Ofsted’s Curriculum research review for languages - what does this mean for language teachers, department leaders, curriculum design and professional development?

ABSTRACT

Ofsted's (2021) Curriculum research review for languages (OCRR) draws conclusion on what ‘high-quality language education’ may look like. This opinion piece problematises the status of these conclusions as ‘features’ or recommendations. Before delving into a selection of identified ‘features’ in more depth, the author highlights the complexity of curriculum design and the interdependence between school-based curriculum design and the intended and assessed curricula. This leads to a critical analysis of ‘may’ statements that directly impact on language teachers, leaders of languages and their approach to curriculum design and pedagogy. These include progress-orientated curriculum design, language assessment and testing (including dictation), communicative strategies, target language and culture through authentic materials as well as transition issues. Furthermore, the opinion piece explores the potential implications the OCRR and its recommendations may have on initial teacher education, early career development and continuous professional development for teachers and leaders. The think piece concludes by calling for a collaborative approach and joint ownership by all stakeholders rather than putting all responsibility on language teachers and language leaders.

Status of the review and its recommendations

The Ofsted 2021 Curriculum Research Review for languages (Ofsted 2021b; henceforth, OCRR), like many Ofsted publications, offers an insight into the school inspectorate’s perspective on language learning and teaching in England. Its summaries of recommendations, introduced by the phrase ‘high-quality languages education may have the following features’ (emphasis added) are predominantly derived from a widely familiar, selected research evidence base and language policy-related documents. Inspection findings – focusing mainly on good-practice languages inspections in primary schools – are only briefly referenced towards the end of the review (OCRR: 21-22) and are used to endorse the research findings of inconsistent language provision in primary schools, presented in the policy overview section at the beginning of the review.

Any publication by Ofsted will attract interest amongst the intended audience. The timing of this one, however, coincided with the joint Department for Education (DfE)/Ofqual consultation on revisions to the French, German and Spanish GCSE Subject Content (DfE 2022a).¹ This, and particularly the overlap of some of the OCRR recommendations with the GCSE Subject Content proposals, drew – some may argue, intended to draw – additional attention to the review.² Enquiries to subject associations such as the Association for Language Learning (ALL) indicated that teachers and school leaders were unsure of the status of the OCRR; this confusion was further fuelled (a) by some inspectors referencing the review during inspections, and (b) because some of the ‘may’ statements were perceived as being in contradiction with the ‘should’ statements in the National Curriculum and the languages programmes of study (DfE 2013). For example, the Key Stage 3 languages Programme of Study states that:

Pupils should be taught to … develop and use a wide-ranging and deepening vocabulary that goes beyond their immediate needs and interests, allowing them to give and justify opinions and take part in discussion about wider issues (DfE 2013).

The OCRR (p. 10) recommends that

Curriculum leaders consider both the breadth and depth of vocabulary knowledge they will teach. They … make sure that they prioritise high-frequency words; consider carefully which topic-based vocabulary (other than high-frequency words) they teach … 

While language teachers across the country will still be held to account against the National Curriculum during inspections, it seems likely that the ‘may’ statements may (quietly) mutate into ‘should’ statements over time. Indeed, the publicised aim of the Ofsted research reviews supports this likelihood:

… the [research] reviews will support and inform those leading the thinking on subject education in our schools. (…) When our inspectors carry out subject ‘deep-dives’, they draw on a shared understanding of a high-quality education (Ofsted 2021a).

A deep dive into some of the ‘may’ statements for achieving ‘high-quality languages education’

Starting out with the OCRR’s curriculum-focused ‘may’ statements, attention needs to be drawn to one of Ofsted’s ‘guiding principles’, that curriculum underpins progress, which therefore requires careful planning (OCRR: 6). In other words, the planned curriculum should carefully consider the sequencing of the language ‘building blocks’ or ‘pillars of progression’, i.e. phonics, vocabulary, grammar (OCRR: 6). This is a principle that many language teachers and initial teacher educators will at least accept, if not endorse. However, the review also seems to suggest that curriculum design is the sole responsibility of teachers, subject leaders and school leaders. Statements such as ‘curriculum leaders also think strategically about which words are the most important for the scheme of work’ (OCRR: 10) are indications of this.

Acknowledging the complexity of curriculum design is vitally important in shaping a progress-oriented curriculum, particularly as this will need to be guided by the many policy documents setting out the intended and assessed languages curriculum for England (e.g. National Curriculum and Programme of Studies, DfE GCSE/A-level Subject Content, awarding bodies’ specifications, publishers’ textbooks and related schemes of work, etc.). Only by recognising the interplay of these different types of written curricula and by creating a logical synergy and alignment between them, will language teachers be able to implement an intentional and progress-orientated language curriculum encompassing many of the features covered by the ‘may’ statements. Such a joined-up, systematic approach, informed by policy and supported with resources from exam boards, publishers, etc. would also contribute to the development of appropriate formative and summative assessments that support, diagnose and evaluate students’ progress on their journey towards greater proficiency.

