Primary Spanish Workbooks

In September last year I started using custom-made workbooks in my Key Stage 2 lessons.  Previously (for sixteen years!) each child had an A4 exercise book.  I would arrive at school early to be able to get onto the photocopier to produce lots of separate sheets, which I would then have to trim, give out to the children, and hope that they would stick it into their books.  

Their exercise books turned into glorified scrapbooks, which often looked scruffy, as the sheets were often either not stuck in, or stuck in crooked.  We also ended up doing little writing actually on the exercise book page itself.  There was also the issue of children losing sheets or not having sheets because they had been absent.

I suggested to both my headteachers that I should trial using photocopied workbooks instead, and fortunately they agreed.  Each child would have all the resources they needed all in one place, the workbooks would look neater than the exercise books, and the expense of producing the workbooks would be less than buying class sets of exercise books and funding my photocopying habit.

So far the workbooks have been a great success.  The children have the security of knowing everything that they need for the unit is in one place, knowing how far along in the unit we are and what is coming next.  It certainly makes my life easier too, and saves copying, trimming and sticking time.  The only issue we have with neatness is sometimes we have to re-staple some of the booklets.  I'll definitely be continuing to use them - I don't know why I didn't think of it before!

I teach a Spanish mixed-age curriculum in Key Stage 2 in both my schools, so the workbooks I have made so far are for that, and can be found on the webpage at the top of each unit.  I have also made editable copies of the workbooks available in my Sellfy store.  You can see an example of one of them at the top of this post.

Many thanks to the members of the Languages in Primary Schools Facebook group for their hints, tips and thoughts about using workbooks.

Primary Languages CPD video series

(created by ChatGPT!)

This week I have started a series of Primary Languages CPD video series on my YouTube channel.  You can find the videos so far on this playlist.

I am endeavouring to keep them short and "bitesize" so that teachers will be able to watch them at a time that is convenient to them.

So far there are three videos, and plenty more are in the pipeline:

Also on my YouTube channel you can access the 12 French songs and 23 Spanish songs that I have made using Suno.com.

Language Learning: debate in the House of Lords

I've mentioned before that I have Google Alerts set up on my account, and they bring a number of language-related stories to my inbox each day.  Last week, on 4th January, I was alerted to a debate about language learning in schools and universities that was going to be taking place in the House of Lords on 8th January (last Thursday).  I posted the news on Bluesky, where the news received 3 likes and nothing more.  I also posted it on LinkedIn, where it got more attention that anything else I have ever posted on that platform:

The debate was moved by Baroness Coussins, a long-time supporter of languages and language teaching and co-chair of the All-Party Parliamentary Group (APPG) on Modern Languages.  It took place to discuss primarily "measures, such as visa waivers, to improve the supply chain of qualified modern foreign language teachers and the sustainability of language learning in schools and universities".

The main themes of the debate were:

• the importance of language learning to the economy
• the importance of the language learning continuum and lifelong learning, including effective transition between phases
• improving the teacher pipeline, including teachers from overseas and the "homegrown pipeline" (but no remarks about how this might improve teaching in primary schools)
• the dangers posed by the recent spate of university language department closures

The text of the debate is available to read on Hansard.  I have compiled here the parts that relate to primary languages teaching, for the benefit of primary languages practitioners.

Baroness Shephard of Northwold, a.k.a. Gillian Shephard, Education Secretary 1994-97, a French and Latin graduate:

Many years ago, in an earlier career, I set up a number of projects to teach French in primary schools, with tight and co-operative links to the appropriate secondary schools. We trained teachers and hired peripatetic staff and French assistants. Our strong in-service training included what became known locally, rather unfortunately, as “French weekends”. In this residential training, French was spoken throughout, French food was served and there were obviously quite a number of wine tastings. The whole scheme brought together primary and secondary teachers with the Alliance Française. It was a true languages pipeline, with stellar O-level and A-level results in languages as a consequence. This was one way of achieving that improvement.

Baroness Garden of Frognal, also a languages graduate:

We need a strategy to boost language learning. Ideally, as the noble Baroness, Lady Shephard, set out, this should start at primary school when young minds are open and young mouths can develop to make the different sounds needed by different languages. If you do not start languages until secondary school, young people are already getting anxious about making new noises and talking with new words. Can the Minister say what is being done to encourage languages in primary schools? Some years back the British Academy ran competitions to find imaginative language learning in primary schools, with some schools focusing on food and some on drama, music or clothing to stimulate ideas, often with great success. What happened to those imaginative programmes?

Baroness Prashar:

The economic security and other personal benefits of learning and speaking a second language have already been articulated in this debate, so I will not repeat them. It is clear, however, that we need urgent, concerted and co-ordinated action—from primary schools through to universities and beyond—to address the inadequate, long-standing and worsening supply of language learning and teaching skills needed to meet our future needs. It is also clear is that we need a joined-up and holistic approach that is coherent across education and skills systems. While the Government have ambitious reforms to address teacher shortages, their immigration policies risk undermining them, particularly in regard to MFL and, as we have heard, in maths and physics.

