Tag: holding

  • How the manufactured narrative of ‘failure’ is distracting us from resolving the systemic problems holding back the study of Modern Languages – Part 2. 

    How the manufactured narrative of ‘failure’ is distracting us from resolving the systemic problems holding back the study of Modern Languages – Part 2. 

    This post was kindly written by Vincent Everett, who is head of languages in a comprehensive school and sixth form in Norfolk. He blogs as The Nice Man Who Teaches Languages. 

    In Part 1, I looked at how the low grades given at GCSE languages – up to a grade lower than in pupils’ other subjects – is a manufactured situation, easily solved at the stroke of a pen. The narrative around languages being harder is nothing to do with the content of the course or the difficulty of the exam. It is simply a historical anomaly of how the grades are allocated. There is also a false narrative that this unfair grading is due to pupils’ individual ability, the nation’s ability, or the quality of teaching. And I made a subtle plea for commentators to avoid reinforcing this narrative to push their own diagnosis or solutions. 

    In Part 2, I will consider what happens in post-16 language learning. This has also been the subject of reporting in the wake of A-Level results and the recent HEPI report. I am not going to deny that A-Level languages are in crisis. But the crisis in A-Level and the crisis of language learning post-16 are not one and the same. 

    There are specific problems with the current A-Level specification for languages. The amount of content to be studied, comprising recondite details of every aspect of the Spanish / French / German speaking world, is unmanageable. Worse, as this post explains, the content is out of kilter with the exam. All the encyclopaedic knowledge of politics, history, popular culture and high culture which takes up the bulk of the course, is ultimately only required for one question in just one part of the Speaking Exam. The difficulty of the course is compounded by the extremely high standards required, especially for students who have learned their language in the school context. I personally know of language teachers and college leaders who have discouraged their own children from taking A-Level languages in order not to jeopardise their grades for university application. It is getting to the point where I can no longer, in good conscience, let ambitious students embark on the course without warning them of the overwhelming workload and doubtful outcomes. 

    So A-Level could be improved. But as an academic course, it will always remain the domain of a tiny few. Similarly, specialist Philology degrees at university – the academic study of the language through the intersection of literary and textual criticism, linguistics and the history of the language – only attract a very small minority. Neither university language degrees, nor A-Level, are a mainstream language learning pathway. 

    It is a particularly British mentality to only value language learning if its intellectual heft is boosted by the inclusion of essays, abstruse grammar, linguistics, literature, politics, history, and a study of culture. In other words, philology. Philology is not the same as language learning.  

    Universities do offer language learning opportunities for students of other disciplines. However, in sixth form, because of the funding requirement to offer Level 3 courses, there are no mainstream language learning options available to the vast majority of students who do not study A-Level languages. We have a gap in 16-19 provision where colleges do not offer a mainstream language learning pathway. 

    This gap is fatal to language study. It means GCSE is seen as a dead-end. It means that universities have a tiny pool of students ready and able to take up language degrees or degrees with languages as a component. 

    The crisis is not one of how to channel more people into studying A-Level languages. It is a question of finding radical new ways of offering mainstream language learning post-16, and how to make this the norm. We know from the HEPI report that young people in the UK are among the most avid users of the online language learning app Duolingo. Young people are choosing to engage with language learning, but in terms of formal education, we are leaving a two-year gap between GCSE and the opportunities offered by universities. 

    If this hiatus in language learning is the problem, is there a solution? I have two suggestions. One of which is relatively easy, if we agree that action is needed. If universities genuinely believe that a language is an asset, then they could send a powerful message to potential applicants. 

    Going to university means joining an international organisation, including the possibility of studying abroad, using languages for research, engaging with other students from across the globe, and quite possibly taking a language course while at university. The British Academy reports that universities are calling for language skills across research disciplines, so I hope that they would be able to send a strong message to students in schools and colleges. 

