‘Ambition for all’? Competing visions of ‘ambition’ and recognising language learning and teaching as a geo-historically situated social practice.

This contribution reflects on the epistemological steamrolling that the 2021 Ofsted Curriculum Research Review (henceforth, OCRR) accomplishes: in part, by the positioning of the problem and solution through highly selective cherry-picking (omitting key causal factors); in part, through the discursive move of acknowledging complexity before offering simple and apparently axiomatic conclusions; and in part, through recourse to static, technicist metaphors of linear progression such as ‘building blocks’ and ‘sequencing’. Language learning as a discipline has always been beset by competing visions of purpose, seeking to straddle, on the one hand, the intellectual goals of a liberal education as a humanities subject and, on the other, the instrumental goals of communication for utilitarian ends such as travel and commerce. The OCRR’s exhortation to promote ‘ambition for all’ – a hollow echo of the ‘languages for all’ mantra (see Dobson 2018) – implies that equity of opportunity can only be guaranteed through a unified core of lexico-grammatical language skills training. On the contrary, while acknowledging the well-rehearsed plight of languages in anglophone settings (motivation, insufficient curriculum time etc.) that are cited again in the OCRR, I argue for the need to allow for a more differentiated curriculum. In practice this would require less regulation of content, greater scope for context sensitivity, and an explicit focus on thematic learning that is culturally rich and embedded in broader, cross-curricular development. Such a fundamental reorientation would require a radical re-imagining of language(s) as a curriculum subject. Encouraging more creative and more localised approaches to language teaching certainly runs counter to the current urge for centralised control of curriculum and pedagogical choices, but, given the particular conditions of modern foreign languages (MFL) teaching and learning in England, persisting in a further reduced rehash of the traditional modern languages offer is not sustainable.

Nobody would dispute that there is a set of problems relating to the study of languages in the English education system. The statistics of low take-up in post-compulsory phases are well known and thoroughly documented (e.g. British Council 2020; Murphy et al. 2020). There is considerably less consensus, however, when it comes to articulating the causes of these problems, and consequently, when it comes to proposing remedial solutions.

Broadly speaking, the findings emphasised in reviews by government bodies – the Department for Education (DfE) or the schools inspectorate Ofsted – locate the problem within the school and the classroom, citing in-school structures, poor curriculum and poor teaching, whereas reviews from expert bodies (including subject associations such as the Association for Language Learning and the British Council as well as academic researchers) locate the problem within a more diverse set of matrix conditions. These latter conditions do include teaching and pedagogy but explicitly recognise the top-down politico-ideological decisions that constrain these, as well as broader societal factors such as socio-economic variation (e.g. Coffey 2018) and particular issues facing foreign language learning in anglophone settings (Lanvers et al. 2019). In other words, the way the problem is framed is itself inherently ideological and, therefore, the logic of the proposed solutions is filtered through a different power dynamic. The DfE and Ofsted are non-specialist governmental structures that have gleaned findings from a narrow range of specialist perspectives to support a centralised and vertical model where consensus is not necessary. Subject associations, on the other hand, comprise practitioner specialists at every level from governance to membership and seek to provide a horizontal perspective that encourages exchange, debate and consensus-building while promoting a greater level of professional autonomy.

In terms of the latest 2021 Ofsted Curriculum Research Review for languages (OCRR), the poor rhetorical weight of the arguments in the document hardly needs pointing out. Firstly, there are the blatant omissions in the way the background to the problem is laid out. Such omissions include the political decisions affecting teacher recruitment and retention; how teacher professionalism has been undermined by successive political interventions resulting in staff shortages, an unprecedented turnover of staff, the resultant generational imbalance of language teachers and so forth. Also omitted is mention of the narrowing of opportunities for professional development – for example, through the closure of the Centre for Information on Language Teaching (CILT), our withdrawal from international networks (see Dobson 2018: 78-79) and the increasingly intense culture of accountability. Opportunities for constructive collegial dialogue are stymied, and all professional development opportunities alluded to in DfE documents simply lead to the directly funded organisation whose very raison d’être is to embed the same government-led top-down model through the Centres for Excellence model. Alternative visions are thereby deprived of oxygen, and dissenting voices, both in schools and in universities, are quashed through threats of closure and a bullying compulsion to follow ever more restrictive frameworks.

Secondly, beyond these blatant omissions, where the OCRR does mention structural disadvantages that political action could rectify, these are downplayed. In particular, while the OCRR (p.4) acknowledges that English pupils have less timetable time studying languages than in any other country in Europe, it brushes this key factor aside:

Pupils’ levels of attainment are clearly based on more than simply their number of hours spent studying languages, however. It is likely to also be influenced by issues of motivation and pupils’ perception of the subject … .

The OCRR (p.6) explicitly aligns its epistemological scope with a narrow definition of ‘cognitive science’, stating that:

Research on how we learn, and in particular cognitive science, has informed the thinking behind the EIF [education inspection framework]. … Our work is based on a range of research findings in line with the EIF.

Aside from the redundant circularity in the self-referencing between the EIF and the OCRR¹, it is strange to claim that there is a single, conclusive body of ‘research on how we learn’ without taking other perspectives into account. The DfE/Oftsed’s frequent references elsewhere to ‘outdated theories’² show a lack of understanding or even interest in engaging with alternative perspectives, denigrating as ‘misguided’ so-called ‘progressives’ (according to then state Minister for Education (Gibb 2021)) those of us who adhere to learner-centred approaches. We do not deny the value of building disciplinary core knowledge but, equally do not believe that knowledge is an autonomous body of facts that can be transmitted like a database devoid of context.