Baroness Smith of Newnham:

As the noble Lord, Lord Hampton, pointed out, we should be thinking about modern languages as not just things that people study at school but as part of lifelong learning. What thought has the Minister given to people having the opportunity to learn languages at various stages? Yes, primary schools are important, as the noble Baroness, Lady Shephard, said. It is much better to learn a language at nursery or primary school than in your 50s—as I tried to do recently—but the opportunity to learn those languages is important.

Lord Chartres:

In the Government’s response to the conclusions of the report [the Curriculum and Assessment Review], which was very constructive, there is support for a much clearer focus on the provision of languages in primary schools.

My fundamental question, which echoes comments made by the noble Baroness, Lady Shephard, is how precisely are the Government going to substantiate that aspiration for a clearer focus on the provision of languages in primary schools? That is not only European languages, because I take the point made around the House about the vital importance of the very large numbers of non-European languages spoken in our schools, which give us an enhanced view of the world.

I am thinking particularly of a remarkable school in Harrow, Saint Jérôme Church of England Bilingual School. It was quite deliberately named after a translator, because that primary school not only teaches modern languages as a subject; it delivers a large part of the curriculum in French. It is a bilingual school. When the Government are looking at how to create a much clearer focus on the provision of languages in primary schools, I hope that it will be possible to look at that school’s experience of over 10 years.

I had the privilege of opening that school 10 years ago. The founding headmaster, the Reverend Daniel Norris, is just about to retire after enormous achievement. The experience of and results achieved in a school where 80% of the pupils have a mother tongue other than English that they speak at home are a valuable indication of what can be done to lay the foundations of constructive language learning at a primary level.

Baroness Smith of Malvern, the Minster of State, Department for Education and Department for Work and Pensions:

Languages are a vital part of the curriculum. We want to ensure that all pupils have access to a high-quality language education, starting at primary where languages are a compulsory part of the national curriculum at key stages 2 and 3. We are committed to enhancing early language education through to secondary to build that strong foundation for language skills and to increase the languages pipeline.

The noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Chartres, referenced the Curriculum and Assessment Review. It recommended that we update the key stage 2 languages programme of study to include clearly defined minimum core content for French, German and Spanish to standardise expectations about what substantial progress in one language looks like. There is an issue about how you ensure the continuity of learning from the last two years* of primary education through the transition into secondary. Sometimes pupils have to move to a different language, or the secondary school does not recognise the learning that has happened in primary schools. [*I'm sure the Baroness means four years!]

Strengthening the national curriculum—taking up some of the good ideas talked about by the noble Baroness, Lady Shephard, in terms of work between primary and secondary schools—could make an important difference. It is an area in which we can support further work. I know that all noble Lords—there has been mention of it already—are intrigued by the French weekends of the noble Baroness, Lady Shephard, and would be very willing to accept invitations.

We are going much further than the review’s recommendations to tackle a range of issues that impact the languages pipeline. For example, we are exploring the feasibility of developing a flexible new qualification. This would mean that all pupils can have their achievements acknowledged when they are ready rather than at fixed points, enabling a recognition of progress and development in languages. This could also be extended to languages beyond those mainstream modern foreign languages.

We will continue to fund the National Consortium for Languages Education to ensure that all language teachers, regardless of location, have access to high-quality professional development and the skills they need to deliver the curriculum, and are able to develop the sort of networks that noble Lords have talked about.

We are working with the sector to learn from successful approaches to supporting the languages pipeline, including at A-level and degree level, and ways in which we can, for example, support A-level teaching through innovative partnerships with higher education and from approaches such as the one in Hackney, which is improving primary provision and transition.

The noble Baroness, Lady Hooper, raised the issue of education technology; we are also exploring how AI and edtech can support stronger outcomes in language education, including exploring how those tools can help to deliver consistent curriculum content and support more coherent language provision across key stages as well as reduce teacher workload.

[......]

Languages are a vital part of the curriculum, and we want to ensure that all pupils have access to high-quality language education. That is why, starting at primary, we are committed to enhancing early language education, through to secondary, and to building a strong foundation for language skills to ensure a continuation on to A-levels and therefore to provide an appropriate pipeline into higher education. I recognise the concern that many noble Lords have expressed about the reduction in the number of students going into higher education to study modern foreign languages and the threats to some of those modern foreign language courses.

Looking back 2025

 

Inspired by Steve Smith, I have asked ChatGPT to write a summary of the blogposts that I have published this year, in my voice.  Here is what it came up with.  It hasn't mentioned all this year's posts, but more of a "greatest hits" I suppose.

Looking back on a year of Changing Phase (2025)

As the year draws to a close, I’ve been reflecting on everything I’ve shared here on Changing Phase — and, more importantly, how those posts have helped me make sense of my own practice. This space has once again become somewhere to think out loud, to make sense of curriculum developments, technology, and the everyday joys and puzzles of language teaching.

One thread running through the year has been a focus on oracy, sound and pronunciation. In April I shared some reflections and resources in my post Reading aloud in Spanish: more dabbles with AI, exploring how deliberate reading aloud practice, supported by QR-linked audio, can help learners with pronunciation and fluency, and how AI tools can support (but not replace!) teacher thinking around text creation and sound modelling. 

