Education in Britain - Part Two

Further to my previous article on Britain's education system, the row over schools exams has been rumbling on. This week saw the release of results for GCSEs, the national exams taken by 16-year-olds. As with A-levels, results have, as usual, improved again this year, with the proportion of top grades (A* to C) rising by 1.2%. However, this apparent success actually masks poor results in core subjects such as maths and English, where results remain similar to last year and fall well below the government's targets. This was compounded by results for the national exams for 11-year-olds (we really do love school exams in Britain) which showed pass rates of 79% and 76% for English and maths respectively; although these results may seem high, they are still below the 85% government targets and also indicate that 11% and 14% of children still are not capable enough in the basic subjects.

Another criticism of the GCSE results is that the overall improvement is largely a result of pupils being allowed to drop 'serious' subjects in favour of 'soft' ones, such as media studies, religious studies and physical education, which are all seen as being easier to pass than, say, sciences or languages. It is actually the study of languages which is the most worrying area. Two years ago the government controversially decided to drop foreign languages as a compulsory subject at GCSE level. This has meant that many pupils stop studying a foreign language at the age of 14 or ever earlier. This year the number of pupils taking German dropped 14.2%, falling below 100,000-pupil mark for the first time, while the number of entries for French decreased by 13.2%. Last year, the first time foreign languages were not compulsory, also saw similar drops. The number of students taking science also fell marginally, by 0.3%, but intakes for media studies and religious studies were up by 25.9% and 8.3% respectively.

While no one wants to claim that subjects such as religious studies or media studies are not useful or challenging for pupils, there has been huge criticism of the lack of progress made in maths and English and the rapidly declining numbers of language students. John Dursford, general secretary of the Association of School and College Leaders, commented that modern-language teaching is in 'free fall' and that 'we have probably reached the point of no return because schools are now shedding foreign-language teachers.' The National Union of Teachers meanwhile claimed that 'the government must conduct a serious review of its stance on modern languages.' For his part, the Education Secretary Alan Johnson admitted that the decline in language students was disappointing, if 'not wholly unexpected'. He argues that the government has taken 'a sensible approach to what will make language learning thrive. It is not about forcing young people to study a language.'

Unfortunately though, from my point of view at least, it is about forcing young people to learn a language. The average 14-year-old choosing his or her GCSE subjects will not appreciate the benefits of studying a foreign language, and would obviously much prefer to take a 'soft' subject which would be both easier and more interesting. The same would happen if English and maths were made non-compulsory, and I believe that foreign languages should also be viewed as 'core' subjects in the curriculum. Of course there is plenty of space for pupils to take certain subjects they enjoy, and an interest in learning should be encouraged. But we should also remember that this choice should not come at the cost of academic standards in core subjects. It is often an embarrassment to me that, while the majority of people from places such as Germany, the Netherlands or Scandinavia speak two or more languages, us Brits struggle with our own tongue, let alone any foreign ones.