Jul 14 / Eowyn Crisifield PhD

One out of three ain’t bad?

Dr Eowyn Crisfield takes a closer look at the three priorities for strengthening language education in England proposed by the British Council and argues that only one them goes far enough.
Empty space, drag to resize
Recently, I wrote about the HEPI league table for language provision and argued that the decline in Modern Foreign Languages is not simply a participation problem, but a sign that we need to rethink what language education is for. The publication of the British Council's Language Trends England 2026 report has given me an opportunity to continue that conversation.

The British Council’s Language Trends reports have become one of the main longitudinal sources on school language education in the UK. The England series began in 2002 and has since developed into an annual survey of primary and secondary schools, designed to document the state of language teaching and learning, track the effects of policy, and record teachers’ accounts of provision, uptake, staffing and curriculum pressures. The series has also expanded beyond England: Wales has had a report since 2015, Northern Ireland biennially since 2019, Scotland since 2025, and Ireland since 2026.
"The report shows schools working hard inside a system that has never fully decided what language education is for."

Read on its own, the Language Trends England 2026 report gives us a useful account of the current state of language education in England. Read alongside the last 5 England reports, the 2026 report does not describe a sudden crisis in languages education in England, it shows the latest stage in a longer pattern of decline in interest and uptake for languages at GCSE and A-level, continued issues with primary-secondary transition, and an uncomfortable imbalance in what is available for students in state schools as compared to the independent schools sector.

The British Council (via their LinkedIn post on launching the report) proposes 3 priorities in response: 

  1. Stronger continuity between primary and secondary language learning; 
  2. A clearer national pathway from GCSE to A-level;
  3. Better collaboration between government, schools, universities and employers. 

While we acknowledge the importance of this annual state of the field report and the careful framing of the recommendations, we would argue that only one of the identified priorities is bold enough to potentially shift the decline in language education in England. This is OCME’s response to identified priorities.

Continuity isn’t the answer

The British Council is right to identify primary-secondary transition as a persistent issue. The report states that only 2% of state secondary schools say that all students continue with the language they studied at primary school, and more than half of primary schools report no contact with secondary schools about language learning.

Proposing stronger continuity, however, has repercussions that will likely do more harm than good. It would mean encouraging primary schools to converge around the languages most commonly offered at secondary level, with the result being further narrowing around French, Spanish and German (although notably in decline). The Curriculum and Assessment Review already moves in this direction by proposing defined Key Stage 2 core content for these three languages, partly to support continuity across Key Stages 2 to 4 (Collen et al., 2026). In addition to the narrowing of languages on offer, issues with language teacher recruitment are also a concern.

Language Trends England 2026 notes the sustained decline in modern languages in higher education, including 14 institutions withdrawing modern languages degrees entirely since 2014 and others reporting staff cuts or the loss of particular languages (Collen et al., 2026). A primary languages policy built on an assumed supply of specialist teachers for a narrow set of languages therefore rests on an increasingly unlikely resurgence at the university and PGCE level.

"Primary-secondary continuity should be reframed as continuity of learning about language and becoming linguists, rather than reducing it to a set of vocabulary, grammar rules, and phonics."

Rather than persisting in attempts to develop a struggling policy approach, the demographic evidence in the report should, in fact, lead us elsewhere. In the primary sample, 90.2% of schools reported students with English as an Additional Language. The report’s definition of Home, Heritage and Community Languages includes home languages learned in childhood, Indigenous and minoritised languages such as Irish, Gaelic, Scots, Welsh and Cornish, and community languages shaped by migration and settlement (Collen et al., 2026). These languages are already part of our school communities. Students can hear them in their environment, practice them, and experience them as living languages. 

Two routes forward for primary schools

We propose that primary schools should be supported to follow one of two routes, depending on local demographics, staff expertise and community priorities. 

The first is a locally responsive language offer, in which the language taught has a meaningful connection to the school community. This could include Arabic, Urdu, Polish, Bengali, Mandarin, Turkish, Portuguese, Somali, Punjabi, British Sign Language, Romani, or other languages with local significance. It could also be any language indigenous to the UK, such as Welsh or Irish. Why would students in England not have the opportunity to learn some of the oldest languages in Europe, which are directly linked to the history of the UK? This approach would not reduce language education to identity only; it would connect language study to family knowledge, local histories, community networks and the linguistic resources students already bring with them.

