Thursday, November 04, 2004
Business will pay the price of language teaching collapse
See also BBC NEWS | Education | Compulsory language lessons fall
Only one in three schools in England make all pupils study a foreign language at GCSE level, according to a new survey commissioned by the National Centre for Languages. 97% of independent schools keep languages until 14, but only 30% of state sector schools. This figure has dropped from 57% just one year ago.
The reason? Since September schools in England have no longer been required to teach foregin languages to children over 14. Curriculum changes have simply led to languages being squeezed out.
I have to admit that I was more or less the worst at languages in my year at school. I scraped a B at O-level in French and a C in Latin. It wasn't until I went to live in Belgium that I learned to speak French and subsequently Flemish.
But it's a good thing that I did. When I went to work for Lucas Automotive as a senior manager, I got the job partly because I was able to conduct half of my interview in French.
Unless we only buy from ourselves, the Australians, the Americans, and a few others, and unless we only sell to these same markets, language learning is fundamental to our commercial future. As a German business man once put it to me, 'if you want to buy from us, you can speak English, but if you want to sell to us, you must speak German.'
Britain can simply not afford to abandon language learning. It is time that government looked to the future.
Employers, government and educationalists need to decide what degrees are for
See: BBC NEWS | Education | Degree grades 'in need of update'
In the early 80's, most people who went to university and got an honours degree got a 2:2. In 2003, most got a 2:1 or a first. This is good news for the government, perhaps neutral for educationalists, and bad news for employers.
As an employer, I want to distinguish between job candidates who took their degrees in different years and from different universities, and perhaps in different subjects. I don't want to have to be an expert on vintage years and best universities, as if I was selecting from a wine list. As it is, like most employers I look more carefully at where they got their degree, because most of us have some kind of notion of Oxbridge, Red-brick and New Universities. This is doubtless hugely unfair. But as I don't have much confidence in the grading system, it's the best I have to go on.
For educationalists, the point of the degree is the education, getting people to achieve their personal potential, making them more rounded people. The grade at the end is an unwelcome lottery, where every year some excellent students underachieve, and some people who have a talent for examination papers carry off unexpected laurels.
For the government, of course, a year on year improvement in results is just what the doctor ordered - except for the occasional times when people look back and realise that it is becoming comparatively easier to get a top degree.
It's now generally agreed that the A-level system needs overhauling. Should we now face the same with degrees? Certainly we must do something - either peg degree results at some kind of gold standard, or give employers something more comprehensive to help them choose the right person for the right job.
To do that, of course, employers, government and educationalists are going to have to come to some kind of agreement about what degrees are for.
Previous news
 ÂOctober 2004  Â