Emma Humphries, Janice Carruthers and Leanne Henderson | 26th November 2024 | Policy Papers
Improved levels of qualifications in home, heritage and community languages (HHCLs) have significant potential to bring individual, societal, cultural and economic benefits for the UK. Harnessing that potential necessitates a more joined-up policy approach and collaboration between key stakeholders.
Our research engaged participants in both mainstream and complementary schools, using focus groups with young people and semi-structured interviews with teachers, as well as an analysis of university admissions procedures.
We show that the attitudes and experiences of pupils are highly variable across the system, in relation to the perceived value of their HHCL and an associated qualification, and also in terms of awareness of and access to a qualification.
There are significant differences in the range of supports available to complementary and mainstream schools in enabling young people to become certified in their HHCL, and there is substantial variation across languages.
Approaches to considering HHCL qualifications in university admissions vary widely. In addition to evidence of indifference towards HHCL qualifications, some examples perpetuate a language hierarchy, thereby creating the possibility for inequities to be built into admissions procedures.
Introduction
The positive individual, societal, cultural and economic impacts of increased language skills in the UK are widely recognized, but there is currently a lack of strong, joined-up policy that could underpin the development of these skills (Humphries and Ayres-Bennett 2022). Whilst the need to increase the number of pupils learning languages at school is a major priority, we argue that the language skills of the UK’s multilingual pupils could be harnessed more proactively to positive effect. Most of these pupils do not have access to HHCL education in mainstream schools and only a minority take a qualification in their HHCL. The benefits of certification are multiple and far-reaching. A qualification in a HHCL could positively impact pupils’ employment prospects and their self-confidence, signalling to them and wider society that their language skills are valued and valuable. However, currently in the UK, access to and provision of HHCL qualifications is patchy, inconsistent and reliant on the goodwill and know-how of a number of key stakeholders, including parents and mainstream- and complementary-school teachers.
Thinking specifically about the societal benefits of increased certification in HHCLs, we will argue that pupils with a HHCL other than English should be thought of as a rich but underused ‘resource’, to use Ruíz’s (1984) term. Ruíz’s widely-applied model (1984) posits that language policy can be approached through three different perspectives (‘orientations’): language-as-problem, language-as-resource, and language-as-right. We present the opportunities and challenges relating to HHCL qualifications from a ‘language-as-resource’ orientation, highlighting areas in which HHCLs are currently viewed as a ‘problem’ and where they could (or should) be a ‘right’.
Whilst a number of qualifications and certifications are available to UK-based pupils who speak a HHCL, our discussions with pupils, teachers and universities centred around GCSEs and A-Levels and we refer to these throughout the paper as ‘qualifications’. In 2023, exam boards offered qualifications in 36 languages. Their availability and format, however, are subject to changes brought about through periodic reviews by exam boards, as well as regulatory and policy changes. These can result from multiple factors, including poor availability of speaking examiners; and economic viability in a context of qualifications with low uptake. Pupils with a HHCL for which a qualification exists have three main options for taking the qualification. First, and possibly most conveniently, a pupil’s mainstream school – or another mainstream school – can enter the pupil and host the exams. Second, some complementary schools facilitate, support and host formal qualifications. Complementary schools do not, however, exist for all languages in every community, and very few function as exam centres; consequently, language education and qualifications via this route are not available to all HHCL-speakers. Third, pupils can approach private exam centres; these are separate from schools and host exams for external candidates.
Our study (Humphries, Carruthers and Henderson 2024) draws on data from three sets of stakeholders in Northern Ireland:
Multilingual pupils aged 14-18, from mainstream and complementary schools (collected in nine focus groups in five schools);
Teaching staff from mainstream and complementary schools (semi-structured interviews with 13 teachers in 11 schools);
Admissions teams at UK universities (one semi-structured interview and desk-based research).
The topics covered included the process of entering pupils for HHCL qualifications, pupil and parent motivations, the perceived value of HHCL qualifications, and the position of universities on HHCL qualifications in admissions processes. Three main themes developed from analysis of the data: inequitable accessibility and provision; teaching and assessment challenges; and mixed views of the value of home language qualifications. In what follows, we present the key findings from our qualitative analysis before making short- and long-term policy recommendations that would support HHCLs from a language-as-resource perspective.