In May, a lovely classroom curiosity led to Lengua de Signos Española (LSE), a post born from a Year 6 pupil’s question. I shared some resources, videos and ideas for bringing Spanish Sign Language into the primary classroom as a multisensory way of reinforcing vocabulary and gesture, celebrating varied ways of communicating. 

As the year progressed, my reflections turned more squarely towards curriculum and progression. In Reflecting on the DfE Writing Framework I examined how writing - often squeezed out in language lessons - can be a powerful thinking tool, supporting memory, noticing and deeper cognitive engagement in primary languages. 

In November, two posts distilled much of the wider policy conversation into classroom terms. The Curriculum and Assessment Review: reflections from a primary languages practitioner offered a close look at what the Curriculum and Assessment Review might mean for primary languages, and what the idea of a defined minimum core content could look like in practice.  Just a few days later, Minimum core content for Key Stage 2 Languages built on that by teasing out the elements I think are most essential: phonics, vocabulary, grammar, intercultural understanding and more. 

Not all of 2025 was heavy curriculum thinking. In late November I shared a seasonal reflection alongside some creative classroom resources in Advent colouring books, a gentle way to bring language, culture and mindfulness into the festive weeks. 

---

A few things that stand out looking back

• Classroom reality first. Every post, whether it’s about sign language or writing frameworks, has been rooted in what actually happens with learners — what they notice, what they enjoy, and what helps them make sense of language.

• Connecting literacies. I keep coming back to how speaking, listening, reading and writing interrelate in powerful ways, and how thinking about one enriches the others.

• Curiosity as a driver. Whether it’s a pupil’s question about sign language or a policy change that sparks deeper reflection, curiosity continues to be at the heart of what makes language learning meaningful.

Thank you for reading and for thinking alongside me this year. I’m looking forward to building on these ideas in 2026 — continuing to explore multisensory practice, curriculum clarity and joyful engagement in primary languages.

Minimum core content for Key Stage 2 Languages

 

ChatGPT's take on my musings about the core content!

The Curriculum and Research Review 2025 (CAR) was published last week on 5th November.  I have already written at some length about what it means for primary languages.

The first of the two recommendations for primary languages was:

a minimum core content for French, German and Spanish would provide greater clarity and consistency, especially for non-specialist teachers.  Covering commonly occurring phonics, vocabulary and grammar, this should align closely with the content and teaching approaches at secondary and thus build more securely the foundations of knowledge for success at Key Stage 4 and beyond more securely.  This should support a smoother transition into Key Stage 3. .... With a shared understanding of what constitutes 'substantial progress' in a language, secondary schools would be better equipped to build on students' prior learning.

The Government has agreed to put this into place.  I have been pondering what this "minimum core content" will comprise.  The second sentence of the above quotation is, I think, important: "Covering commonly occurring phonics, vocabulary and grammar".  I would argue that it needs to be more far-reaching than this and not just vocabulary, grammar and phonics.

Here are my thoughts so far on what I think should be in the minimum core content:

Intercultural Understanding (IU)

Children need to have an understanding of the language that they are learning and how it fits into the global picture.  We need to encourage curiosity about world languages and where they are spoken, and we need children to appreciate that other languages may be different, but they are not bad, wrong, or strange.  All languages are valid.  I think that children should be able to:

1. recognise that there are hundreds of languages spoken across the world, and that most people are not monolingual
2. name other world languages and say where they are spoken
3. explore and investigate language families and their roots
4. talk about the languages spoken in their school and their classroom
5. name the countries which speak the language that they are learning
6. know some basic facts about the countries where that language is spoken
7. explore and investigate special days and celebrations in some of those countries
8. find out about social conventions and daily life in some of those countries

Writing systems

I have written before about writing systems (for example here) and the importance of children's familiarising themselves with the writing system of the new language prior to attempting any writing in it.  I think that children should be able to:

1. write diacritics accurately
2. name the different diacritics in the language that they are learning
3. understand the difference that those diacritics makes to the individual letter or word (this of course links nicely to phonics)
4. write accurately any punctuation marks of the new language that differ from English
5. understand the rules for capitalisation in the language that they are learning

Dictionary skills

If children want to be able to personalise their speaking and writing and extend what they want to say outside of the parameters of the core content, it is important they know how to use a bilingual dictionary effectively, whether it be online, paper-based, or a more simple bilingual glossary.  This will also of course cross the curriculum to English, and the two subjects will be able to work hand in hand on alphabetical order and finding the correct definition.  The ability to use a dictionary effectively will also support new Year 7s, especially if they are learning a language that they didn't study at primary school.

Should we push for an online bilingual or even multilingual dictionary for Key Stage 2, where children can work between English and their curriculum language, but also between other "foreign" languages?  What a great resource that would be!

