Eva Eppler, Zara Fahim and Yuni Kim | 18th November 2024 | Policy Papers
There is a national debate over whether languages A-Levels achieved by native speakers can be accepted for university admissions.
There is no existing policy regarding the status of native speaker A-Levels in the UK university admission process, despite attention from Ofqual (2017).
Research on home, heritage and community languages (HHCLs) shows that native speakers exist on a wide continuum of competencies, and the skills emphasised in A-Levels tend to be ones acquired through formal instruction (much like English). That is, the scientific literature supports the idea that a good A-Level result constitutes an academic achievement by the student, whether or not they have had prior exposure to the language.
Our ethnographic research among speakers of lesser-studied UK heritage languages shows that uncertainty over the value of languages A-Levels for higher education is a deterrent to post-16 uptake.
Our survey of current university admission practices reveals a wide and unsystematic landscape of policies toward native speaker A-Levels.
In the light of the above, we recommend that all language A-Levels should be accepted on an equal basis without regard for the candidate’s background for a more inclusive and equitable university admission process.
Introduction
Modern Foreign Languages (MFL) A-levels were conceived as second-language qualifications aimed at students learning the subject as an additional or foreign language. However, MFL students also include people who have some experience and exposure to the language(s) outside of school. This has led to stakeholder concerns that the proportion of native speakers sitting MFL A-Levels is increasing, and that as a result, both native and non-native speakers are disadvantaged: native speakers are considered to not be appropriately rewarded for their performance, while non-native speakers are considered to be disadvantaged due to the presence of native speakers. In response to these concerns, Ofqual (2017) conducted research on the issue and concluded that: i) it is challenging to identify native speakers to the extent that monitoring their presence would not be practical; ii) any effects of native speakers on the maintenance of standards appear to be smaller than anticipated by stakeholders; and iii) native speakers (insofar as they are identifiable) have more potential to improve their results between GCSE and A-Level than do non-native speakers.
From a university perspective, the underlying – if often unarticulated – question is whether an A-Level qualification in a native language constitutes an academic achievement on a par with other A-Level subjects, and whether it should be accepted for undergraduate admission. Despite the Ofqual (2017) study, there remain no national guidelines: we have a policy gap. Universities – and even individual courses within the same university – have diverging policies, with no sign of a unified, evidence-based framework. Particularly urgent is the issue of A-Level qualifications in home, heritage and community languages that are not commonly taught in mainstream schools (such as Polish, Urdu, and Punjabi), where the majority of students may have (or may be assumed by others to have) extracurricular exposure to the language. The lack of clear policies, combined with families’ uncertainty around the value of these languages for young people’s futures, constitute a double whammy for uptake of these qualifications. Thus a policy intervention may be desirable in order for the UK to maximise the human, societal, and economic advantages of its linguistic diversity.
In this paper, we survey recent research on heritage languages and establish that there is no scientifically coherent dichotomy between native and non-native speakers, particularly in the competencies assessed by A-Level examinations. We also surveyed A-Level admissions policies at 135 UK universities, revealing wide variation in their treatment of MFL A-Level qualifications. Based on a classification of existing policies, combined with evidence from Fahim’s (2023) ethnographic study of heritage-language qualification uptake, we identify best practices around native speaker MFL A-Levels and recommend that they be implemented across the UK university sector. We hope this paper will provide a bridge for Ofqual and the research literature to be translated into positive, evidence-backed action.
The challenge of identifying 'native speakers'
The Ofqual (2017) study provides an instructive example of the difficulties in attempting to classify students as either native or non-native. While acknowledging that native speakers exist on a continuum, the authors point out that the purpose of the study – and the possibility of setting separate standards – require operationalisation of a native/non-native dichotomy. The problems start with the National Pupil Database (NPD). The NPD contains data on each student’s first language but does not allow for the possibility of multiple first languages, and only covers approx. 60% of the overall A-Level student population (June 2015). The authors of Ofqual (2017) thus adopt quantitative methods, an adapted version of the Language Experience and Proficiency Questionnaire (aka LEAP-Q), a validated questionnaire tool for collecting self-reported proficiency and experience data from bilingual and multilingual speakers, only to conclude that the questionnaire responses also cannot be used to reliably identify native speakers (due to a small sample size and concerns about the reliability of responses). They therefore rely on teachers’ perceptions of whether each student was a native speaker of the language being studied. Identified limitations of this approach are the risk of underestimating native speakers (due to lack of knowledge about family background), risk of overestimating (due to variation in students’ language skills) and the limited sample size. The paper concludes that regularly monitoring the presence of native speakers in A-Level MFL would not be proportionate or possible.
