Why we can’t go on like this – some background to OCR’s review
of lesser taught language qualifications
It seems surprising to learn that OCR is withdrawing GCSEs and A Levels in ‘lesser taught’ languages such as
Turkish, Persian and Gujarati. How could a not for profit organisation with such an established reputation for
educational values cut off languages that are crucial to the future economic and cultural well-being of the UK?
But to blame OCR, or any of the exam boards for withdrawing some language qualifications is missing the point to stop feeding the patient after they have died is perfectly rational. The overall decline in the study of traditionally
taught foreign languages and the failure of the study of lesser taught and community languages to grow is hardly
something that can be laid at OCR’s door; it is systemic and the root causes are a mixture of cultural attitudes,
failed infrastructures and policy failures over many years and different governments.
Any rational analysis of trends in language education reveals that all languages, apart from English, are in danger
of becoming ‘lesser taught’. The number of A Levels awarded in all available languages in 2011 was 40 685 and
by the summer of 2014 it was 32, 680*. Many languages departments in universities are facing a real threat of
extinction. Unless something is done soon to correct this we will wake up one morning to learn that GCSE French
and German are also for the chop.
The problems go back a long way; they were already being described as historic by the last Labour government,
when it launched its ambitious 2002 National Languages Strategy. Back in a time of plenty, when there was a lot
less anxiety about public spending, the strategy set out an agenda for the coming decade and promised ‘to
achieve a step change in language competency in this country’. It called on a wide range of communities,
educators, employers and institutions to work together to deliver this step change which would see languages
learning embedded from early years through to higher education, in communities and in the workplace.
But for all its emphasis on grass roots, the strategy was characterised by a series of centrally set targets and
timelines to be driven forward by what was then an extensive machinery of state (LEAs, LSC, SSCs, SSDA,
Ofsted, QCA, NACELL, SLCs, BECTa etc), all to be coordinated by a National Director of Languages. In the end,
there were too many players and that which claimed to be a strategy was more like an inventory of disparate
initiatives and quangos with overlapping authorities and vague accountabilities. By the time the money ran out
and a new government instigated a ‘bonfire of the quangos’ the strategy was already doomed.
There are two legacies of the language strategy that should not be forgotten. One, in 2004, was the removal of
the statutory requirement to provide language learning at Key Stage 4 in schools. This was well-intentioned; the
mandatory study of a language was leading to a lot of disaffected young people having to sit through French
lessons for two years with little prospect of picking up more than a single phrase, let alone a GCSE. But the result
of the policy was a massive drop in take up of languages at GCSE and an exodus of language teachers from the
profession. The teaching infrastructure for languages has never really recovered from this; this is probably also
the point at which, for OCR, the provision of languages GCSEs, complete with their complex assessment model,
dipped into the red.
The second legacy, more short-lived, was the development of a new set of qualifications: “We will introduce a
new voluntary recognition system to complement existing national qualifications frameworks and the Common
European Framework. This would give people credit for their language skills and form a ladder of recognition
from beginner level to a standard which sits alongside GCSE, A Level and NVQs.” This hit on an important point
–that existing language qualifications in the UK were not flexible enough to support the delivery of languages
across a wide range of context and settings.
*Joint Council for Qualifications, AS Languages, Summer Series, all awarding bodies (2014, provisional)
2
This part of the strategy led OCR to develop Asset Languages. Asset Languages was a first class product,
providing assessment and support materials from primary to adult, from school to work contexts, from beginner to
undergraduate levels. It was bite sized, expressed in simple outcomes and aligned to the European languages
framework. At its peak, we offered 27 different languages including all major European languages, and an
impressive range of other languages including Mandarin, Gujarati and Cornish. Asset was developed, in the first
instance, with financial support from the public purse although OCR continued to develop it thereafter and, by
agreement, to make it available to all at cut price.
As the languages strategy began to decompose and funding melted away the vision for Asset as a national
solution began to wither as well. OCR was finally forced to serve notice on these qualifications (472 of them) in
2012 after a survey of the dwindling customer base. They all consistently said that the nail in the coffin was the
withdrawal of almost any route to the funding of community languages and the new government’s decision that
Asset languages would not count towards school performance tables because they were ‘smaller’ than a GCSE.
The failure of Asset may have cost OCR millions and led to the redundancy of its support team, but the
opportunity missed for the nation is of a far greater scale.
A brief mention should be given to the Diploma in Languages. This was one of the ‘academic’ diplomas, along
with Science and Humanities, which were announced by Ed Balls in October 2007. The sorry tale of this attempt
to develop Diplomas to rival A Levels is well-documented. Heavily bankrolled by the exam boards, this costly and
unrealistic programme of development was axed by the incoming coalition government.
Before long, exam boards were investing again, this time in developing English Baccalaureate Certificates
(EBCs) for a high stakes government franchise; after the exam boards had sunk huge costs into this project, the
government announced in February 2013, through the media, that the franchise plan had been abandoned.