    The message around applications and admissions could be that evidence of studying a language or languages post-16 is something that universities look for. At the very least, they could signal that an interest in self-directed language learning is something they would value. 

    I understand that most universities would stop short of making a qualification in a language a formal entry requirement, because they fear it could exclude many applicants, especially those from disadvantaged groups. But a strong message could help reverse the situation where language learning opportunities are currently denied to many under-privileged school pupils, who aren’t getting the message around the value of pursuing a language. 

    And my second, more difficult suggestion? Would it be possible to plug the two-year gap with a provision at sixth form or college? An app such as Duolingo has attractions. There is the flexibility and independence of study, as well as the focus on motivation by level of learning, hours of study or points scored. It is very difficult to imagine how a sixth form or college could provide language classes for their varied intake from schools, with different language learning experiences in different languages. 

    Is there scope here for a new Oak Academy to step in and create resources? Or for the government to commission resources from an educational technology provider? Is there a role for universities here? The inspiring Languages for All project shows what can happen when a university engages with local schools to identify and tackle obstacles to language learning. The pilot saw Royal Holloway University working with schools across Hounslow, to increase participation at A-Level in a mutually beneficial partnership. Many of the strategies could equally apply to more mainstream (non A-Level) language learning partnerships. These included strong messaging, co-ordinated collaboration between colleges, face-to-face sessions and events at the university, and deployment of university students as mentors. 

    The aim would be to transform the landscape. Currently we have a dead-end GCSE where unfair grading serves as a deterrent, and where there is no mainstream option to make continuing with language learning the norm. A strong message from universities, along with an end to unfair grading, could make a big difference to uptake at GCSE. A realisation that A-Level and specialist philology degrees are not sufficient for the language learning needs of the country could lead to alternative, imaginative and joined-up options post-16. It could also boost the provision or recognition of self-study of a language and may even lead to the reinvigoration of adult education or university outreach language classes. And it could even see a larger pool of candidates for philology degrees at university. 

    Source link

  • How the manufactured narrative of “failure” is distracting us from resolving the systemic problems holding back the study of Modern Languages – Part One.

    How the manufactured narrative of “failure” is distracting us from resolving the systemic problems holding back the study of Modern Languages – Part One.

    Author:
    Vincent Everett

    Published:

    This post was kindly written by Vincent Everett, who is head of languages in a comprehensive school and sixth form in Norfolk. He blogs as The Nice Man Who Teaches Languages at https://whoteacheslanguages.blogspot.com.

    We have to bring an end to the Culture Wars in “Modern Foreign Languages” in England. Since 2019 we have been convulsed in an internecine political fight over whether our subject is about Communication or Intellectual Conceptualisation. Of course, it’s both. The same goes for Literature, Linguistics, Content Integrated Language Learning (CLIL), and Culture. Likewise, we can encompass transactional travel language, personal expression, professional proficiency, creative or academic language. Teachers have all of these on their radar, and make decisions on how to select and integrate them on a daily basis.

    Our subject benefits from the richness of all these ingredients, and to privilege one or to exclude others, is to make us all the poorer. Teachers work in the rich and messy overlap between Grammar and Communication, engaging with pupils at every stage through their encounters with and progression through another language.

    Meanwhile, we have allowed the culture wars to allow us to be distracted from the very real problems facing our subject. The first is unfair grading at GCSE. The allocation of grades in languages is harsher than in their other subjects. Above a grade 3, this widens to a whole grade’s difference compared to a subject like History.

    The narrative that it is harder to succeed in languages is accurate. Not because of the difficulty of the course content or the exams, but because of the determination of the allocation of grades. It’s not accurate to say that this is a reflection of pupils’ progress or the quality of teaching compared to other subjects. That calibration has not been made. In fact, grades are not calibrated one subject to another. The only calibration that is made, is to perpetuate grading within the subject year on year.