Inequitable accessibility and provision
Accessibility and provision of HHCL qualifications in the UK exists on a spectrum: from good to patchy to non-existent. This is both across languages and within the same language. At the ‘good’ end of the spectrum, we visited a complementary school whose qualification provision has been established for decades. The school provides targeted preparation classes for pupils and has a longstanding link with a local mainstream school that can host the exams. At the other end of the spectrum are teachers at complementary schools who are unaware that a qualification exists in the HHCL that they teach. Three teachers also reported cases of pupils travelling over 50 miles to attend a complementary school for their HHCL. The low uptake of HHCL qualifications reflects this spectrum: of the 32 pupils we spoke to, only 22% had taken a GCSE in their HHCL.
Good provision relies on the alignment of multiple factors. To begin, the qualification must exist. One complementary-school teacher discussed their frustration at the lack of qualifications in their language despite the large population of speakers in the UK. They highlighted the importance of grassroots initiatives to raise governmental awareness of and support for HHCLs for which there are currently no qualifications. To give one example, there are currently no qualifications available for Romanian which, after Polish, is the second most commonly-listed main language in England and Wales (other than English or Welsh) according to 2021 census data. A large proportion of multilingual pupils are categorically excluded from certification in their HHCL.
Our research suggests that, where a qualification exists, their provision relies heavily on the know-how and goodwill of various individuals, most notably mainstream-school and complementary-school staff, as well as familial motivation and knowledge. Not all mainstream schools are willing or able to offer the opportunity to pupils and where it is available, it hinges on a member of staff being prepared to take on the additional administration load. Mainstream-school teachers explained that, to begin the process, in almost all cases, a pupil or parent must approach a member of staff at the school; it is very uncommon for a teacher to suggest the qualification to the pupil. This means that the knowledge and motivation of the family are key. In some fortunate cases, pupils attend a complementary school whose staff are aware of the qualification and can inform pupils and parents of the qualification and support them through the process. However, complementary schools do not exist in all areas for all languages and not all complementary school staff have knowledge of the qualifications. This introduces a further divide to provision, with first-generation immigrants to smaller linguistic communities the most significantly disadvantaged.
Private exam centres are technically available to all pupils and are the only option when a mainstream school is unable or unwilling to host HHCL qualification exams. However, with one interviewee describing their prices as ‘extortion’ and availability limited in some areas (e.g. only three centres in Northern Ireland), this is not a feasible option for many pupils and ensures a socioeconomic divide in terms of provision. The cost of taking a HHCL qualification within a mainstream school varies; in some cases, the school covers the associated costs, in others, the pupil’s family are asked to pay for the exam entrance fee (an average price of £43.91 in England) and possibly the cost of hiring a speaking examiner (which varies greatly). This differs from private exam centres whose fees cover the exam entrance fee, overheads and presumably some profit. To give one example, AQA charged an entry fee of £58.60 for the Panjabi GCSE for the Summer 2024 session; entry to this exam via an exam centre local to one author was £275.00.
Teaching and assessment challenges
Where mainstream schools are willing to host a HHCL qualification, the greatest stumbling block, as described by teachers, is finding an appropriate examiner for the speaking element of the qualification. Most GCSE and A-Level qualifications have a speaking component which must be assessed by a speaker of the language in question. Training for examiners varies depending on the exam board but usually entails watching a short video and using online guidance to get familiar with the exam specification and process. There is currently no formal process for recruiting an examiner. Instead, schools rely on word of mouth and volunteers from the community. If a school is unable to locate an examiner, the pupil(s) simply cannot complete their qualification. Links between mainstream and complementary schools are particularly useful here and we found some evidence of the beneficial sharing of knowledge and logistics between local schools.
Collaboration between schools across the two sectors has additional benefits. The mainstream-school staff we spoke to explained that their role in the process was strictly limited to logistics. Any preparation for the exams themselves fell on the pupils and their families, except in the very fortunate event that a member of staff has competence in the HHCL and is willing to volunteer their time for exam preparation. Crossover of staff between complementary schools and mainstream schools is helpful here, as are situations where a member of the HHCL community works in the mainstream school, although such contexts are relatively rare: complementary schools may have the time and resources to help to prepare pupils for qualifications and those working in mainstream schools may have a better understanding of the process and the exam contents.