The idea that native speakers exist on a continuum is further reinforced in a recent interdisciplinary volume on the notion of the native speaker (Vulchanova, Vulchanov, Sorace, Suarez-Gomez & Guijarro-Fuentes 2022), which highlights its importance as a norm/standard to evaluate L2 attainment, while challenging unitary perspectives on a single native-speaker standard and arguing for the recognition of different populations which can all be characterised as native speakers. The argument primarily rests on the well-documented individual variation in language competence. Findings from the volume that are particularly relevant to the Ofqual (2017) research are that this variation undermines general statements about quantitative expectations (cf. Ofqual’s use of the LEAP-Q), even in the L1. Defining what constitutes a native speaker is even more problematic in HHCL speaker populations than in other bilingual populations. Language attrition in first-generation L1 speakers and inter-generational attrition can lead to a change in heritage language competence among second- and subsequent generations as a result of quantitatively and/or qualitatively modified input. In summary, Vulchanova et al. (2022) argue for careful consideration of internal (cognitive) and external (age, sibling order and context of acquisition; quantity and quality of input; as well as social/cultural identity) factors which may influence the acquisition of another language to proficiency levels comparable with monolingual native competence. They consequently suggest that a reconceptualization of the notion of native speakers is mandatory for the purpose of L2 instruction.
Like Vulchanova et al. (2022), Montrul and Polinsky (2019) argue against the widespread idea that native speakers ‘know’ their language and thus require no formal education in it. They highlight that heritage speakers never demonstrate similar language competence to peers in the home country, even if they achieve native-like mastery of basic grammar. In fact, they often display systemic deviations relative to age-matched children raised and educated in the country of origin across several structural components of the language (phonology, morphology, syntax, semantics), may speak a colloquial variety, or may even be unfamiliar with the standard language and/or formal registers. Therefore, language competence among heritage speakers, far from being one-dimensional, comprises a mosaic of skills. Indeed, Ofqual (2017) also note that the effect of being a native speaker may differ depending on the skills being assessed, with native speakers potentially being particularly advantaged in the speaking elements of the assessment (but disadvantaged elsewhere).
Impact on A-Level uptake of (heritage) languages
The misalignment between native speaker competences developed in heritage-language contexts and those assessed in A-Level exams (e.g. knowledge of pertinent syntactic structures and advanced vocabulary to talk about past, present, future and hypothetical events which are usually gained through formal academic instruction) is taken up by Fahim (2023) to argue that it can also impact the uptake of heritage language A-Levels.
The inconsistencies in classifying and assessing native and heritage speakers combined with various university policies disregarding language qualifications from speakers who have used their language(s) outside of mainstream education also have discriminatory implications on the uptake of A-Level languages by young people from ethnic minorities, in particular – a demographic already absent in the post-16 MFL classroom. Already, despite the growing number of multilingual speakers in English schools, Fahim (2023) documents a disconnect between community language use and uptake of community languages at post-compulsory level: in Fahim’s (2023) study of 319 recent school leavers, 76 per cent of recent school leavers from ‘underrepresented groups’ reported knowing at least one community language, but 82 per cent of this sample chose not to pursue a qualification in it. In the case of many heritage and community languages, the national widespread ‘languages crisis’ thus converges with the ‘languages hierarchy’ apparent in UK schools, whereby the so-called ‘big 3’ (French, German, Spanish) enjoy a privileged position in terms of resources and status. This not only discourages students with a genuine academic passion for their heritage language(s) – in fear of their qualification not being accepted by universities – but the lack of unified national HE policies further contributes to anxieties and confusion faced by heritage speakers: Fahim (2023) notes that these policies inadvertently promote risk aversion in career and degree choices among heritage speakers from immigrant families, who turn to prioritising more ‘secure’ subjects (e.g., Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics) over languages.
Picking up on the difficulties in attempting to classify students as either native or non-native again, Fahim (2023) notes that it is unclear how native-speaker status is ascertained in the admissions process. For the author is not inconceivable that applicants with an ethnically identifiable name or surname may hesitate to pursue a (heritage) language A-Level qualification if there is even the slightest room for doubt about whether a different subject would be more advantageous. This issue is further compounded by concerns over the severe grading of A-Level languages. In turn, fewer students studying a language at A-Level further leads to a decline in the number of students progressing to a language degree and the closure and restructuring of Modern Languages departments nationally (HESA 2016; 2017).
Because a primary purpose of A-Level qualifications is to demonstrate preparedness for a university degree, one might imagine that university policies – or even perceptions of possible or likely policies – around acceptance of A-Levels for undergraduate admission will have a direct impact on the uptake of the qualifications. Therefore, universities can play a key role in boosting both participation and prestige of lesser-studied MFL A-levels, contributing to a more equitable and inclusive educational system that reflects the diversity of the modern UK.