    This was most famously set up in advance when we moved to a new GCSE in 2018. The unfair grading of the old GCSE was carefully and deliberately transferred across to the new GCSE. So pupils taking the new course and the new exam, even though it was proposed to be a better course and a better exam, had no chance of showing they could get better grades. Furthermore, where under the old A-G grading system, the difference between languages and other subjects had been around half a grade, the new 9-1 grading meant that the difference in the key area of grades 4 and above, was now stretched to a whole grade, because of the way the old grades were mapped onto the new ones.

    The lower grades given out in languages are a strong disincentive for take up at GCSE. There is the accurate narrative that pupils will score a lower grade if they pick languages, which acts as a deterrent not only for pupils, but also for schools. One way to score higher in league tables is to have fewer pupils taking MFL. There is also the inaccurate narrative that this is a reflection of the pupils’ own ability, the nation’s ability, or the quality of teaching. The allocation of grades is a historical anomaly perpetuated year-on-year, not a reflection of actual achievement.

    This is the biggest issue facing modern languages. It would also be the easiest to fix. Grade boundaries in other subjects are used in order to bring standards in to line. If an exam is too easy  or too hard, and many pupils score a high mark or a low mark, the grade boundaries are used to make sure the correct number of pupils get the grade. Except, that is, in modern languages, where the thresholds are used to make sure that grades are out of line with other subjects. Imagine if languages grades were allocated in line with other subjects, would there be a clamour of voices insisting they should be made more difficult?

    There is a very real danger of misinterpreting this manufactured narrative of “failure” in languages. It features in every report or proposal, but often instead of identifying it as an artificial anomaly, it is used to diagnose a deficit and prescribe a solution. Often this is a solution taken from the culture wars, ignoring the fact that schools and teachers are already expertly blending and balancing the elements of our subject.

    Unfair grading at GCSE is the greatest of our problems, and the easiest to sort out. In Part 2, I shall look at the trickier question of what happens post-16.

    Source link

  • Institutions may be holding themselves back by not sharing enough data

    Institutions may be holding themselves back by not sharing enough data

    Wonkhe readers need little persuasion that information flows are vital to the higher education sector. But without properly considering those flows and how to minimise the risk of something going wrong, institutions can find themselves at risk of substantial fines, claims and reputational damage. These risks need organisational focus from the top down as well as regular review.

    Information flows in higher education occur not only in teaching and research but in every other area of activity such as accommodation arrangements, student support, alumni relations, fundraising, staff and student complaints and disciplinary matters. Sometimes these flows are within organisations, sometimes they involve sharing data externally.

    Universities hold both highly sensitive research information and personal data. Examples of the latter include information about individuals’ physical and mental health, family circumstances, care background, religion, financial information and a huge range of other personal information.

    The public narrative on risks around data tend to focus on examples of inadvertently sharing protected information – such as in the recent case of the Information Commissioner’s decision to fine the Police Service of Northern Ireland £750,000 in relation to the inadvertent disclosure of personal information over 9,000 officers and staff in response to a freedom of information request. The same breach has also resulted in individuals bringing legal claims against the PSNI, with media reports suggesting a potential bill for those at up to £240m.

    There is also the issue of higher education institutions being a target for cyber attack by criminal and state actors. Loss of data through such attacks again has the potential to result in fines and other regulatory action as well as claims by those affected.

    Oversharing and undersharing

    But inadvertent sharing of information and cyberattacks are not the only areas of risk. In some circumstances a failure to ensure that information is properly collected and shared lawfully may also be a risk. And ensuring effective and appropriate flows of information to the governing body is key to it being able to fulfil its oversight function.

    One aspect of the tragic circumstances mentioned in the High Court appeal ruling in the case concerning Natasha Abrahart is the finding that there had been a failure to pass on information about a suicide attempt to key members of staff, which might have enabled action to be taken to remove pressure on Natasha.