While the OCRR does not consider the wider language assessment and testing literature, it acknowledges the negative influence of the GCSE examination on assessment practice in secondary schools (pp. 19, 21). McNamara (2000: 73) argues that such a ‘washback’ effect of high-stakes examinations strongly influences curriculum, teaching and learning. He further reports that open, ‘performance’ assessment tasks that integrate knowledge and skills and are aligned to the real world are more likely to have a positive impact on curriculum and learner motivation than closed assessment formats (McNamara 2000: 74). A balanced approach combining formative and summative, discrete and integrated testing, as referred to in the review (OCCR: 19), is therefore welcome. To fully embed this in our language departments, however, exam boards and publishers will need to provide adequate materials as part of their offer or alternatively, teachers and their leaders will require access to specific assessment/test-design training and time to develop such valid and reliable assessment tasks. Dictation, for example, has recently emerged as a recommended (OCRR: 19) and required test type (DfE 2022b: 4). Its reliability and validity as a test format were widely debated decades ago (e.g. Lado 1961; Oller 1979) but dictations typically focused often on texts rather than individual words, which meant that learners did not have to understand each utterance or sound as a correct form was able to be derived from interference and understanding of the sentence, paragraph and/or text. Interestingly, in the revised Subject Content for GCSE French, Spanish and German (DfE 2022b), awarding bodies are instructed to include ‘some vocabulary from outside the vocabulary list’ in their dictation extracts. In the OCRR (p.21) references are made to learners ‘spell[ing] or read[ing] out words’ rather than texts. While Oller (1979) argued that dictations have a positive impact as they challenge a student’s short-term memory, no research references appear in the OCRR to support the practice. Nowadays, while dictation is frequently included as one of many phonics activities, there seems to be a research gap in understanding the effectiveness, validity and reliability of dictation as a phonics testing tool. If Ofsted and the DfE are true to their commitment to evidence-informed curriculum and subject content reform, this will need to be addressed with some urgency to ensure that this assessment format adequately assesses each learner’s phonological knowledge.

The revised version of the CEFR Companion Volume (Council of Europe 2020) recognises the increased importance of phonics in language learning by including phonology in its linguistic competence framework. It is disappointing that the research summaries in the OCRR did not take more notice of the revised CEFR, which has informed and influenced (language) curriculum reform across Europe and beyond (see Gruber and Hopwood, this issue). While references are made to communicative languages strategies in the OCRR, they are not considered in any great depth. Speaking and writing are pulled into one section, without exploring the specific complexity of oral communication requiring receptive, productive and interactive knowledge and skills.

While the CFER sees ‘language learners as language users’ (Council of Europe 2020: 30) and therefore advocates ‘extensive use of target language in the classroom’ (by learners and teachers alike)’ (p.30), the OCCR’s conclusions regarding target language and authenticity of texts (pp.16-17) put the focus on a ‘planned’ (p.18) approach. While not everyone agrees with this conclusion, some welcome the measured and less prescriptive approach to target language and authenticity in the OCRR. However, concerns have been raised that the focus on high-frequency words may lead to a significant reduction of authentic texts (and other sources) in the language classroom in England (see Milton, Porter et al. in this issue). Those language teachers and teacher educators amongst us, who are advocates of target language and culture, have up to now skilfully adapted authentic materials with their learners in mind. Adapting such texts within the high-frequency corpus may present a new challenge for an already extremely overworked teaching profession.

Developing adequate resources by exam boards, publishers and other organisations and bodies (e.g. National Centre for Excellence for Language Pedagogy³, subject associations) alongside a more systematic approach of sharing resources and good practice will be essential in implementing these wide-reaching changes. This need has been frequently recognised in the past; e.g. for a couple of years now, a group of language teachers in the North East meet regularly to discuss target language related matters. The group’s mission has been to share good practice and resources but also to discuss some of the trickier aspects of target language pedagogy, e.g. how to develop active target language contribution from students in lower ability sets. A planned curriculum for a specific group of students requires highly qualified teachers, who have access to subject specific professional development.