Existing practices
We move on to the question of what message UK universities are currently sending around heritage-language A-Level qualifications. Due to a lack of existing data, we undertook our own survey. We visited the admissions webpages of 135 UK universities. These represent the totality of the universities we were able to identify that offer undergraduate degrees in the UK, omitting institutions specialised exclusively in the performing arts.
About 10% of institutions (14 of the 135) explicitly mention the topic of native-speaker MFL A-Levels on their central admissions webpages. Objectively, this is a lower percentage than what the anecdotal prominence of the issue might lead one to expect; but we note that 10 of the 24 Russell Group universities fall into this category, implying that the question is more salient at selective or prestigious institutions (which tend to have higher tariff for entry requirements).
Among the 14 that state a university-wide policy surrounding native-speaker A-Levels, 8 of them proactively welcome these qualifications and make clear that they are considered on an equal basis with any other A-Level, in a language or otherwise. These are Bath, Lancaster, Surrey, and Winchester together with Russell Group institutions, Bristol, King’s College London, Manchester, and Oxford.
Within the Russell Group, a further 5 universities state that they usually accept native-language A-Level qualifications, but that there may be exceptions for certain courses which will not accept them. None of them identify the courses where special conditions apply. Although it is helpful to some extent to have confirmation that native-language A-Levels are not automatically discounted across the board, we note that all of the webpages operate with a native/non-native dichotomy, which, as we have seen, is not an empirically sound proxy for the degree of academic challenge presented by the A-Level curriculum.
More worryingly, wordings such as “we may not be able to accept a language qualification designed for non-native speakers when presented by a native speaker”, explicitly referring to A-Levels, is misleading in the light of the fact that no languages A-Level (save Welsh and the International Baccalaureate) bears an official designation as a native or non-native qualification. Similarly, a sixth Russell Group university states that in the case of multilingual applicants, they “differentiate between language learning qualifications and those designed for competent language users,” leaving ambiguity about which qualifications are considered to belong to each category – let alone whether such a classification is empirically correct.
An important finding is that among the 120 universities that do not highlight native-speaker language qualifications on their central admissions websites, there is still significant variation around wording and clarity that define a wide space of potential influence on A-Level uptake of heritage-language qualifications. One prestigious institution provides a webpage with advice on choosing A-level subjects, which recommends “a language, such as French, German, Spanish, or Latin” as suitable for arts, humanities, and social-science applicants. In contrast, several universities provide long lists of every A-Level qualification accepted. The lists include languages commonly spoken as community languages (e.g., Arabic, Gujarati) and native-speaker status is not mentioned as a consideration. Other universities do not provide a list, but clearly state that all A-Levels are accepted (sometimes excepting General Studies and Critical Thinking) and/or that all subjects are treated equally.
Many universities do not give a university-wide overview of entry requirements on a central admissions webpage, but rather refer applicants directly to individual course pages for course-specific requirements. For most institutions, a spot-check of 1-2 course pages did not reveal any restrictions pertaining to languages.
However, at a small number of institutions, it is apparent that individual departments make their own decisions about native-language A-Levels without centralised coordination. One Architecture course states that “[n]ative language A Levels are not accepted,” whereas the same institution’s central webpage says only that “[f]or some courses, we may not be able to accept a language qualification designed for non-native speakers when presented by a native speaker.” We recently learned that the department will remove this restriction as a result of two years of individual lobbying, but the website is still unchanged at the time of writing. Similarly, one course in Medicine states that “[i]f a candidate’s third A-Level is a language subject other than English of which they are a home- or native speaker, then an adjusted offer will be made to reflect this if they get to offer stage. We will ask candidates to sign a declaration as to whether they are a native or home speaker of that language later in the application process,” whereas Economics at the same university states that “[o]wn language may be considered.” Through the Committee for Linguistics in Education (a joint committee of the British Association for Applied Linguistics and the Linguistics Association of Great Britain and Northern Ireland), we are aware of several cases where individual departments have been happy to adjust their policy when provided with the research-informed evidence for doing so.
Notably, no university surveyed restricts the validity of A-Levels in any subject other than languages on the basis of personal or extracurricular experience. No university, for example, adjusts its offer for the Food Technology A-Level if a student’s parent or carer is a chef; likewise, no student submitting a Music A-level is required to sign a declaration about having taken music lessons since infancy.
Overall, the UK shows a lack of systematicity in university admissions practices around languages A-Levels from students with HHCL experience. Much existing practice is based on assumptions around native-speaker status and competence that are not borne out by research. Because the small proportion of explicitly stated policies varies widely, students may currently need to factor in this uncertainty at the point of choosing A-level subjects, if they are unsure which university courses they will later apply to. Individual lobbying is clearly undependable and inefficient; a standard, evidence-based framework is needed.