Not all pupils we spoke to want to take a qualification in their HHCL. A HHCL qualification, in most instances, will be an additional qualification for a pupil. This means that it is a choice that they must opt in to and for which they must be motivated – we saw above that it is rare that a mainstream school can provide any preparation for the exam. For many pupils the extra exams, the preparation involved and, for some, attendance at a complementary school are unwanted additional pressures which are also time-consuming, potentially affecting their ability to prepare for their other qualifications. For others, their reluctance to seek a qualification in their HHCL stems from a lack of confidence in one or more of the four examined skills (reading, writing, listening and speaking). The experiences reported by young people therefore stand in contrast to criticisms often levelled at HHCL qualifications that they are too easy for a cohort containing many so-called ‘native speakers’ (Global Future 2021: 9). Rather, our evidence suggests that taking a qualification motivates pupils to improve or learn, for example, reading and writing skills. This benefits not only the pupils, but also society more broadly, supporting young people who will enter the workforce with competence and confidence in all aspects of use of their HHCLs.
Mixed views of the value of home language qualifications
Our research shows that pupils and teachers have mixed views of the value of HHCL qualifications. Whilst many pupils describe the potential positive effects of the qualifications, including validation of their skills, an enjoyable experience, and increased potential for communication and employment prospects, others are more hesitant. For example, pupils explain that the level needed for a GCSE is much lower than the level expected by an employer. The two mainstream-school teachers similarly have reservations about the value that employers would see in HHCL qualifications, although these reservations are linked primarily to societal attitudes towards languages other than English: “there is a very strong attitude of why? Everyone speaks English. Why should we bother?”.
Despite many positive views on the value of HHCL qualifications, pupils and teachers show an awareness and internalisation of a linguistic hierarchy which values English and traditional “modern foreign languages” above HHCLs. This hierarchy, which we see played out elsewhere (e.g. Haukås 2022: 288), affects pupils’ perception of the value of their languages and, in turn, their identity. The inclusion of pupils’ HHCLs in the education system could increase the value of these languages, as perceived by the pupils themselves and broader UK society.
Mixed views were reported regarding the perceived value of HHCL qualifications for university admissions procedures. All pupils and complementary-school teachers believe that an extra qualification in a HHCL would be viewed positively by universities as, in their view, any formal certification is a benefit. However, the mainstream-school teachers are less certain on how HHCL qualifications are viewed, suggesting, for example, that Russell Group universities may not accept them as part of an applicant’s portfolio. Such uncertainties amongst mainstream-school staff have clear repercussions for pupils applying to universities.
Our research in university admissions procedures reveals that of the 35 UK universities sampled, only 15 mention their position towards HHCL qualifications on their websites. Amongst these, there is no consensus in approach; many do not recognize HHCL qualifications on an equal footing with curricular languages in admissions processes. Where they can be identified as HHCLs, these qualifications may be excluded from an applicant’s offer. There is potential for unintended prejudices to arise whereby HHCLs which are main curricular languages are unlikely to be flagged e.g. admissions teams will not question whether an A-Level in French is a HHCL, but an A-Level in Polish will raise questions. Even more worryingly, university positions which exclude HHCL qualifications rely on being able to distinguish between a pupil taking a language qualification in their first language or as a second or additional language – with first-language speakers being excluded. The information available to universities during the application process does not allow them to make an accurate decision on an applicant’s first language, introducing serious bias into the system.
Policy Recommendations
Our research shows that access to HHCL qualifications is patchy, inconsistent and reliant on the know-how and goodwill of key stakeholders; a ‘language-as-problem’ orientation is widespread. Each of the emerging factors, from knowledge of the system to motivation, cost and time, may all lead to a socioeconomic split in provision. In the current system, working-class, first-generation immigrants to the UK are disadvantaged on multiple levels. Many factors relating to both cultural and economic capital contribute to this disadvantage, including:
a potential lack of knowledge about the existence of qualifications, about the UK education system, and about how to access qualifications;
less opportunity for support and preparation for the exam; and
less disposable income in the family, thereby limiting, or potentially completely removing, any available options for taking a HHCL exam.
