The GCSE results
released yesterday contained many inspiring
examples of individual achievement. In one
prominent respect, however, they also represented
a depressing instance of collective failure. The
number of pupils who sat French and German fell by
14.4 per cent and 13.7 per cent respectively, and
that in the last year in which taking a foreign
language between 14 and 16 was, at least
theoretically, compulsory. Next year, the total
could easily be a mere half of the tally recorded
just two years ago. This is a direct consequence
of the decision taken by ministers in December
2002 that GCSE students should no longer be
obliged to undertake at least one language.
At the time this newspaper attacked the move as
an appalling mistake and we feel vindicated in
that assessment. It is hardly a view that we hold
alone. John Dunford, the general secretary of the
Secondary Heads Association, complained yesterday
that the figures were in free fall, while David
Hart, his equivalent at the National Association
of Head Teachers, declared the emerging trend a
catastrophe.
Jacqui Smith, the
Schools Minister, left by her boss, Ruth Kelly, to
defend the indefensible, asserted that the pass
rate at A* to C for French and German had
increased (by about 7 per cent) as a result of
this change and insisted that a fresh emphasis was
being placed on languages at an earlier age. To
that end, she pledged that every primary
schoolchild will be offered the opportunity to
learn a language by 2010. Early indications show
that over 40 per cent of schools are offering
modern languages to 7 to 11-year-olds.
Her comments are a combination of the
irrelevant, the complacent and the mendacious.
They are irrelevant because it is obvious that
pass rates in modern languages will improve if
only those who are keenest face an examination.
The same would occur if English and mathematics
ceased to be compulsory. They are complacent
because the ideal time to begin tuition of foreign
languages is between the ages of 4 and 7. The very
young pick up vocabulary naturally. Yet the
provision of language teaching at infant age in
the state sector is negligible. For a minister to
all but boast that by the time a child reaches
primary school, a risible 40 per cent or so of
pupils are being offered a foreign language is a
disgrace.
It is also, to be frank, dishonest. The words
offered the opportunity might lead the innocent
to think that French, German or Spanish was a
formal part of the timetable. It means nothing of
the kind. It could and often does mean that a
lunchtime language club is available (and parents
may sometimes be charged a fee for this). Research
commissioned by the Department for Education and
Skills itself last year revealed that a
staggeringly dire 3 per cent of Englands 17,000
primary schools are providing a sole 20-minute
lesson a week in a foreign language.
Ministers must reverse course immediately.
Globalisation does not mean that those who speak
English as their native tongue can smugly assume
that they need not comprehend other languages.
Language is the key, furthermore, to understanding
other cultures (as is emphasised to immigrants to
these shores) and to a rounded appreciation of
English itself. There is also another element to
this sad saga. Independent schools will continue
to compel their pupils to learn languages. A
Labour government is thus creating a new class
divide in education. Ministers should be ashamed.
Words fail us.