Language Learning Strategies

In my opinion, Key Stage 2 is the time to embed what it means to be a language learner, and what children can do to optimise their learning time and their understanding.  For example, I think that children should be able to:

1. look at the face of the person speaking and listen attentively
2. compare the new language with English or with other languages that they know
3. use context and tone of voice to deduce meaning
4. use different techniques to memorise language
5. use physical responses and gestures/actions to aid in the learning process

Phonics

It's worth noting first of all that phonics in French is much more complex than it is in Spanish or German.  I teach just Spanish currently, and have usually covered all the important phonemes by February of Year 3.  After that it is constant repetition and practice, as I introduce all new vocabulary phonics first.

There are many more phonemes for French, but having said that, the last time I taught French (2022-2024) I managed to cover the following phonemes in 2 years:

j, /ə/, u, i/y, ê/è/ei/ai, r, on, un, ô/au, é, ou, ss/ç, s/z, in/im/ain, an, ch, oi, eu, silent h, and silent final letters

We repeated many of these multiple times, and gradually introduced the phonemes as we met them in new vocabulary.  So I think it would be doable over four years, as long as the phonemes were carefully planned into the scheme of work units.  I can't think of many other phonemes that would need to be included for French.

For Spanish: a, e, i, o, u, b/v, ce/ci/z, -d, ge/gi/j, silent h, ll, ñ, qu, r, rr, gue/gui

I don't know enough German to be able to put a list here.

Thinking about the sentence in the quotation from the CAR above that says "this should align closely with the content and teaching approaches at secondary", I anticipate that activities such as dictation and reading aloud, new arrivals to languages GCSEs, will make their way into Key Stage 2 in a more formal way to aid phonics practice.

Vocabulary

It is generally agreed that by the end of Year 6, children will have reached level A1 of the Common European Framework.  The estimated vocabulary size is between 500 and 1000 words to reach this level.  Given the time restraints to which we are subject in Key Stage 2, 500 seems reasonable.  This would work out at about 125 words per year over Key Stage 2, or an average of 3 or 4 new words per week.  This seems doable.

It is likely that the vocabulary list will be informed by word frequency, as has happened in the secondary sector,  and which is also a feature of some primary schemes of work now.  The verbs will be important - you can't make a sentence without them after all - and the chosen nouns will need to be relevant to the experiences and interests of children age 7-11.  I think that this will be a good opportunity to include here the themes and topic areas which might be commonly included in lower Key Stage 3 but are too immature for them, as well as the lists of words that would be useful for new Year 7 students to have under their belt in order to hit the ground running in secondary.  Other aspects of vocabulary, such as days and months, link well to other topics in the primary curriculum such as Romans.

My suggestions for vocabulary are:

1. basic greetings and saying your name
2. titles e.g. Señora, Monsieur
3. common first names from the target-language speaking countries
4. some commonly used classroom instructions, to support target language use in secondary
5. saying how you feel (answering the question How are you?)
6. numbers to 100 (admittedly more complex for French than for Spanish and German)
7. colours
8. other basic adjectives, e.g. of size and shape
9. days of the week
10. months of the year
11. items in the pencil case (very important for younger children!)
12. animals / pets
13. members of the family
14. planets (links to Year 5 Space topic)
15. opinions (saying what you like/don't like/love/hate)

Grammar

The grammar section of the Key Stage 2 Programme of Study is brief:

The ASCL Transition Toolkit (link to Spanish overview) was put together by ASCL, the British Council and the Association for Language Learning.  When we were compiling it, we took the brief statements in the Programme of Study and unpicked them to see what would actually be involved.  I use the toolkit every year to inform the secondary schools what my Year 6s have done, and I think that it makes a good starting point for these discussions.  I also unpicked the grammar from the Programme of Study and put it in these mind maps.

It's worth noting at this point that the terminology of certain grammatical points is different in the English curriculum and the Languages curriculum, for example articles vs. determiners and possessive adjectives vs. possessive pronouns.  This reset of the curriculum might be the opportunity for some more joined-up thinking across the curricula for "native" and "foreign" languages.

My suggestions for grammar to cover these points are:

1. notion of grammatical gender
2. nouns (patterns, how they are affected by grammatical gender)
3. determiners (definite and indefinite articles + numbers)
4. plural forms
5. adjectival position
6. adjectival agreement
7. question words
8. conjunctions (and, but, however)
9. intensifiers (very, quite)
10. subject pronouns (although not used a great deal in Spanish)
11. first three persons (I, you, he/she/it) of the high-frequency irregular verbs to be, to have, to do/make, to want, to go
12. first three persons of commonly used regular verbs such as to play, to speak, to listen, to eat, to drink, to like

Do you agree with this list?  

What would you add?  

Would you take anything out?  

Let me know in the comments.

The Curriculum and Assessment Review: reflections from a primary languages practitioner

 

The Curriculum and Assessment Review (CAR) was first commissioned by the Government in July 2024.  The review panel, convened and led by Professor Becky Francis, published their interim report in March 2025, and we were told that the final report would be published "in the autumn".  As we headed towards the October half term holiday the publication date became "very soon".  I was pretty convinced that it would come out on a Sunday in half term, based on past experiences with such things, but was proven wrong, and the review was published on Wednesday November 5th 2025.

