Recent reforms to the teaching of modern languages in schools are being well-received by teachers, but the system needs greater coherence if uptake at GCSE is to rise, a new report says.

The University of Cambridge study, published this week, says that initiatives such as the Key Stage 3 Modern Languages Framework and efforts to increase language teaching in primary schools are meeting with widespread approval among teachers.

But it adds that the overall strategy for language teaching needs to be more joined-up, especially if greater numbers of students are to take at least one language through to GCSE.

In particular, it points to a lack of continuity between language teaching at primary and secondary levels, insufficient support from Specialist Language Colleges for neighbouring secondary schools, and structural problems with timetabling in schools which specialise in other subjects.

Dr Michael Evans, from the University of Cambridge’s Faculty of Education, who co-led the research with Linda Fisher, said: “People have interpreted the lack of language uptake at GCSE as the result of a lack of motivation among school pupils. We believe that isn’t the only issue.

“For example, there has been a well-received drive to teach languages at primary level, but it has only been applied piecemeal. That means that children start secondary school with different levels of ability making it more difficult for their teachers to ensure that they all make progress.”

The three-year study, which is being published online, was commissioned by the Department for Children, Schools and Families to investigate the impact of the official Framework which guides modern languages teaching at Key Stage 3 (ages 11-14), as well as other recent changes to the curriculum.

The last few years have seen significant developments in the way in which languages are taught. Languages are now optional after Key Stage 3, and the number of students taking them to GCSE has declined dramatically.

Efforts have also been made to increase language teaching in primary schools, however. Some schools have also become specialist language colleges, while the Key Stage 3 Framework was introduced in 2003 to improve the quality of classroom teaching.

To test the impact of these various initiatives, the Cambridge research team conducted a questionnaire survey with the heads of languages departments at a random sample of 1,600 maintained schools in England. In-depth, individual interviews with headteachers, heads of department and classroom teachers at a representative sample of 16 schools were also carried out.

They discovered that most Heads of Department strongly approved of the Key Stage 3 Framework. Many teachers said that it had helped make teaching more structured.

The study also found a lack of integration around Key Stage 3, however. For instance, while the report notes that language teaching at Primary Level has met with “almost universal approval” from secondary teachers, it adds that in practice it has had little positive impact so far on the languages curriculum in secondary schools.

Children starting Key Stage 3 often find themselves in classes of widely mixed ability, where some pupils have studied a language to different levels, but others have studied no language at all.

Most departmental heads were against the idea of making languages compulsory for all pupils beyond Key Stage 3. Almost 50%, however, said that taking a language should be made compulsory for most pupils. Many noted that the fact that languages are optional at Key Stage 4 means that some 11 to 14-year-olds have a “negative” attitude towards the subject, because they know they will drop it later.

In many cases the report says that “structural constraints” on school timetables also stop pupils from taking a language beyond the age of 14. In non-language Specialist Colleges, for example, various other subjects are compulsory at GCSE, which leaves students with less timetable space for options, such as a language.

Specialist Language Colleges, while often working closely with their own feeder primary schools and themselves benefiting from their specialist status in terms of resourcing, have a “largely negligible” impact on other secondary schools, the survey adds. Just under half of the non-specialist language schools surveyed had no contact with a Specialist Language College and most of those that did have contact reported it to be “only a little.”

The uptake of languages beyond Key Stage 3, remains “discouraging”. Only a quarter of the heads of department consulted said that a benchmark for language uptake for Key Stage 4 had ever been set in their school.

Many teachers respond by trying to make language lessons at Key Stage 3 more motivating. While this is admirable, the report says, “the structural constraints of timetabling should not be underestimated, particularly where compulsory requirements of subject choice in non-language specialist schools limit pupil choice beyond the control of language teachers.”

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Licence. If you use this content on your site please link back to this page.