Skip to main content

Where did all the A-level linguists go?

All the figures below are from http://www.bstubbs.co.uk/a-lev.htm . Brian gets his figures from JCQ.

In 1993 29886 students did A-level French. In 2014 the figure was 10433.
In 1993 10857 students did A-level German. In 2014 the figure was 4187.
In 1993 4850 students did A-level Spanish. In 2014 the figure was 7601.

Taken together we have witnessed an enormous fall in the number of young people studying languages at A-level.

What happened?

In recent times there has been a focus on a number of factors, notably the relative difficulty of obtaining a high grade and the fall in the number of GCSE students following the decision to make languages optional at GCSE from 2004. ALCAB, in their input into the new A-levels, focussed more on what they saw as the unstimulating nature of A-level courses. Others have mentioned the influence of communicative language teaching methods over the years.

But let's look more carefully at what happened to the French numbers over recent years:

2014  10433      A-level entry all subjects 833807
2013  11272
2012  12511
2011  13196
2010    13850
2009    14333
2008    14885
2007    14477
2006    14650
2005    14484
2004    15149
2003    15531
2002    15614 
2001    17939
2000    18221
1999    21072
1998    23633
1997    25916
1996    27490 
1995    27563
1994    28942
1993    29886      A-level entry all subjects 734081

First, when one considers the rise in the overall number of A-levels taken, the fall in French looks even worse. (The same applies to German.)

Next, it is clear that the catastrophic slide in entries occurred from around 1996 to about 2002. Since 2002 the fall has been more gradual, perhaps more noticeable from around 2009.

Conclusions?

1.  The decision to make languages optional at GCSE from 2004 did not have a significant effect on A-level take-up.

2.  Severe grading and accountability measures may have contributed to some extent in this millennium.

3.  Other factors were at work before 2002.

As regards the first point, this should not be a great surprise. The vast majority of students who opted out of languages post 2004 would have been weaker candidates who would not have gone on to do A-level French. The decision to make languages optional reduced hugely the number of linguists at age 15, but had little effect further up the chain.

As for the second point, the recent IPSOS/JCQ survey did suggest that some students were put off taking a language for fear of getting a lower grade. Languages were seen to be a riskier choice than other subjects. Anecdotal evidence suggests that the difficulty in obtaining an A* grade may be putting off some candidates in particular. In the same survey, by the way, students suggested they would prefer courses based more strongly on practical skills of communication than ones involving the study of culture, translation and essay. That may suggest ALCAB were wrong in their analysis that A-level languages were not cognitively challenging enough.

So what about point 3?

What happened in the 1990s?

I can only tentatively suggest what happened by looking at the numbers and from my own experience over that period.

Student choices did change in significant ways. I noted that fewer weaker students were opting for French, preferring to take the wider range of subjects on offer, for example Business Studies, Psychology, Theatre Studies, Religious Studies and PE.

If you look at the entries for subjects over that period from 1995 to 2002 these tendencies emerge:

Psychology jumped from  22111  to 34611.
Religious Studies went from 8933  to  10685 (rising to 24213 by 2014).
PE/Sport rose from 7686 to 17140.
Media/Film Studies rose from 7056 to 20172.
Expressive Arts rose from 8984 to 15059.
Business Studies rose from 22687 to 27680.

*See below for what happened with other subjects

Those figures may well suggest that we witnessed students opting for subjects which are sometimes viewed as easier. (In terms of getting higher grades, they are easier.) They may have opted for these as they became available and as schools offered choices more appropriate to the abilities and preferences of students.

Perhaps what we saw, therefore, was students of moderate aptitude who had traditionally chosen French as a third arts option going to other options to get better grades and do something they perceived as more interesting. We did not talk about severe grading in those days because accountability and targets were not all the rage and schools did not crunch the numbers as they do now, but it was understood that some subjects were easier than others.

It is unlikely that this accounts entirely for the disaffection with French and German in the 1990s. In addition, why did languages suffer more than other traditional subjects like history, geography and science? Here I am on much shakier ground. These questions occur to me:

Did the GCSE exam, introduced in 1987, have an effect on students' actual or perceived performance in languages. Are the traditionalist right? Did teaching get wishy-washy? Did we neglect firm grammatical foundations? Did we focus too much on functions and phrase book learning at the expense of solid skills and grammatical knowledge? Was this done to cater for the wider ability range we were teaching compared with the 1950s to 70s?

Was there too great a disconnect between the more modern, communication-based GCSE and the traditional A-level with its translation and literature? Did A-Level, influenced as it is by universities, simply not adapt enough to modern needs? Did students just think A-level was too hard and boring? Should A-level have changed more fundamentally than it did?

Did teaching actually get worse at KS3 and KS4, so that students were left unmotivated by the end of GCSE? Were timetables trimmed? Were teachers well trained enough? Did the growing supply of teachers from the rest of Europe adapt well enough to students' needs?

Did schools fail to value languages as highly as they had? What happened to the old notion that an ambitious and able arts student at A-level would do English, history and French? Did newer teaching methods contribute to this altered perception of languages?

I dare say there is material for a thesis there. It is clear, however, that student choices change over the years and that we could one day see languages post 16 become more popular again. Alas, there are currently no policy plans which will make it happen.

