Cambridge - 14 days ago

The University of Cambridge study of 615 state schools in England found that while socio-economic background does not have a significant impact on students’ desire to study languages, poorer students are disproportionately concentrated in schools that give languages lower priority. This significantly reduces their chances of studying a language after the age of 14.

The research identified a seven percentage point gap between the proportion of disadvantaged students at schools where languages were optional at GCSE, and at those where they were considered ‘core’. Uptake at these schools diverged dramatically, with the proportion of students studying a GCSE language varying by more than 50 percentage points. These findings suggest that disadvantaged students have been worst affected by the national decline in language study since 2004, when GCSE languages ceased to be compulsory. In the academic year 2023/4, just 45.7% of eligible students in England took a language GCSE. By contrast, 97.9% of upper secondary students in the EU study at least one foreign language.

The study also shows that if schools offer a wider choice of languages, their GCSE language scores tend to be better overall. For every additional language offered at GCSE, schools’ average scores for GCSE languages rose by almost a quarter of a grade.

The research, published in The Language Learning Journal, was undertaken by Dr Karen Forbes, Associate Professor in Second Language Education at the Faculty of Education, University of Cambridge.

Forbes said it raised concerns about widening inequalities in language learning. “It seems obvious, but surely all children should have the same opportunity to learn a language,” she said. “In practice, for less wealthy students these subjects are often de-emphasised. If this is not addressed, the national decline in language learning will continue and probably accelerate.” Language learning in England is compulsory from ages seven to 14, with most pupils studying French, Spanish or German. Thereafter, schools decide whether to treat languages as ‘core’ or optional. In addition, some offer languages through a specific pathway tied to the English Baccalaureate (EBacc): a performance measure based on the number of pupils taking GCSEs in what the Government considers important subjects, which includes languages. The Cambridge study explored how schools’ policies on languages – treating them as ‘core’, attaching them to an EBacc pathway, or leaving them fully optional – affects uptake at GCSE and students’ attainment.

It also considered other factors that might influence uptake and grades, including students’ prior attainment (measured using test scores at Key Stage 2), the number of “disadvantaged” students, and the number of students who use English as an additional language (EAL), meaning they speak a different language at home. Out of the 615 schools, 19.2% treated languages as ‘core’, 29.6% offered an EBacc pathway, and 51.2% positioned languages as completely optional. The vast majority of GCSE students took French, Spanish, or G but some studied Chinese, Italian, Urdu, Hebrew, Arabic, Japanese or Bengali. Disadvantaged students were more likely to attend schools where languages were optional, accounting for almost 29% of all students, compared with just 21.3% in schools where languages were core. The proportion in EBacc pathway schools was 25.65%: almost identical to the national average.

Critically, the effect of school language policies on uptake were stark. In schools where languages were core, 82.6% of students studied a language to GCSE. The figure sank to 52.7% in EBacc pathway schools and just 31.9% in schools where languages are optional. As the study shows, these are the schools that disproportionately serve less affluent communities.

Even after accounting for prior attainment and EAL pupils, school policy remained the strongest predictor of students’ likelihood of studying a language to GCSE. In contrast, disadvantage had no significant effect. In other words, given the chance, poorer students are just as likely to continue language study past age 14 as their peers. The research also considered the effects that increasing language uptake has on results. On average, each percentage increase in uptake was linked to a 0.019 point drop, or about one-fiftieth of a grade, in the school’s average GCSE grade across all language subjects. This effect was more than outweighed by the benefits of offering a wider choice of languages, however. For each additional GCSE language on the timetable, the average grade rose by 0.234 points – almost a quarter of a grade. Forbes said that how schools position languages in the curriculum sends important signals to students. “When schools frame languages as useful and important the students pick up on this,” she said. “Offering a wider range of languages also gives them a choice, and they are more likely to be motivated if they are studying a language they have actively chosen.” While the EBacc has not reversed the national decline in language learning, the findings provide some tentative evidence that it has a positive effect in some schools, bearing in mind the 20 percentage point difference between uptake in EBacc pathway schools and schools where languages are purely optional.

“Personally, I would love to see languages reestablished as core subjects at GCSE across all schools – this would signal its importance and create more equitable opportunities for students,” Forbes said. “In the absence of that, something is better than nothing, and national-level accountability measures for languages like the EBacc do seem to influence both schools and students. Broadening choice – rather than narrowing it – is key to reducing inequalities between students, and to raising both participation and attainment.” Students from less wealthy backgrounds are more likely to attend schools where learning a language to GCSE is treated as optional – and not necessarily strongly encouraged – new research shows. Andrew Fox/GettyUK schoolgirls in a GCSE language lessom
The text in this work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License. Images, including our videos, are Copyright ©University of Cambridge and licensors/contributors as identified. All rights reserved. We make our image and video content available in a number of ways – on our main website under its Terms and conditions, and on a range of channels including social media that permit your use and sharing of our content under their respective Terms. Yes

Latest News

Hashtags:   

Poorer

 | 

students

 | 

likely

 | 

studying

 | 

language

 | 

Sources