    Another area of focus concerns sharing of information related to complaints of sexual harassment and misconduct and subsequent investigations. OfS Condition E6 and its accompanying guidance which comes fully into effect on 1 August 2025 includes measures on matters such as reporting potential complaints and the sensitive handling and fair use of information. The condition and guidance require the provider to set out comprehensively and in an easy to understand manner how it ensures that those “directly affected” by decisions are directly informed about those decisions and the reasons for them.

    There are also potential information flows concerning measures intended to protect students from any actual or potential abuse of power or conflict of interest in respect of what the condition refers to as “intimate personal relationships” between “relevant staff members” and students.

    All of these data flows are highly sensitive and institutions will need to ensure that appropriate thought is given to policies, procedures and systems security as well as identifying the legal basis for collecting, holding and sharing information, taking appropriate account of individual rights.

    A blanket approach will not serve

    Whilst there are some important broad principles in data protection law that should be applied when determining the legal basis for processing personal data, in sensitive cases like allegations of sexual harassment the question of exactly what information can be shared with another person involved in the process often needs to be considered against the particular circumstances.

    Broadly speaking in most cases where sexual harassment or mental health support is concerned, the legislation will require at minimum both a lawful basis and a condition for processing “special category” and/or data that includes potential allegations of a criminal act. Criminal offences and allegations data and special category data (which includes data relating to an individual’s health, sex life and sexual orientation) are subject to heightened controls under the legislation.

    Without getting into the fine detail it can often be necessary to consider individuals’ rights and interests in light of the specific circumstances. This is brought into sharp focus when considering matters such as:

    • Sharing information with an emergency contact in scenarios that might fall short of a clear “life or death” situation.
    • Considering what information to provide to a student who has made a complaint about sexual harassment by another student or staff member in relation to the outcome of their complaint and of any sanction imposed.

    It’s also important not to forget other legal frameworks that may be relevant to data flows. This includes express or implied duties of confidentiality that can arise where sensitive information is concerned. Careful thought needs to be given to make clear in relevant policies and documents when it is envisaged that information might need to be shared, and provided the law permits it.

    A range of other legal frameworks can also be relevant, such as consumer law, equality law and freedom of information obligations. And of course, aside from the legal issues, there will be potential reputational and institutional risks if something does go wrong. It’s important that senior management and governing bodies have sufficient oversight and involvement to encourage a culture of organisational awareness and compliance across the range of information governance issues that can arise.

    Managing the flow of information

    Institutions ought to have processes to keep their data governance under review, including measures that map out the flows and uses of data in accordance with relevant legal frameworks. The responsibility for oversight of data governance lies not only with any Data Protection Officer, but also with senior management and governors who can play a key part in ensuring a good data governance culture within institutions.

    Compliance mechanisms also need regular review and refresh including matters such as how privacy information is provided to individuals in a clear and timely way. Data governance needs to be embedded throughout the lifecycle of each item of data. And where new activities, policies or technologies are being considered, data governance needs to be a central part of project plans at the earliest stages to ensure that appropriate due diligence and other compliance requirements are in place, such as data processing agreements or data protection impact assessments are undertaken.

    Effective management of the flow ensures that the right data gets in front of the right people, at the right time – and means everyone can be confident the right balance has been struck between maintaining privacy and sharing vital information.

    This article is published in association with Mills & Reeve.

    Source link

  • Nostalgia is holding Oxbridge back

    Nostalgia is holding Oxbridge back

    Famke Veenstra-Ashmore was an intern at HEPI in the summer of 2024. She previously completed a BA and an MPhil in English at the University of Cambridge and now works as a parliamentary researcher.

    My report about the gender awarding gap at Oxbridge has generated a lot of discussion on social media. Though I was astutely warned by HEPI’s Director to expect flak from certain right-wing publications, I was surprised that the only explicit and personal attack came from a female Times columnist.