Policy Recommendations
The only existing policy recommendation from Ofqual (2017: 2) is “that routinely monitoring the presence of native speakers in A-Level MFL each year would not be possible and attempts to do so would not be proportionate.” Because, as we have seen, being exposed to a language outside the educational context does not define a coherent group in terms of linguistic skills, we propose a reassessment of policy perspectives based on the empirically flawed native vs. non-native dichotomy. In line with previous research, we have argued the native vs. non-native speaker dichotomy that is currently practised by some UK HE institutions in their admission process is unrealistic and impractical in the light of the variation in language competencies and skills amply documented among so called native-speaker populations. Our policy recommendations are therefore as follows:
All language A-Levels should be accepted on an equal basis without regard for the candidate’s background.
It is good practice for admissions websites to use phrasing that eliminates doubt, preferably on a central, institution-wide website, about whether certain languages A-Levels can be accepted.
Bearing in mind the legal autonomy of HEIs to establish their own admissions policies, it is up to individual institutions to implement these recommendations. However, the widespread adoption of clear and inclusive practice would not only reduce ambiguity and anxieties among students, but also promote the uptake of post-compulsory language qualifications in schools, especially of lesser-studied HHCL. Implementing such policies, as echoed in previous research, ultimately promotes a more inclusive and equitable (higher) education system that reflects the increasing linguistic diversity and culturally-enriched society of the UK.
References
Ayers-Bennett, Wendy. 2024. Report on Modern Languages Closures and Restructurings, https://university-council-for-languages.org/2024/07/08/report-on-modern-languages-closures-and-restructurings/ [accessed 23 October 2024].
Collen, Ian and Jayne Duff. 2024. Language Trends England 2024, https://www.britishcouncil.org/sites/default/files/language_trend_england_2024.pdf [accessed 13 October 2024].
Department for Education. 2023. Modern foreign languages GCE AS and A level subject content.
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/64aebaa0fe36e0000d6fa848/GCE_AS_and_A_level_subject_content_for_modern_foreign_languages.pdf [accessed 13 October 2024].
.
Fahim, Zara. 2023. ‘Choosing to Study Post-compulsory Modern Foreign Languages in England: Motivations, Sociolinguistic Trends and the Context of BAME,’ Journal of the Undergraduate Linguistics Association of Britain, 2:1: 8-63.
HESA. 2016. Higher education student enrolments and qualifications obtained at higher education providers in the United Kingdom 2014/15, https://www.hesa.ac.uk/news/14-01-2016/sfr224-enrolments-and-qualifications [accessed 13 October 2024].
Montrul, Silvina and Maria Polinsky. 2019. ‘Introduction to heritage language development,’ in The Oxford Handbook of Language Attrition, ed. by Monika. S. Schmid and Barbara Köpke (Oxford: Oxford University Press).
Ofqual. 2017. Native speakers in A Level modern foreign languages, https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/native-speakers-in-a-level-modern-foreign-languages [accessed 9 July 2024].
Vulchanova, Mila, Valentin Vulchanov, Antonella Sorace, Cristina Suarez-Gomez, and Pedro Guijarro-Fuentes. 2022. ‘Editorial: The Notion of the Native Speaker Put to the Test: Recent Research Advances’, Frontiers in Psychology, 13:875740.
Cite this paper
Eppler, Eva, Fahim, Zara and Kim, Yuni. 2024. ‘Rethinking language qualifications in the UK university admission process: the case of native vs non-native speakers’. Languages, Society and Policy.
Insert Pdf
About the Authors
Eva Duran Eppler is a linguist whose main interest lies in the multilingualism of minority communities which she has explored from sociolinguistic, psycholinguistic and educational angels. She is Reader at the University of Roehampton and chair of the Committee for Linguistics in Education. She is currently engaged in a UKRI funded project on endangered minority languages (RISE UP).
Zara Fahim is an AHRC-funded Midlands4Cities PhD researcher in Linguistics (Modern Languages) at the University of Nottingham, focusing on language contact and emerging vernaculars in diverse urban contexts. She has previously specialised in comparative Romance syntax and dialectology; and remains dedicated to MFL outreach and widening participation (particularly among minority groups). She tweets on X at: @zarafahim15. @lagbling. @UCFLangs.
Yuni Kim is Strategic Research Development Manager at the University of Surrey, and was formerly a Lecturer in Linguistics at the University of Manchester and Senior Lecturer at the University of Essex. Her research interests are phonology, grammar, and documentation of minority and Indigenous languages.
コメント