Much has been made in the media of the significant changes and new additions to the curriculum proposed by the review.  The recommendations for Languages could be said to be quite insignificant compared to the sometimes quite sweeping changes proposed for other subjects.  I've read the review through a Languages lens (and through the eyes of a teacher of primary languages for 17 years) to see what the implications are for us as teachers of Languages, particularly in the primary sector.

Primary languages have a secure place in the curriculum

In the months leading up to the publication of the CAR I had received messages and had had discussions with professional colleagues about the potential fate of primary languages.  It was rumoured that they would be scrapped.

I was very pleased and relieved to see, therefore, these words on page 24 of the review:

We strongly affirm the value of all the subjects in the national curriculum and basic curriculum.  Each plays a vital role in equipping young people with the knowledge and skills they need to navigate the world, while engaging and contributing to our society and culture, and pursuing their individual aspirations. Whether academic, creative, vocational or physical, every subject contributes to a rich and balanced education. ..... The current subject architecture provides a strong foundation, introduces subjects to young people at the appropriate stage, and allows them to pursue their interests once they have experienced the full range of subjects.

In addition, on page 34 it says:

Subject-specific knowledge remains the best investment in preparing young people for these challenges and opportunities: Science and Maths will remain crucial, as will an understanding of communication and culture, through the humanities, languages, and the arts.

And on page 44:

We also seek to guarantee access to a broad and rich primary curriculum, including subjects such as Citizenship, Languages, and Music.

It goes on to say on page 30 that:

Access to the national curriculum should remain an expectation and an entitlement for all children and young people, including those in specialist and alternative provision.

I'm pleased to see that it is reinforcing the fact that all subjects on the national curriculum, Languages in Key Stage 2 in my case, should be taught to all children.  So Language learning should happen regularly, and all children should be accessing it.  The CAR stresses the importance (for example on pages 30 and 33) of inclusion and not limiting children's life chances by denying them the opportunity to access certain parts of the curriculum.

The Government, in its response to the CAR, agrees that Each subject in the national curriculum plays a vital role in a child's education. (page 8)

It's a little disappointing that Languages are still the only subject not taught in Key Stage 1 (see pages 18 and 19 of the review which shows the national curriculum overview).  The argument has always been that starting at age 7 brings us in line with our European neighbours.

Time for primary Languages

The Executive Summary of the review says: 

The statutory guidance for the current national curriculum* says that it is 'just one element in the education of every child'; it was not intended to take up an entire school day.   (page 9)

*Aims of the national curriculum, section 3.2

One of the difficulties facing Languages in Key Stage 2 is fitting it into the school week.  The Language Trends reports each year ask how long lessons are in different schools.  In many primary schools Languages lessons are 30, maybe 45, minutes long, but it is generally agreed that in order to make the "substantial progress in one language" required by the national curriculum lessons should be one hour a week.  

I was unaware that the national curriculum should fit into the school week with room to spare, simply because all subjects are squeezed, and every available minute is used to fit all the subjects in.  I don't know of any primary schools where time is left free during the school week for enrichment activities.  We hear of schools where Languages can't be fitted into the curriculum on a regular basis.  If more time is needed during the week for, say, English or maths, it is often Languages that are sacrificed.

Page 30 of the CAR says:

By ensuring that the volume of content in the national curriculum is appropriate for the teaching time that is available, we aim to give schools sufficient time to consolidate learning, as well as the space to provide the enrichment activities and life skills that prepare young people for life and work.

It will be very interesting to see, come the revised curriculum in 2028, how this will happen.  In the Government response to the CAR, it says that Ofsted will consider how schools are meeting enrichment expectations when judging the personal development grade (page 11).

The allocation of little time to Languages (less than 30 minutes a week in Key Stage 2 and less than two hours a week in secondary) is reported as a challenge for language teaching (page 88), despite evidence showing that more time is needed to make significant progress.

Oracy

The CAR has a focus on oracy, which it says incorporates speaking, listening and communication (page 42).   Amongst its recommendations are introducing an oracy framework to support practice and to complement the existing frameworks for Reading and Writing.

This clearly has significant overlap with our work in Languages, so hopefully speaking, listening and communication in a language other than English will feature in the new framework.

The Government has agreed, in its response to the CAR, to create the oracy framework, to support primary schools to ensure that their pupils become confident, fluent speakers and listeners by the end of key stage 2.  I'm sure that this would translate well into Languages as well.

Recommendation for primary language teaching: a defined minimum core content within the Programme of Study

The CAR acknowledges that:

... many of the foundation subjects in the national curriculum lack detail, which means that teachers are unclear about what is sufficient in terms of depth or breadth.  This lack of clarity also leads to inconsistent coverage of content across schools, making it challenging to ensure knowledge is built coherently and sequentially across the key stages. (page 44)

This has certainly been the case with Key Stage 2 Languages since their introduction as a compulsory subject in 2014.  The Programme of Study is vague and doesn't make clear exactly what the "substantial progress in one language" should look like.  It has therefore been interpreted differently by different providers, schools and teachers.

