Languages in UK Education: postface

Wendy Ayres-Bennett and Charles Forsdick | 14th February 2025 | Policy Collection

The eleven papers in this special collection cover a wide range of languages – indigenous (including British Sign Language (BSL)), home, heritage and community languages (HHCLs), modern (foreign) languages (M(F)L) and ancient languages – and a broad spectrum of topics, from schools curricula, and provision in FE and HE, to the protection and promotion of the minoritized languages of the UK. Nevertheless, certain key themes and recommendations emerge from the discussions, which we aim to draw out in this postface.

First, a number of papers stress the importance of addressing and avoiding a hierarchy of languages, thereby ensuring equality of access for speakers and learners across a range of languages. While such hierarchization most obviously affects speakers of the minoritized languages of the UK (Cornish, Gaelic, Irish, Scots, Ulster Scots, Welsh), UK schools and universities have also traditionally prioritized the teaching and learning of Western European languages, and notably French, German and Spanish, over other languages. Part of the solution lies in developing a more joined-up approach to languages and the broader curriculum (Zhang and Hancock ), so as to avoid, for instance, unintended consequences of promoting certain languages over others (Sayers ). Far too often the teaching of MLs has been divorced from the teaching of core skills, notably literacy and oracy, as well as from the teaching of EAL, although it is known that EAL students tend to excel in the language classroom and should be considered as assets (Lightfoot et al .). Joined-up thinking across the curricula is equally vital for ensuring that BSL’s full linguistic value is recognized and integrated into deaf education (Wilks and O’Neill ) – and indeed beyond, across society.

Related to the question of hierarchization is the repeated emphasis in the papers on the importance of HHCLs, which historically have not been well served in UK schools, but which can bring immense individual, societal, cultural and economic benefits (Humphries et al.). Whilst the integration of Urdu and Cantonese into the languages curriculum in Scotland as part of the 1+2 policy is a positive step, elsewhere and for other languages there is a regrettable separation between mainstream education and the teaching of HHCLs in supplementary schools. There is much scope for enhanced collaboration, whether in terms of sharing best pedagogical practice or allowing supplementary schools access to mainstream schools for classes and for examinations (Lightfoot et al .). Whilst some mainstream schools celebrate their students’ multilingualism, others remain unaware of their weekly dedication to acquiring their HHCLs in supplementary schools. And the inequalities persist into university admissions (Humphries et al., Eppler et al.), even though it is clear that the current distinction made between native and non-native speakers is impractical, subject to variable interpretation across different languages and contexts, and indeed open to misinterpretation.

These inequalities are also replicated in the lack of formal qualifications (notably GCSE and A-Level) in many HHCLs; even where there is a GCSE, the lack of an A-Level may disincentivize students from choosing the language at GCSE. In the present system, where there is separation between education departments and examination boards, economic considerations about in which languages qualifications are offered often predominate, even where there are clear strategic and community needs for new qualifications such as in Ukrainian or Romanian. This leads us to question whether such separation is desirable (Marsden and Hawkes). The practical difficulties of entering students for qualifications is also highlighted: positive short-term solutions include providing a geographically determined database of examiners willing to assess speaking exams which could be hosted by exam boards and developed in conjunction with schools and languages associations (Humphries et al.) or for exam boards to offer resources and training to HHCL teachers preparing students for exams (Lightfoot et al.). This is part of a much broader need to consider the diversification of qualifications, notably for those who wish to follow alternative routes, whether through taking an intermediate certification pre-16 (such as the Intermediate Certificate of Classical Greek, Holmes-Henderson et al.) or a more practically oriented course, notably in FE, where questions of access and social justice are also highly relevant (Liu et al.).

The question of teacher supply is acute, both for MFL and for BSL (Wilks and O’Neill). In addition, more attention needs to be paid to the provision of high-quality initial teacher training (ITT)¸notably at primary level (we would have liked to see a contribution from a specialist in ITT in the collection) and to continuing professional development (CPD), including for ancient languages (Holmes-Henderson et al.), HHCLs, and the integration of new material and perspectives, as in the case of linguistics in modern foreign languages teaching (Havinga et al.). The National Consortium for Languages Education (NCLE) is offering extensive CPD in certain languages, and this might serve as a future model for other languages and emerging needs. Another positive suggestion is to redesign EAL support away from supporting individual students to equipping teachers with the necessary skills and knowledge to work with EAL students in the classroom (Gialdini and Pantić).

Questions are also raised about how language policy should be developed and the need for greater cohesion and collaboration. This might entail enhanced collaboration and sharing of best practice across the four UK jurisdictions or the better integration of research-informed evidence into the policymaking process (Marsden and Hawkes). The elaboration of language policy would also benefit from taking into account a wider range of factors other than language itself, as modelled, for instance, in the ‘doughnut language policy’ (Sayers).