There are useful international comparisons we can look to for inspiration. In Australia, Victoria supports language provision in over 50 languages through the Victorian School of Languages and Community Language Schools, with explicit attention to home and heritage language maintenance (Victorian Department of Education, 2025). New South Wales enables students to study Aboriginal Languages from Kindergarten to Year 12 and expects schools to work in partnership with local Aboriginal communities when introducing such programmes (NSW Education Standards Authority, 2022). While the systems differ and we can’t expect complete transfer of approaches, the principle is still relevant: language policy can begin with the languages of real communities, rather than treating those languages as peripheral to an outdated set of ‘modern foreign languages’. 

"Current approaches are not creating interest in studying languages, which is clear by the decline in uptake in KS3 and KS4. Perhaps rather than tweaking around the edges, it’s time to try something radically different?"

The second route is a primary curriculum centred on linguistic knowledge, multilingual curiosity and language-learning skills. This would involve teaching students how languages work: sound systems, scripts, grammar, cognates, etymology, translation, dialect, code-switching, sign languages, language families, place names and language change. This is a serious form of language education, and explicitly valuable in a society where students in schools struggle to see the value in language learning, or to aspire to language learning themselves. It is also a route to excellence in language-related teaching in schools where sustained ‘modern foreign language’ instruction is difficult to deliver well. 

There are already curriculum models that point to a different settlement. World of Languages, Languages of the World (WoLLoW), offers a practical example of an approach that builds knowledge about language, connects students’ own linguistic repertoires to school learning, and raises the visibility of languages beyond a single taught language model. Entirely developed by language teachers, and free to access and use, WoLLoW is not a substitute for language study, but a gateway to language study. Current approaches are not creating interest in studying languages, which is clear by the decline in uptake in KS3 and KS4. Perhaps rather than tweaking around the edges, it’s time to try something radically different?

Why schools should teach the languages they already have

More than 80% of primary schools described how they integrate students’ home languages into the curriculum, but many examples remain at the level of celebration: Mother Language Day, displays, songs, food, books and cultural events. 

These practices are positive, but they set a low ceiling if they are not connected to curriculum knowledge. The more powerful examples in the report are those where students compare languages, discuss cognates and false friends, notice grammatical structures, and use “Language Detective Skills” across English, Spanish and home languages (Collen et al., 2026). 

That is the direction policy should support, as this is the area with the most potential for growth, and has roots in schools already. Primary-secondary continuity should be reframed as continuity of learning about language and becoming linguists, rather than reducing it to a set of vocabulary, grammar rules, and phonics. Students should arrive in Year 7 with a stronger understanding of what languages are, how they work, how they connect to identity and power, and why their own linguistic knowledge is valued and useful. In some schools, this will come through sustained study of a locally meaningful language. In others, it will come through a structured multilingual curriculum that prepares students to learn any language more effectively at secondary school. 

The GCSE/A level trap 

The second British Council priority also identifies a genuine problem. The report states that 47.9% of state secondary schools reported post-16 language provision delivered either within the school or in collaboration with a neighbouring school, down from 54% in 2025 and 56% in 2024. I agree that a clearer GCSE to A-level pathway would help some students. My concern is that an A-level-centred pathway is an insufficient national aim, for two reasons. Firstly, by focusing upwards to KS5, we neglect to examine carefully the offering at KS4 and why the number of students choosing languages is steadily declining. This impacts the number of students eligible for A-level languages even when they are available. Secondly, it makes the availability of language education depend on the most academic route through the secondary system. This is especially problematic when the report shows such sharp differences between state and independent provision. 

The best opportunity to improve uptake of languages at GCSE is to recognise formally the linguistic richness of schools communities by ensuring that Heritage and Community Languages are central to any revised pathway. Here the report contains encouraging evidence: in the state secondary sample, 472 out of 506 schools reported that they offer opportunities for students to take examinations in such languages, either in school or externally, and 79% reported that the school pays examination entry fees (Collen et al., 2026). This should become a formal entitlement, mandated by policy. Where a qualification exists, students should have a funded, supported route to accreditation in languages developed through home, community, migration, faith, family or local life. That would require funded entries, reliable access to speaking examiners, better information for families, guidance for schools acting as exam centres, and recognition of these qualifications in accountability and progression systems.

If the main route for languages remains GCSE to A-level to university, languages continue to carry the status of an academically selective subject. That status is then reinforced by the obvious imbalance in the system: independent schools are more able to maintain small classes, offer a wide range of languages, employ assistants and sustain international links, while many state schools must make provision decisions under tighter financial and staffing constraints. The result is a system in which languages are formally available to many, but substantively available to students in selective or independent schools.