On page 49 it clarifies that:

...greater specificity should not mean greater volume of content and should not unnecessarily impede schools' or teachers' autonomy.  Foundation subjects' Programmes of Study should be drafted with a minimalist approach to added detail, carefully balanced with the need to ensure the greater specificity which aids conceptual mastery, continuity and coherence.

One concern with having a list of specified content is that certain schools might see it as something they don't have to teach regularly in all four years of Key Stage 2, building up and embedding the language over a longer period of time.  Rather they may decide to teach it in one block, for example in Year 6 after SATs, a pattern that has been seen in the past with the current curriculum.  While time allocations will still not be applied, it will have to be made clear that Languages lessons should take place regularly over four years, just like all the other Foundation subjects.

There is also the possibility that, presented with a list of specified content, certain schools or teachers may just teach the list.  To clarify this issue the CAR says, on page 51:

The national curriculum in intended as a baseline rather than imposing limits, and it is the expertise of our teachers that brings it to life in the classroom.

It also states the following curriculum principle:

The refreshed national curriculum should ensure the professional autonomy of teachers is maintained, making sure that greater specificity does not substantially restrict teachers' flexibility to choose lesson content and how to teach it. (page 51)

In the Languages-specific section, on page 90, the CAR says that it agrees that:

a minimum core content for French, German and Spanish would provide greater clarity and consistency, especially for non-specialist teachers.  Covering commonly occurring phonics, vocabulary and grammar, this should align closely with the content and teaching approaches at secondary and thus build more securely the foundations of knowledge for success at Key Stage 4 and beyond more securely.  This should support a smoother transition into Key Stage 3. .... With a shared understanding of what constitutes 'substantial progress' in a language, secondary schools would be better equipped to build on students' prior learning. (page 90)

The creation of a list of minimum core content was a recommendation of the 2019 White Paper, and something that has been agreed for some time would facilitate better outcomes for primary Languages.  It is pleasing to see, therefore, the following recommendation of the CAR:

We recommend that the Government updates the Key Stage 2 Languages Programme of Study to include a clearly defined minimum core content for French, German and Spanish to standardise expectations about what 'substantial progress in one language' looks like. (page 91) 

Recommendation for primary Languages: improved transition to Key Stage 3

Page 45 of the CAR talks about the transition between Key Stage 2 and Key Stage 3, the move from primary school to secondary school at age 11, from a general point of view.  Those of us who teach Languages in either primary or secondary schools are well aware of the problems of transition.  There is little communication between the two sectors and more often than not children start the language again from scratch in Year 7, regardless of whether or not the primary schools have passed on information about the Key Stage 2 language learning.  Speaking personally, I always send information about my Year 6s to the secondary schools that they are transferring to.  I usually receive few replies or acknowledgements from the secondary schools.  Language learning is only compulsory in England from age 7 to age 14, so it is crucial that we make these few years count, and effective transition is vital for this.  However I have certainly been talking about and advising on transition for nearly 20 years, and we are no further forward.  In fact I would say that we have taken a backward step.

I found the following very interesting:

Stakeholders frequently report that secondary schools tend to plan their Key Stage 3 curriculum backwards from GCSE requirements rather than forward from Key Stage 2 learning, resulting in repetition and leading to disengagement, especially among higher-attaining students. (page 45)

This certainly sheds a light on the problems that we face with Languages.  A more prescribed content for Key Stage 2 will hopefully go a long way to helping secondary schools to look at their Year 7 curriculum, taking into account prior learning in Key Stage 2 and not assuming that Year 7s are beginner learners.  The CAR has recommended that the EBacc is discontinued, which has caused concern amongst the secondary Languages community.  Learners have been encouraged to take a language for GCSE in order to improve their school's EBacc figures.  In the future, effective transition will contribute to not switching off learners who are bored by repeating Key Stage 2 learning and don't see themselves learning anything new.

Transition is at the centre of the second of the primary languages specific recommendations:

We recommend that local authorities, multi-academy trusts and schools should explore the potential benefits of a coordinated approach in their local areas to the main language taught from Key Stage 2 through to Key Stage 4, taking account of their local context and priorities.  The Government should look to encourage this activity where appropriate. (page 91)

I fear, with the system that we have of local authority maintained schools and many separate multi-academy trusts, that the system may be too disjointed to support this.

As an afterthought, I think that the opportunity could have been taken here to rename the subject so that it is the same in both primary and secondary (it's currently Foreign Languages in Key Stage 2 and Modern Foreign Languages in Key Stage 3) and so that we can dispense with the word 'foreign' and its negative connotations.  Having the same name across the key stages would go a little way to unifying the two sectors.

Crossing the curriculum

Another theme of the CAR is making horizontal links across subjects to highlight where content in one area relies on content in another (page 49).  In order to achieve and facilitate this, the review recommends that:

[The Government] develops the national curriculum as a digital product that can support teachers to navigate content easily and to see and make connections across key stages and disciplines. (page 52)

This could potentially be very useful for Languages.  Stakeholders in other subjects would finally be able to see in black and white how many different areas and themes language teaching addresses.  The digitalised curriculum has been agreed by the Government in their response.

