must include at least one of the working languages of the European Union and be delivered at least in part in class time. (p.15)

In view of the above, the DfES commissioned a research investigation of the current primary MFL provision in England during 2002-2003. Driscoll, Jones and Macrory, (2004) found that 44% of primary schools provided some KS2 MFL teaching, mainly French. Although this percentage sounded positive, they dissected this data further to reveal that in practice only 3% of all KS2 pupils received a MFL session of 20 minutes per week (Driscoll et al., 2004, p.1). In a study two years later, Muijs et al. (2005a) recommended that a minimum teaching time of 40 minutes and 20 minutes incidental time per week should be implemented (Muijs et al., 2005b, p.127). However, in a subsequent journal, Hunt, Barnes, Powell, Lindsay and Muijs (2005) stated that research to date in primary MFL…

…has not as yet yielded conclusive evidence about the benefits of such provision. This is, in part, due to the plethora of teaching models and the countless variables that impact on children‟s experience of language learning. (p.386)

In October 2005, CILT published the results of their survey called Language Trends 2005. The respondents were language and cultural service providers who were registered on CILT‟s BLIS Professionals database (see Glossary), and Figure 2 below presents their findings of the current and future demand for languages.

Figure 2: The result of a 2005 Language Trend Survey (CILT, 2005, p.7)

As the survey showed, there will be a shift of languages but clearly the skill of knowing a foreign language will not diminish in the near future. In the Languages Review,

Dearing and King (2006) considered the importance of trading with companies overseas and applying linguistic skills to foster a positive working relationship, emphasising the need to know more than English (p.2). Also, they proposed languages to become “a standard part of the National Curriculum in the next review of the primary curriculum” (Dearing & King, 2006, p.3). This proposal became a recommendation (Dearing & King, 2007, p.9). The Department for Children, Schools and Families (DCSF, 2007) noted in the Children‟s Plan that, starting in Spring 2008, the primary curriculum would be reviewed (p.71). In the Independent Review of the Primary Curriculum: Interim Report, Rose (2008) recommended that, for the primary curriculum, languages should become part of a subject area designated as “English, communication and languages” (p.61) which was largely supported by those who responded to his recommendation (Rose, 2009, p.102).

On behalf of the DCSF, the NFER carried out three separate surveys in 2006, 2007 and 2008. I gathered these findings of KS2 language provision in England and tabulated

the data to show the progression throughout those years. The three surveys in Table 3 loosely defined adequate language provision as 30 to 60 minutes of class teaching per week.

Table 3: A data collection of the language learning provision at Key Stage 2 from 2006 to 2008

Language provision in KS2

Language provision for all year groups in KS2 Current language provision is sustainable Languages taught

Findings from the 2006 Survey (Lines,

Easton, Pullen, & Schagen, 2007)

70% 34% more than three

quarters

91% French 25% Spanish 12% German Findings from the

2007 Survey

(Whitby, Wade, & Schagen, 2008) 84% 54% 86% 89% French 23% Spanish 9% German 3% or under: Italian, Chinese, Japanese or Urdu Findings from the

2008 Survey

(Wade, Marshall, & O‟Donnell, 2009a & 2009b) 92% 69% almost 90% 89% French 25% Spanish 10% German 3% or under: Italian, Chinese, Japanese or Urdu

Also, the DCSF commissioned research into the current language provision at KS2 in 40 schools from 2006 to 2009. Keen interest and enthusiasm was observed from KS2 children for MFL as well as from headteachers, languages co-ordinators and most teachers (Cable et al., 2008, Key findings section, para. 1; Cable et al., 2010, Key findings section, para. 1). However, staffing was a difficulty for headteachers which in turn affected the provision of MFL teaching programmes in schools (Cable et al., 2010,. Key findings section, para. 4).

In conclusion, the UK Government has developed policies, strategies and recommendations for MFL teaching in primary schools during the last ten years. However, the Government‟s record outlined in sub-section 2.2.1 shows that these policies have not been consistent and, despite a succession of reviews, there appears to have been little concerted action.

2.2.2 The current state of MFL education in Britain: Government policy and