Here it is worth understanding the phrasing of the OCRR within the broader agenda of educational reform, not least in is ideological conception of knowledge. There has been a sledgehammer focus on ‘knowledge’ and ‘curriculum’ that draws heavily on the epistemological framing of knowledge set out by scholars such as Eric Hirsch (1996) and Michael Young (2008). The DfE and Ofsted now draw on a highly partial interpretation of the work of these scholars to make a sharp distinction between the development of ‘skills’ (seen as soft, slippery and ‘progressive’) and the accrual of a shared body of ‘knowledge’ (seen as tangible, measurable and the ‘cultural inheritance of every child’ (Gibb 2021)), . What exactly should comprise such an abstract canon of knowledge in our discipline of school MFL is not made clear, but what we are presented with is a reduced syllabus of a stock of words and some grammatical awareness through drill.

Motivation is, of course, recognised as a key factor in the huge body of research into MFL in England, and probably now accounts for the largest share of research activity in UK MFL scholarship. The OCRR draws on ‘motivation theory’ in a superficial and highly selective manner. Motivation is presented as residing within the pupil (a limited interpretation of the self-efficacy model – see Graham, this issue) rather than in the connection between pupils’ experience in school and their experience of the wider world. Teachers obviously recognise that success engenders success and would wish all pupils to experience achievement. However, where most experts would disagree with the OCRR is how to achieve the experience of success. If success is measured in terms of pushing up GCSE grades, this can be achieved quite straightforwardly; I have no doubt that we will see GCSE results improve once the range and content are reduced to a prescribed kernel, and the exam is structured to assess this. But, while this will allow more pupils to achieve a higher score, what is less clear is how the teaching of the tighter curriculum can be more motivating, or how such a narrow curriculum will prepare pupils better for more advanced study or to be engaged as autonomous learners.

The ‘ambition for all’ slogan in the OCRR (p.4) fits the attractive wider discourse of ‘levelling up’, except that there is no definition of ‘ambition’ here. My personal view is that there is some merit in the Hirsh-Young inspired view that there needs to be some preliminary ‘mastery’ work i.e. automatisation of lower-level activities that precedes and scaffolds ‘higher-level’ content analytical processing. In languages, this hierarchical notion is hardly new: since classical times, mechanical rote-learning has preceded more analytical ‘content’ language work, even where language lessons were the preserve of the few, and a hierarchy of progression has been proposed repeatedly by, among others, Eric Hawkins (2005). Of course, the stepping-stones paving the way toward higher-level and more content-rich approaches need to be enjoyable and not devoid of content either.

A truly ambitious curriculum would be one which fundamentally re-examines the rationale and status of ‘languages’ in our schools. Rather than see languages in anglophone settings as endlessly and fruitlessly playing catch-up in comparison with English in other countries, we have the opportunity to forge a bold vision of languages within a liberal education model where language learning is freed from a narrow range of communicative goals and is embedded in immediate and locally meaningful initiatives. A differentiated and content-led model such as that proposed by Hawkins would have general, intensive linguistic training followed by a more tailored approach at a later phase which takes into account pupils’ interests and orientations. In other words, much more substantial earlier-phase linguistic training prepares pupils for a phase of engaging and enriching content that can be culturally oriented and/or connect to other forms of disciplinary learning. This can take the form of project-based work, which might be linked to whole-curriculum knowledge-building, or allow an individual to develop a specialised area of interest such as an aspect of cross-cultural comparison, a film or cultural artefact, or a work placement. Such project-based approaches do not negate the need for a common language pedagogy but situate this within a context that is meaningful for leaners. This requires a greater degree of choice and flexibility, and also an infrastructure that promotes the exchange of ideas, with due recognition of the greater allocation of resources that this implies. Critically, such an approach needs to be built into an assessment structure.

Concluding remarks

In summary, I think all colleagues working in the sector recognise that something should be done to improve MFL provision. However, there is disagreement about which sorts of actions would yield best results. It is my view that teachers need to be trusted by being given more space and more opportunities to expand what they can offer pupils in their immediate and regional contexts, with an important investment in resources for training and subject development within a framework of guidance and collaboration rather than prescription. Of the many aspects I disagree with in the reformed curriculum being forced through, the most obvious is the infantilising reduction of the curriculum content that paves the way to GCSE. ‘Ambition’, from my perspective, means ensuring that the GCSE is more demanding, not less, but that its demands are adequately scaffolded in earlier phases. Linguistic challenge needs to be supported by a sustained interest in the content.

Engagement will not result from mechanical approaches such as rote-learning vocabulary or abstract grammar exercises. There is a place for these within programmes but they need to be mapped onto ‘content’. By content, I mean cognitively challenging activities that might draw on the potential for cross-curricular content, cultural learning, or other sorts of project-based themes that can be tailored to the interests of particular pupils or groups of pupils. Yes, progression should be structured, but language repertoires are highly individual, and technicist metaphors of linear progression that the OCRR uses (‘building blocks’) need to be tempered by acknowledging differentiated emotional investment, which I see as a dynamic source of energy rather than a distraction. In order for this approach to be given value, content work needs to be assessed alongside linguistic competence.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Notes

1 The educational inspection framework or EIF is the document which ‘sets out Ofsted’s inspection principles’. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/education-inspection-framework

2 For instance the Government’s 2021 Initial teacher training (ITT) market review reported that ‘Ofsted also found that too often, curriculums were underpinned by outdated or discredited theories of education’ (GOV.UK 2021: 8).