The Government response

The Government, in its response to the CAR, has agreed to refresh the programmes of study for each curriculum subject in line with the Review's recommendations.  It agrees with the two recommendations which refer directly to primary Languages (page 33).

They have also added two further intentions for Languages that were not part of the CAR.  The first is: 

We will explore the feasibility of developing a new qualification which enables all pupils to have their achievements acknowledged when they are ready rather than at fixed points.  We will learn from models such as the Languages Ladder .... We will optimise the use of technology to minimise teacher workload and make assessment more engaging for pupils.  We are working closely with stakeholders to establish the viability of such a qualification, making sure it meets the needs of schools and pupils, before making any decision on whether to introduce it. (page 33)

So this sounds like predominantly an assessment for the end of Key Stage 3 (age 14).  It does not make clear if the end of Key Stage 2 will be included.  This could work well for children who do a different language in secondary school to the one they did in primary.  In my opinion the Government will have to ensure that the qualification has real currency in young people's future workplaces and that they are understood by employers.

The second is:

We will explore how AI and education technology (edtech) can support stronger outcomes in language education, including exploring how these tools can help deliver consistent curriculum content and support more coherent language provision across key stages, as well as reduce teacher workload.

Moving forward 

The new and revised curriculum will be published in 2027 for first teaching in 2028. 

The Government will continue to invest in the NCLE and its online portal but hasn't made clear if the remit of NCLE will therefore reach down into Key Stage 2.

We will wait to see who will be asked to lead on the renovation of the programme of study and the creation of the list of minimum core content.  NCLE, in their reaction to the CAR for Languages, says:

We are looking forward to working with the Department for Education to redefine the core language learning in primary schools

I hope that this isn't a done deal, and that other teachers, organisations and stakeholders will be able to have some input as well.

The usual in an unusual way

This year in both my schools I have Year 3, Year 4 and Year 3/4 classes. For that reason I have had to devise a mixed age, two-year scheme of work. All three classes are working on the same curriculum (Cycle A of the scheme of work) this year. Because I have Year 4 children with one year of formal Spanish learning in the same class as Year 3 children who are beginners, I have had to seek a different context in which to introduce basic greetings, saying your name and first phonics, so that everyone can learn something new.

I chose the context of animals and the continents that they come from. This means that I can use soy instead of me llamo for saying their name (something new for the Year 4s) and then reuse soy in sentences such as Soy de Europa.

I chose the animal vocabulary and the first names so that they cover all the main phonemes/graphemes that we cover in Key Stage 2 Spanish, and also ensured that there was a good spread of names ending in -o, names ending in -a and names ending in neither for our first look at grammatical gender.

This video is designed to play at the beginning of a lesson while the children are getting ready, to introduce them to the animals and to begin to show them which continents the animals come from.

Do you adapt your scheme of work to cater for a range of student experience of language learning? Do you do the usual in an unusual way?

The place of British Sign Language in the National Curriculum

There has been some discussion on social media recently about whether or not British Sign Language (BSL) can be taught in primary schools to fulfill the Foreign Languages requirement of the National Curriculum for Key Stage 2.

There's no denying that the ability to communicate via BSL is a useful skill and that teaching it promotes inclusion and diversity.  However it is also clear that there are some aspects of the programme of study for Key Stage 2 that can't be completed with BSL.

Last week I contacted the Department for Education (DfE) to ask if BSL can be taught instead of, say, French or Spanish in Key Stage 2.  This afternoon I received the following reply:

Substantive and disciplinary knowledge: what does it mean for Languages?

In 2021 Ofsted began publishing a series of curriculum research reviews.  The Languages Curriculum Research Review (Languages OCRR) was the fourth in the series, and was published in June 2021.

The first in the series was Science, which came out in April 2021.  It featured substantive knowledge and disciplinary knowledge.  This is an excerpt from the Science OCRR:

The terms also appear in the OCRRs for History, Geography and RE, while disciplinary knowledge only is mentioned in the OCRRs for Art and Design, and English.  There no mentions in the OCRRs for Computing, PE, Maths, Music or Languages.

These terms appear to be replacing the "knowing more and remembering more" maxim.  I have found out this week that it has permeated into other subjects, and I have heard anecdotally that it has come up in some recent Ofsted inspections.  Schools have already rewritten their curricula to accommodate the "3 Is" (Intent, Implementation and Impact), language teachers have had to factor in the 3 Pillars (Vocabulary, Grammar and Phonics), and schools are now being encouraged to revisit their curricula and reframe them in terms of substantive and disciplinary knowledge.  We will all need to think about what substantive knowledge and disciplinary knowledge look like in our subject.  

So what are substantive and disciplinary knowledge in Languages?

Christie Counsell, in her article Taking curriculum seriously, says that "Substantive knowledge is the content that teachers teach as established fact".  Disciplinary knowledge, on the other hand, "is a curricular term for what pupils learn about how that knowledge was established, its degree of certainty and how it continues to be revised by scholars, artists or professional practice."