***************************************************************

Postscript: in 1938 12.5% of all A-level entries were for French. In 2014 it was 1.25. There are more students now and more subjects, but it makes you think.

***************************************************************

*Sociology fell by 8000 in that period before rising back to its 1995 figure of 30000 by 2014.
Politics fell by 3000 before rising again by 2014 to 13761.
Maths fell a little from 1993 to 2002, it seems, then rose rapidly in recent years to far exceed the 1993 numbers.
Law has stayed pretty steady over the years at around 12-15 000.
History fell somewhat up to 2002, then rose again by 2014 to exceed 1993 levels. Geography fell quite fast up to 2002, then held steady.
English has fallen slightly over the years.
Economics fell from 36428 to 17015. It has risen somewhat since.
Classical subjects have stayed steady over the years.
Art has risen slowly over the years.
Physics fell a bit up to 2002, whilst Biology and Chemistry rose somewhat and continue to rise.


























Comments

Popular posts from this blog

What teachers are saying about The Language Teacher Toolkit

"The Language Teacher Toolkit is a really useful book for language teachers to either read all the way through or dip into. What I like about it is that the authors Steve Smith and Gianfranco Conti are totally upfront about what they believe to be good practice but back it up with research evidence." (Ernesto Macaro, Oxford University Department of Education)

"I absolutely love this book based on research and full of activities..  The best manual I've read so far. One of our PDs from the Australian Board of Studies recommended your book as an excellent resource.  I look forward to the conference here in Sydney." Michela Pezzi, Teacher, Australia, Facebook)

"Finally, a book for World Language teachers that provides practical ideas and strategies that can actually be used in the classroom, rather than dry rhetoric and theory that does little to inspire creativity in ways that are engaging for both students and teachers alike." (USA teacher, Amazon review)

New GCSE resources on frenchteacher

As well as writing resources for the new A-levels, I have in recent months been posting a good range of materials to support the new GCSEs. First exams are not until 2018, but here is what you can find on the site in addition to the many other resources (grammar exercises, texts, video listening etc).

I shall not produce vocabulary lists since the exam board specifications now offer these, with translations.

Foundation Tier 

AQA-style GCSE 2016 Role-plays
AQA-style GCSE 2016 Photo card conversations
AQA-style GCSE 2016 Photo card conversations (2)
100 translation sentences into French (with answers)
Reading exam
Reading exam (2)
How to write a good Foundation Tier essay (ppt)
How to write a good Foundation Tier essay (Word)

Higher Tier 

AQA-style GCSE 2016 Photo card conversations (Higher tier)
AQA-style GCSE 2016 Photo card conversations (Higher tier) (2)
20 translations into French (with answers)
Reading exam (Higher tier)
How to write a good Higher Tier essay (ppt)
How to write a…

5 great zero preparation lesson ideas

When the pressure is on and there are only so many hours on the week, you need a repertoire of zero preparation go-to activities which promote input and/or practice. Here are five you might well find useful.

1. My weekend

We know that listening is the most important yet often neglected skill for language learning. It's also something some pupils find hard to do. To develop listening skill and provide tailored comprehensible input try this:

You tell the class you are going to recount what you did last weekend and that they have to make notes in English. The amount of detail you go into and the speed you go will depend on your class. Talk for about three minutes. If you spent the whole weekend marking, you can always make stuff up!

You then make some true or false (maybe not mentioned too) statements in the target language about what you said in your account. Class gives hands up (or no hands up) answers. This can then lead into a simple pair work task where pupils make up their own tru…

Three AQA A-level courses compared

I've put together my three reviews of worthy A-level courses which you might be considering for next September. They are all very useful courses, but with significant differences. The traditional Hodder and OUP book-based courses differ in that the former comes in one chunky two year book, whilst OUP's comes in two parts, the first for AS or the first year of an A-level course. The Attitudes16 course by Steve Glover and Nathalie Kaddouri is based on an online platform from which you would download worksheets and share a logon with studenst who would do the interactive parts (Textivate and video work). The two text books are supported by interactive material (Kerboodle) or an e-text book.

Attitudes16





An excellent resource which should be competing for your attention at the moment is the Attitudes16 course which writers Steve Glover and Nathalie Kaddouri have been working on for some time. You can find it here at dolanguages.com, along with his excellent resources for film and li…

The Language Teacher Toolkit review

We were delighted to receive a review of The Language Teacher Toolkit from eminent applied linguist Ernesto Macaro from Oxford University. Macaro is a leader in the field of second language acquisition and applied linguistics. His main research interests are teacher-student interaction and language learning strategies pupils can use to improve their progress.

Here is Professor Macaro's review:
The Language Teacher Toolkit is a really useful book for language teachers to either read all the way through or dip into. What I like about it is that the authors Steve Smith and Gianfranco Conti are totally upfront about what they believe to be good practice but back it up with research evidence. So for example the ‘methodological principles’ on page 11 are supported by the research they then refer to later in the book and this approach is very similar to the one that we (Ernesto Macaro, Suzanne Graham, Robert Woore) have adopted in our ‘consortium project’(http://pdcinmfl.com). The point i…