None of these policy recommendations will have the desired effect without a renewed public awareness of the benefits of language learning and of championing indigenous and HHCLs to ensure the UK’s future prosperity (Zhang and Hancock). This leads us to our final and most important overall recommendation, the need for a national languages strategy. Whilst Towards a National Languages Strategy marked a significant first step, it limited its scope to education and skills. What is now needed is a broader vision for UK language policy, which demonstrates the vital role played by languages in the economy, in community cohesion and the integration of migrants and refugees, in defence, diplomacy and national security, and in international development and international relations. More buy-in to the case for languages across a range of government departments will strengthen the position of education departments when they compete for funding, especially in straitened financial climates. Just as important, however, is the need for greater awareness of the many benefits of multilingualism for the individual: for their cognitive health and wellbeing, for their openness, tolerance and the ability to see the world through other people’s eyes, to say nothing of the pure joy of mastering another language and gaining access to both the high and popular culture associated with it.

While the eleven papers in the special collection cover significant ground in terms of languages taught and sectors addressed, there are nevertheless – as noted above regarding, for instance, the limited attention to teacher recruitment and retention – significant areas that require further consideration. As the current Department for Education consultation about curriculum and assessment in English schools makes clear, innovation depends not only on policy change, but also on the delivery of fresh evidence based on new research. If this evidence is to support policy beyond education and skills, and extend language-sensitive approaches to include areas such as social cohesion, public health and soft power, then an ambitiously wide programme of new research is required. If we limit this analysis of gaps, however, to the area of education policy in the UK, the contents of the collection lend themselves to a reflection on further work required.

Any emphasis on a languages pipeline or pathway, at least in so far as it focuses on formal education, requires a foundation in approaches to provision in languages at primary level, a field to which no direct attention is given in the collection. While there is already a considerable body of research in this area, more work is required on areas of emerging interest, including replacing the emphasis currently required in the English National Curriculum on ‘substantial progress in a single language’ with a balance between focus on one language and the development among pupils of a broader multilingual awareness. Such renewed attention to policy in primary languages leads to the identification of another gap in the collection, that of transition points between different stages of the educational pathway. Ongoing research on transitions will direct attention to the connections between KS2 and KS3, but needs to focus on other points at which, at present, there is a significant reduction in the numbers of learners choosing to engage with languages (including, significantly for the health of languages in universities, that from A-level or equivalent to Higher Education).

Although, as noted above, there is currently a lack of formal qualifications in HHCLs, one solution to this situation is the development of alternative forms of accreditation, including for those students not intending to continue their GCSE language to A-Level but who may wish to achieve this via another route. Research is required on the effectiveness of previous initiatives of this type, not least the Languages Ladder, but also the balance between linguistic competence and the development of skills for different communicative contexts that such qualifications may allow. This is also an area in which further evidence of the effective integration of languages in vocational and technical qualifications would support policy debates, relating not least to the FE context outlined above.

Given the impact on student mobility of the UK’s termination of involvement in Erasmus+, and the broader implications of the withdrawal from the European Union on access to educational visits and exchanges, there is a need to further research on the benefits of cultural immersion on language learning and the development of intercultural agility. This relates in part to incentivization, with additional evidence required on the effectiveness of intensive schemes for language learning and the success of Excellence Programmes or other initiatives such as GIMAGINE, a recent programme promoting and supporting the learning of German as a foreign language in the UK. A final gap in the collection relates to research on the place of new technologies in language education, which would give disciplinary granularity to more general policy papers such as the DfE’s ‘Generative artificial intelligence (AI) in education’ and also allow the updating of existing research on the now long-standing relationship between languages and new technologies such as computer-assisted language learning. In this area – as in all of those outlined above – research on the value of international comparison has the potential to challenge existing practice, introduce new approaches and test emerging policy initiatives.

Cite this article

Ayres-Bennett, Wendy and Charles Forsdick. 2025. ‘Languages in UK Education- Postface.’ Languages, Society and Policy.

https://www.lspjournal.com/post/languages-in-uk-education.

About the Authors

Wendy Ayres-Bennett is Emerita Professor of French Philology and Linguistics, University of Cambridge. Her research focuses on the history of French, sociohistorical linguistics, the history of linguistic thought and language standardization, with particular reference to seventeenth-century France. Her current work centres on language policy and planning, both theoretically and practically.

Charles Forsdick is Drapers Professor of French at the University of Cambridge. He is a specialist in the area of Francophone postcolonial studies, with particular interest in the French-speaking Caribbean. Charles was, from 2012-2020, AHRC Theme Leadership Fellow for Translating Cultures. He is currently British Academy Lead Fellow for Languages.