Over the last decade, I have observed a clear shift away from subject-specific pedagogical development to a more general, whole-school approach to continuing professional development (CPD) for teachers in the English school system. National initiatives, such as Assessment for Learning⁴, have contributed to this, with the result that similar techniques, approaches and activities have appeared in many lessons across a range of subjects. While consistency of approach across subjects has its place, uniqueness and ‘features’ specific to language pedagogy have their place, too, both pedagogically as well as motivationally. The OCRR thus rightly sets out that in schools with a successful language department, school leaders will be ‘committed to ensuring that language teachers have both a strong understanding of curriculum progression in languages and strong subject knowledge.’ (OCRR: 23, emphasis added). I would go a couple of steps further, though: firstly, ‘subject knowledge’ needs further exploration as language teachers do not only require knowledge but also regular opportunities to develop their own linguistic ‘skills’ (ideally through educational visits abroad); secondly, the OCRR implies that they will also need an in-depth understanding of how to design reliable and valid formative and summative assessment tasks. This will also require a greater focus on subject-specific curriculum, assessment and pedagogy in initial and early career teacher development programmes. Some argue that this is addressed in the Initial Teacher Education reforms, including the renewed focus on subject-specific training as part of the Initial Teacher Training (ITT) Core Content Framework (DfE 2019), which is currently implemented across all ITT providers in England (DfE 2019). At the time of the writing, many ITT providers in England have prepared their first re-accreditation submission (DfE 2021), which – if successful – will allow them to continue the delivery of ITT programmes beyond August 2024. This re-accreditation process requires providers to align their programme fully to the ITT Core Content Framework and consequently to a more in-depth subject- (and phase-) specific initial teacher training experience. Only time will tell, whether this more restrictive and uniform approach to teacher education will bear fruit. In the meantime we will need to find a way out of the looming teacher supply crisis at secondary level (see also Koglbauer 2018) and re-think our approach to languages in primary schools and the professional development of novice and expert primary teachers. The OCRR (p. 23) alludes to this but focuses in on the problem of transition between primary and secondary schools.

Ensuring a smooth and coherent transition between the study of languages at primary and at secondary level is frequently seen as a cause of concern in the OCRR. However, improving transition will not be the sole solution to curriculum progression. In some European countries that show a higher success rate in language proficiency than England or the UK, there seems to be less, not more, focus on transition points. For example, Spenger (2011) reports that only 6% of Austrian grammar schools (Gynamsien) and 16% of Austrian secondary modern schools (Hauptschulen) have contact with feeder primary schools. 75% of Austrian English teachers in secondary schools seem to be satisfied with how their primary colleagues prepare their pupils for their secondary education; an analysis of any areas of dissatisfaction by secondary school English teachers led to the conclusion that these were based on misconceptions of the primary English curriculum by English teachers in Austrian secondary schools. It is worth noting here that English is a compulsory element of any Austrian primary school initial teacher training programme all primary teachers.

Language teachers can’t carry it all alone!

To conclude, the OCRR sets out numerous recommendations under its ‘may’ statements that in their totality may contribute longer-term to its ambition of promoting a ‘high-quality languages education’. The authors of the OCRR rightly allude to some of the contextual and systemic issues of language education in schools (pp. 1-5). What is surprising, though, is that all the ‘may’ statements are addressed at language teachers, curriculum leaders and school leaders. While some may argue that this recognises teacher autonomy, in my view, the opportunity for setting out some system and policy-wide ‘may’ statements for policymakers, system leaders, including the Regional School Commissioners, multi-academy CEOs and school principals, etc. was missed. Language subject leaders and teachers will not be able to carry this burden on their own. Nationally, in order for the government to achieve the ambition set out in their language policy, there needs to be a reinvigoration through a fully resourced system-wide implementation plan stretching from primary to secondary to undergraduate language provision as well as initial teacher education. Specialist national professional qualifications for leading the languages curriculum (at primary and secondary level) could be part of the language teacher CPD solution. Judging from experience, school visits and many conversations with stakeholders, at trust and individual school level, language departments are often most successful when languages are not just integral to the curriculum, but integral to the ethos of the school. Many colleagues have reported over the years that for example, the British Council International School Award⁵ application was often a trigger point to consider the role of languages across the whole school. If the OCRR really wants to have a longer-term impact, then this requires more than a checklist during school language inspections. We need everyone involved and committed leadership at school, local, regional and, most importantly, national policy level.

Disclosure statement

The author is a trustee of the Association for Language Learning and chair of its Management Board.

Notes

1 The definitive French, German and Spanish GCSE Subject Content was published on January 14, 2022 (DfE 2022b). https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/gcse-french-german-and-spanish-subject-content

2 See, for instance, the response from Association for Language Learning at https://www.all-languages.org.uk/news/ofsted-curriculum-research-review-series-languages/ or Association of School and College Leaders ASCL comments on Ofsted research review on languages education or from a practitioner: The Nice Man Who Teaches Languages: Communication - Reviewing our Curriculum in the light of the Ofsted Research Review

3 See https://www.hkeaa.edu.hk/DocLibrary/SBA/HKDSE/Eng_DVD/doc/Afl_principles.pdf

4 The National Centre for Excellence for Language Pedagogy (NCELP) is a government funded pilot to implement a languages hub programme. As part of its dissemination commitment, NCELP has developed a freely accessible resource portal (see: https://resources.ncelp.org/).

5 https://www.britishcouncil.org/school-resources/accreditation/international-school-award