Languages belong in every career

The structure of the KS5 system also has an impact. When most students only do three A-levels, take up for languages will only ever be students who are very interested in languages, and likely considering it as a university/career pathway. Alternative post-16 provision that targets the usefulness of languages for any career pathway would be more effective. This applies to students following an A-level pathway, who may be focusing on a scientific set of A-levels but who have interest in continuing to learn a language (one they speak already or a new one). But beyond A-level, many students who would benefit from languages will study in FE, take apprenticeships, or follow courses in business, media, health and social care, hospitality, sport, public services, digital industries, construction, travel, education, early years or the creative sector. Some need full qualifications; others need applied language modules, intercultural knowledge, sector-specific vocabulary, translation awareness, or confidence working with multilingual clients and colleagues. 

A national pathway for languages should therefore include GCSE and A-level, but it should also include community language accreditation, applied language options in FE and apprenticeships, short courses, micro-credentials and sector-linked modules. In policy terms, the route from GCSE to A-level is necessary but it cannot be the only pathway or option for language learning for our young people. 

Getting ‘better collaboration’ right 

We agree with the third priority, with one important qualification: employers need to be treated as central partners, not as ‘nice to have’. The report shows why this is necessary: teachers identify the low status of languages as a careers option, limited senior leadership support, assessment pressures, curriculum time and the perception of global English as among the barriers to high-quality language learning (Collen et al., 2026). If students do not see where languages live in work, public services and civic life, encouragement about the general usefulness of languages will remain too vague to shift choices.

"A national pathway for languages should include GCSE and A-level, but it should also include community language accreditation, applied language options in further education, apprenticeships, short courses and micro-credentials."

Universities have an important role, they can support subject knowledge, teacher education, mentoring, outreach, student ambassadors and regional expertise. But a language strategy that depends too heavily on universities risks placing the burden of recovery on institutions whose own provision is being reduced, with fewer universities even offering language programmes. Employers can help to shift public view of languages by showing how languages are useful across sectors. Local businesses, national firms, chambers of commerce, NHS trusts, public services, cultural organisations, charities, legal services, media companies, logistics firms, tourism and hospitality bodies, sports organisations and small businesses working in multilingual communities all have a role to play in demonstrating the usefulness of languages and language study. Students need specific evidence: which languages are used, by whom, in which roles, with what level of proficiency, and alongside which other skills, and how having another language will improve employability, mobility, and income potential. 

This collaboration should begin before students choose GCSE subjects. It could include employer-led tasks in Key Stage 3, local audits of languages used in businesses and public services, sector-specific language modules in FE, apprenticeship units with applied intercultural content, and sustained careers education that links languages to work in health, care, trade, media, tourism, logistics, sport, law, education and public service. Universities should be part of this approach but they should not be leading it. 

This point is also about equity - independent schools report stronger access to language assistants and cultural institutes than state schools, with substantially higher numbers of assistants across French, German, Mandarin, Spanish and other languages (Collen et al., 2026). Employer partnerships cannot compensate for all resource differences, but they can make languages visible in ordinary working life rather than mainly in elite mobility routes such as exchange trips, Oxbridge applications, diplomatic careers or the year abroad. If language education is to be understood as a national capability, students need to see language use in the places where they may live, study and work.

If we want different results, we need a different model

The title “One out of three ain’t bad?” is glib, but the argument we present here is not a dismissal of the British Council’s report. Language Trends England 2026 continues a strong evidence base, and a much-needed reality check for the sector, and the British Council is right to press for coordinated action. My disagreement is with the direction of two of the proposed priorities. Stronger primary-secondary continuity is desirable only if it does not narrow primary provision around a small set of languages in ways that erase the linguistic resources already present in schools. A clearer GCSE to A-level pathway is necessary, but it is too narrow to function as a national language strategy.

The third priority, collaboration between government, schools, universities and employers, is the strongest because it opens the possibility of a more innovative approach. I would argue that this collaboration should be designed around linguistic capability across society, not simply around progression into higher education. That means local languages in primary schools where communities can support them; structured language knowledge where named-language instruction is unrealistic; formal entitlement to community language accreditation; stronger GCSE and A-level routes; and serious language provision in FE, apprenticeships and vocational education.

The report shows schools working hard inside a system that has never fully decided what language education is for and why it matters. We encourage stakeholders to be bold with their demands, rather than continuing to suggest tweaking around the edges. Language education should be built around the languages children bring, the languages they may learn, and the linguistic demands of the society in which they will live and work.

References