    Melaine McDonagh’s column objected to the report’s suggestion that historic institutions like Oxford and Cambridge ought to consider re-thinking the style and presentation of examinations for certain subjects where large gender awarding gaps exist. McDonagh argued that this suggestion was patronising and underestimated the ability of female students to stand their intellectual ground.

    The Times column seemed to pick up on the argumentative threads of much of the discussion about my report online. I noticed a lot of the criticism of the report came from Oxbridge graduates from my parents’ generation, though this view was also held by younger Twitter users, such as Policy Exchange’s Lara Brown.

    While debates around the supervision system and examinations are certainly legitimate and acknowledged in the report, the criticism was steeped in a kind of political and institutional nostalgia. A sense that Oxbridge disentangling itself too much from its traditions for the sake of progressive politics.

    As a recent graduate of Cambridge, where I spent four years, I understand the urge to herald its unique history and methods of teaching. Personally, I thrived, earned two degrees, and enjoyed both examinations and supervisions. But my report wasn’t about personal experience – it was about systemic flaws which were patently disadvantaging entire groups of students.

    Why is it that so many people yearn for the days where women where ‘chewed and spat out’ (to borrow Melanie McDonagh’s phrase) at Oxbridge? David Butterfield’s recent take-down of Cambridge and its ‘infantilising’ approach to teaching also comes to mind when thinking about this surge of ex-Oxbridge students or academics criticising the evolution of institutions in reaction to social change.

    From my perspective, this trend of thinking isn’t sincere. It is not rooted in a genuine concern over the way universities operate and how students think and learn and organise. Rather, it stems from a grievance towards the diversification of student cohorts which has caused the uncomfortable recognition, for Oxbridge traditionalists, that as the student body evolves, the manner of teaching and assessing may have to shift accordingly.

    Many of these commentators miss this crucial point and their thinking is limited by the belief that all of Oxbridge’s academic traditions should be preserved. Butterfield, for example, claims that the ‘freewheeling process’ of allowing a larger proportion of state school students into Cambridge has ‘placed politics ahead of talent’. With similar logic, McDonagh reasons that adjusting examinations and supervisions to address institutional inequalities would unfairly benefit women, who have done nothing to deserve better outcomes, and should therefore receive no extra consideration when it comes to systemic methods of assessing their academic performance.

    Though the comparison between state-school versus private school students and male and female students is limited, I suggest that the arguments offered by Butterfield and McDonagh are motivated by the same emotional basis.

    Research by Cambridge Assessment has shown that state school pupils tend to outperform independent school pupils with similar A Level results at university. The study offered two potential explanations for this: that there are simply less incentives for them to perform highly, or they have been ‘coached’ at school to do well in exams but then struggle when left to their own devices.

    Are progressive politics, then, getting in the way of talent? Or are they enabling students who have not had the resources in their secondary education to thrive and contribute to an academic community which takes their contributions seriously?

    We know that students from academic private schools aren’t entitled to higher marks, nor enjoy higher thresholds of talent, just because of their schooling. In a similar way, we know that Oxbridge was constructed around the education of a very specific, public-school educated, white and able-bodied man. When data suggests there is a problem worthy of addressing, why do ex-students and academics recoil from recognising and addressing this issue?

    Many of the detractors of Oxford and Cambridge’s cultural and social modernisation are pushing against the demands of our rapidly shifting present. The desire to keep things the same is not without merit – the supervision system will rightly continue to be lauded by many. Equally, women at Oxbridge, through the criteria by which they are selected, will do well in exams. Change is so incremental at these institutions that I doubt fundamental changes will ever be on the negotiating table.

    However, small evidence-based changes, such as the scaffolding of exam questions in specific subjects, can make a huge difference to the experience of female students at Oxbridge. Enabling more women to match their male counter parts will encourage more of them to progress into postgraduate study and strengthen academic departments – not weaken them.

    Oxford and Cambridge pride themselves on their reputation for advancing research, technology, and educative practices. In their combined age of around two millennia, why would they stop now?

    Source link