Instead, exam boards should begin on a GQ reform programme involving the redevelopment of every GCSE and
A Level they offered over a phased three year timescale. The reformed qualifications would be linear and early
entries and resits would be heavily reduced cutting exam boards’ potential future income by roughly a third.
The coalition government’s interest in language education has been limited to GCSEs and A Levels. The
introduction of the EBacc school performance measure saw the inclusion of GCSE languages within this
measure and there was much evidence of schools scurrying around to hire language teachers (offset by the
laying off of D&T teachers), and this provided a fillip to entries in MFL in the summer of 2013. But 2014 entries
suggest, however, that this has been more of a blip than a trend as schools work out how they can achieve the
EBacc and the forthcoming ‘Progress 8’ measures whilst circumnavigating languages.
The EBacc puts languages into an unashamedly academic core; ancient Greek and Latin are also included and
Michael Gove has lauded the intellectual discipline that comes with mastering another language. Vocational
language qualifications are outlawed from school performance indicators so ‘Mandarin for business’ or ‘French
for cabin crews’ is off the menu. This has speeded the downfall of other OCR languages qualifications such as its
once widely recognised Certificate in Business Language Competence and its language NVQs. Two years ago,
VLC training was providing an innovative language support scheme to a network of schools in England using
OCR Languages NVQs. This contributed substantially to OCR awarding over 130 000 NVQ language certificates
in 2012, but the exclusion of these achievements from performance tables has meant the near-collapse of this
scheme. There is no evidence that the young people who would have been involved are now taking language
GCSEs instead, and it seems more likely that most will no longer be exposed to any foreign language learning.
If its policies have marginalised vocational language learning, the coalition government has been silent on the
issue of community and lesser taught languages. Occasionally there are nods towards the need to increase
learning in economically important languages such as Mandarin, but the mechanisms for increasing the number
of teachers and widening demand are sketchy. There seems to be no view on the use of a language GCSEs in
communities where that language is widely spoken. It has no view as to whether GCSE languages achieved by
native speakers of that language should count towards performance tables. Interestingly, a review of schools
offering GCSE Turkish revealed that approximately 25% of candidates taking the exam were not enrolled at the
school or institution where they took the exam (such candidates are referred to by exam boards as ‘private
candidates’).
Issue date 08/02/16
Lesser taught languages
3
There are major cultural benefits in maintaining and recognising a language within its community but the use of
GCSE can be problematic. GCSE languages are not designed for native speakers. The awarding process is most
reliable where the range of ability is spread across the cohort, and where there are a large number of candidates.
Neither of these is true for the lesser taught languages. With low uptake qualifications it is also difficult to recruit
and maintain an experienced team of examiners and setters. Exam papers in lesser taught foreign languages,
especially with foreign language fonts are at high risk of containing errors which must then be reported to the
regulator.
Meanwhile, the current GQ Reform Programme is creating immense pressure on the system through its
complexity and ambitious timescales. The new regulator and DfE have both stipulated a range of requirements
which continue to multiply and evolve. The requirements for the near-elimination of coursework and teacher
assessment has led to a great deal of re-engineering. This means that performance in languages which would
previously have been marked by the teacher will now be marked by the boards, adding to running costs. Boards
have had to make a case for tiering of language GCSEs to counter the policy preference for untiered
qualifications. Issues of differentiation and achievement at A Level – originally researched and highlighted by the
boards - has led to a regulatory report and a string of recommendations about the design and marking of A Level
assessments. The A Level content was reviewed and transformed by ALCAB – a body set up to support HE
involvement in developing and monitoring A Levels. Funding of ALCAB has now been withdrawn and the
organisation has been mothballed, but the Minister for Schools wrote to the exam boards expressing his desire
that they should carry forward the important work of engaging with higher education over the monitoring of A
Levels for which ALCAB was originally intended.
The GQ reform programme requires routine and frequent meetings between the boards, Ofqual and the DfE. In
October 2014 such a meeting was used to revisit in detail issues that had been raised in relation to the lesser
taught languages. All boards were concerned about issues of comparability, costs of development, quality
assurance of papers, shortage of assessors and more. The department was asked to consider recognition of
alternative qualifications, whether there could be a review of the existing range of languages (which had been in
place since 1994), and, whether it had a role in securing continuity of provision. Crucially, the boards asked
whether the DfE would provide an environment for them to discuss how they might collaborate over offering
these costly subjects without falling foul of competition law. In the end, none of these issues were resolved.
As the general election looms, various uncertainties about the future of the GQ Reform programme (not least
Labour’s proposals to revert to the old, unreformed A Levels) make it impossible for exam boards to make
investment decisions. OCR has offered to hold dialogue with all the stakeholders for the various lesser taught
languages to see if we collaborative solutions or acceptable alternatives. We have not ruled out developing
GCSEs and A Levels in some or all of these languages completely, but this cannot happen without support from
others and without a strategic lead from policy-makers that shows a long term commitment to addressing the
decline in the teaching of foreign languages.
OCR Policy, April 2015
Issue date 08/02/16
Lesser taught languages