Growing interest and support for languages in the primary

school

In England, government interest and involvement in Primary Languages was

demonstrated by the inclusion of non-statutory guidelines relating to languages in

Key Stage 2 and optional schemes of work for Years 5 and 6 in French, German and

Spanish (QCA, 2000), reflecting growth in the teaching of languages other than

French (and also the increased challenge in providing an effective transition for

54

2.7 Preparedness for languages in primary schools

The DfES commissioned a feasibility study to explore the exiting provision for,

attitudes to and possibilities of Primary Languages in England. Part of this was a

large-scale survey of Primary Languages provision by the University of Warwick

(Powell et al., 2000) which estimated that 21% of schools with pupils in Key Stage 2

were making some form of languages provision, either in lesson time or as an extra-

curricular activity. As part of the feasibility study Martin (2000) explored the

research into the teaching of languages in the primary phase both in England and

internationally. Both these reports contributed to the QCA’s feasibility study (QCA,

2001b) which presented attitudes to teaching languages in the primary phase and

evaluated the infrastructure and resources available for the introduction of a national

entitlement for all pupils in Key Stage 2. The feasibility report concluded that:

[...] the resources and infrastructure necessary to support any scaling up of existing provision are not sufficiently well developed to sustain the introduction of a national entitlement for all pupils. We therefore advise against the extension of statutory requirements for modern foreign

languages into key stage 2 at the present time.’ (QCA 2001b:4).

Despite this, around the same time, the Nuffield Languages Inquiry investigated the

UK’s capability in terms of languages and language teaching in all age sectors, in relation to economic and social goals. This study urged the government to ‘declare a

firm commitment to early language learning for all children and invest in the long-

term policies necessary for pupils to learn a new language from age 7’ (Nuffield Foundation, 2000:8).

55 These studies created a tension between the lack of readiness of the teaching

workforce, resources and the economic imperative. However, they were followed by

the Green Paper ‘14-19: Extending opportunities, raising standards’ (DfES, 2002a) in which the government announced that by 2012, all pupils in Key Stage 2 would have

a non-statutory entitlement to learn a foreign language. The pace quickened and in

the National Languages Strategy (DfES, 2002b) the government announced that a

Key Stage 2 ‘entitlement’ giving pupils throughout Key Stage 2 the opportunity to study a language would be introduced by 2010:

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. They should have access to high quality teaching and learning opportunities, making use of native speakers and e-learning.

By age 11 they should have the opportunity to reach a recognised level of competence on the Common European Framework and for that

achievement to be recognised through a national scheme. 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. (DfES, 2002b:15).

The National Languages Strategy (DfES, 2002b) which accompanied these years of

preparation and activity, had three key objectives: to improve the teaching and

learning of languages, to introduce a recognition system (the Languages Ladder

(DCSF, 2007c)) and to increase the number of people studying languages in further

and higher education. With regard to Primary Languages, the strategy was

significant because it set out the government’s commitment to deliver a language

entitlement to all pupils in Key Stage 2. Important features of this entitlement are

56 inclusivity is reminiscent of the 1960’s pilot project ‘French from Eight’ discussed above, and also of the National Curriculum (DfEE/QCA, 1999) which was

introduced following the 1988 Education Reform Act (Deparment of Education and

Skills , 1988) and implemented the ‘languages for all’ model.

Following initial similarities in provision and experience in England and Scotland,

Scotland’s commitment to languages through the MLPS programme resulted in evidence of attainment. In 2003, the Scottish Executive announced that over 80% of

pupils had achieved the basic level of competence and around a third had exceeded it

(Scottish Executive, 2003). This contrasts sharply with the (unsuccessful) pilots in

the 1960s, therefore giving hope to supporters of languages in the primary school in

England. There was evidence of good teaching (HMI, 1998) with Primary 7 pupils

(aged 11-12 in their final year at primary school) feeling motivated and enthusiastic

about language learning and very few considered learning a language to be difficult.

Sadly, by pupils’ second year of secondary school (aged 13-14), their beliefs about

the difficulty of the language had increased and, worryingly, boredom had begun to

set in (Johnstone et al., 2000). Despite the evidently strong commitment to MLPS

and the high level of investment, further developments were required in Scotland,

particularly in relation to progression. The 2000 report (Johnstone et al., 2000)

highlighted variations in the responses of secondary schools to MLPS, including the

extent to which they built on pupils’ previous learning – a factor which may have contributed to pupils’ growing negative perceptions of languages.

57

2.8 Government support for languages in primary schools

Although taking a different form, south of the border, the English government’s

significant level of support for Primary Languages was clear. The document

‘Excellence and Enjoyment: A strategy for primary schools’ (DfES, 2003) promoted excellent teaching to foster greater enjoyment of learning. This publication aided the

promotion of languages and the broader curriculum in a climate of significant

pressure on schools for pupils to perform successfully in the Standard Attainment

Tests (SATs). It has been argued – and continues to be argued – that the SATs and

tests lead schools to focus on the subjects which are tested to the detriment of the

foundation subjects and the wider curriculum, a view promoted by Galton and

MacBeath (2002) and in the Cambridge Primary Review (Alexander and Flutter,

2009), discussed above.

‘Excellence and Enjoyment’ (DfES, 2003) also called on schools to consider the model of delivery, including the possibility of training primary subject specialist

teachers (discussed later in this review). It highlighted the skills and knowledge

required to teach Primary Languages effectively; thus supporting the argument that

they may be different from those required to teach MFL in the secondary school, and

that languages in the two sectors are distinct in terms of pedagogy and resources.

A significant survey of Primary Languages provision (Driscoll, Jones and Macrory,

2004a) identified the continued growth of Primary Languages in England. The

survey found 44% of schools were offering languages in Key Stage 2 and 35% of

58 there was a large variation in provision with only 3% of schools offering all pupils in

Key Stage 2 a minimum of twenty minutes of language teaching per week. Closer

scrutiny revealed regional variations in the levels of Primary Languages teaching

ranging from 80% of schools in two local authorities to fewer than 20% in some 40

LAs. Such variation appears to be characteristic of Primary Languages provision but

commitment by Primary Languages teachers to language teaching in Key Stage 1

was strong, with 50% respondents stating that Primary Languages should be

statutory and 63% agreeing that languages should be taught in Key Stage 1.

However, Driscoll, Jones, Martin, Graham-Matheson, Dismore and Sykes (2004b)

found primary to secondary transition to be inadequate, echoing concerns previously

expressed by Burstall et al. (1974) about progression and continuity.