She then goes on to say that "This substantive-disciplinary distinction works to differing extents and in very different ways across subjects. The disciplinary dimension is barely relevant, for example, in school-level modern languages."  It is possible that this may support its omission from the Languages OCRR.

Despite this, a Google search for "disciplinary knowledge in languages" reveals that a number of schools have already rewritten their subject paperwork to include mention of substantive and disciplinary knowledge, and it is clear that they have interpreted the two kinds of knowledge in a number of different ways.

I've been reading around the subject, and have put together a list of bullet points for each type of knowledge:

Substantive knowledge	Disciplinary knowledge
Teacher input Focus on meaning Vocabulary Grammar Phonics The content that is to be learned Carefully chosen and sequenced factual content The facts Rules and methods “Knowing what”	Learner output The big ideas Thinking like a linguist Thinking like a French/Spanish/German speaker Practising the language Using the language creatively Asking questions Planning Evaluating Presenting Problem-solving Critical thinking Choosing and selecting Making connections “Knowing how to”

To put that into some context, I'll use a series of lessons I've recently completed with some Year 4 (age 8-9) beginners in French.  The substantive knowledge that I taught them was 10 animals with the indefinite article, including the phonemes in each word.  Then I taught them the difference between masculine and feminine nouns, and how to use the indefinite article to differentiate between the two.  Finally, as per the scheme of work we are using, I taught them je suis, which enabled us to practise short sentences such as Je suis un oiseau. and Je suis une souris.  I then wanted the children to take what they had learned and to apply it in their own work.  I gave them a bilingual glossary with many more animal words, and asked them to use their knowledge to write je suis sentences, and work out the correct indefinite article for each animal.  For this task they called on their disciplinary knowledge, applying the rules they had learned to solve a problem.

This shows how important it is to build into our schemes of work frequent opportunities for the children to demonstrate what they have learned, to be creative with the language, to "think like a linguist".

How does this picture of substantive and disciplinary knowledge fit in with yours?  All constructive comments welcome!

Finally, many thanks to Dr Gianfranco Conti for pointing out the similarities here with Krashen's Acquisition-Learning Hypothesis, which was a great help for me in getting my thoughts in order.

ALL Primary Languages Conference Online 6.11.21

 

The conference has just finished - what a day!  Packed with great presentations and loads of great ideas to take away.

In my keynote I went through the history of primary languages, to see if we can learn anything from the past about what we want primary languages to look like now.  Rather than paste a link to my PowerPoint, which is just a timeline with a few words on, I've created a proper timeline infographic:

At the end of the keynote I set out my call for action:

What is our wish list then for an ambitious primary curriculum that really works?  Where should we be heading on our journey?  Here is my wish list:

• First of all:  schools should have easy access to quality schemes of work that are achievable by specialists and non-specialists alike, accompanied by resources that exemplify the best practice in primary languages, which are suitable for all ages and ranges of ability, and which tick all the boxes of the national curriculum programme of study.  Do we think that there should be a national, standard scheme of work?  I’ll leave you to ponder that one.
  
  
• Secondly, we need some kind of guidance as to the optimum time allocation, ideally from the DfE, so that schools can provide enough time for primary languages, to ensure that all children have the potential to make substantial progress in their language.
  
  
• It would also greatly help us in our endeavours if all school leaders saw languages as a help rather than a hindrance, as an asset to their school rather than something to be feared and ignored.  Generally speaking, children have very positive attitudes towards language learning, which we hope they will carry with them into their later lives, and primary schools should be taking full advantage of that.
  We also need to work on the attitudes of some secondary teachers towards primary languages.  If secondary schools and the government want to improve uptake at GCSE and beyond, shouldn’t they be taking full advantage of the opportunities offered by the teaching of languages in primary schools?
  Of course we could also do with an improvement in the attitudes towards language learning in the general population.
  
  
• In our journey through the past we have seen the huge benefits that local, regional and national networks can have for language teaching and learning.  Yes, ALL has the regional and local networks and hubs, all run by volunteers, but isn’t it time that the government lent a financial helping hand? 
  I will add here the need for more training for teacher trainees, who often have to start teaching a language with next to no input during their training.  Of course, a system of training for all teachers who have to teach a language would be invaluable. 
  Finally on the subject of support, wouldn’t it be great to have, as the White Paper recommends, a national taskforce for primary languages, our own version of NCELP to promote excellence and ambition?
  
  
• It would really help if we had a nationally recognised and used assessment scheme, by which we could assess in particular our Year 6s and that Year 7 teachers could use as well so as to avoid starting from scratch with their new students.  It would also help all schools to know where their learners should be heading.
  
  
• And last but by no means least – transition.  Did you notice how this one has been an issue since the early days of primary languages?  It was brought up by the languages strategy in 2002, and here we are nearly 20 years later no further forward.  In fact, according to Language Trends, the numbers of primary and secondary schools working together for a smooth and effective transition has been going DOWN.  We have to get this right!

So what do you think?  Are you with me?  We’ve come too far to give up now.  We owe it to the children to get this right – they can’t be ambitious if we are not ambitious on their behalf for a cracking languages curriculum that really works.