Greater uptake of HHCL qualifications could have significant positive impact on the pupils themselves – who see great value personally, academically and professionally in the qualifications – and society more broadly, supporting and nurturing multilingual pupils with competence and confidence reading, writing, listening to and speaking their HHCLs. The inclusion of these languages in the education system would also challenge the language hierarchy which has been internalized not only in UK schools, but in wider society. We make the following evidence-based policy recommendations which would help to facilitate a move towards ‘language-as-resource’ and ‘language-as-right’ orientations.
Short-term:
Currently, many pupils are unable to take a HHCL qualification because of the difficulty of locating an examiner to assess the speaking component. The establishment of a geographically determined database of examiners (e.g. by region) willing to assess speaking exams will open up the possibility of a qualification to a greater number of pupils. This could be hosted by exam boards and developed in conjunction with schools and language associations such as ALL. Whilst we acknowledge that this will have cost and time implications, in the long-run, the potential increase in qualification uptake represents an economic benefit to the exam boards and it will lessen the burden of locating an examiner for mainstream-school staff, where organisation of these exams is an additional administrative task.
Our research suggests that a relationship between local mainstream and complementary schools positively impacts qualification uptake. We propose the establishment of a regional forum which meets annually or semesterly with representatives from local schools from each sector. To avoid duplication of resourcing, this could build upon existing structures (e.g. the Area Learning Communities in Northern Ireland, multi-academy trusts and local education authorities). A similar initiative has been launched in Cambridge, The Cambridge Community School Leadership Forum, which brings together representatives from local complementary schools. Whilst this recommendation entails an additional administrative burden for schools, we believe it would facilitate resource and information sharing, benefitting the pupils and schools alike, and reducing the burden which may fall on under-resourced complementary schools.
Currently, university admissions procedures vary and the information used to decide a pupil’s first language is inaccurate. We are producing a toolkit for university admissions offices around the UK, including details of A-level specifications (to avoid misunderstandings around what is assessed) and, if universities continue to distinguish between HHCL speakers and other applicants, a reliable method for ascertaining pupils’ first languages.
Long-term:
Creating qualifications for those languages where there are no existing qualifications must remain open for discussion between government, local education authorities and exam boards. There is precedence for government intervention in such matters; the DfE’s involvement in exam boards overturning the decision in 2016 to withdraw a range of HHCL qualifications is one such example. Following the language-as-resource position taken in this paper, discussions should concern languages for which there are substantial populations, e.g. Romanian, and are therefore more economically viable, as well as those which are of strategic importance for the UK. The more desirable language-as-right position would require discussions to be open for any language for which there is demand
References
Global Future. 2021. Silenced Voices. https://globalfuturefoundation.com/reports/silenced-voices/ [accessed 4 September 2024].
Haukås, Asta. 2022. ‘Who Are the Multilinguals? Pupils’ Definitions, Self-Perceptions and the Public Debate,’ in Multilingualism and Identity: Interdisciplinary Perspectives, ed. by Wendy Ayres-Bennett and Linda Fisher (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press), pp. 281–298. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108780469.014.
Humphries, Emma and Wendy Ayres-Bennett. 2022. ‘The Hidden Face of Public Language Policy: A Case Study from the UK.’ Current Issues in Language Planning, 24(5), 508–533. https://doi.org/10.1080/14664208.2022.2150497.
Humphries, Emma, Janice Carruthers and Leanne Henderson. 2024. ‘Qualifications in Home Languages: Opportunities, Barriers and Policy Implications.’ Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development. https://doi.org/10.1080/01434632.2023.2288292.
Ruíz, Richard. 1984. ‘Orientations in Language Planning.’ NABE Journal, 8(2), 15–34. https://doi.org/10.1080/08855072.1984.10668464.
Cite this article
Humphries, Emma, Janice Carruthers and Leanne Henderson. 2024. ‘Strengthening Provision for Home, Heritage and Community Language Qualifications: Recommendations for Policy and Practice.’ Languages, Society and Policy. https://www.lspjournal.com/post/strengthening-provision-for-home-heritage-and-community-language-qualifications-recommendations-fo.
About the authors
Emma Humphries is a Leverhulme Early Career Researcher at Queen’s University Belfast. There are two main strands to her research. The first focuses on language attitudes and ideologies, including her latest project: Prescriptivism in French Popular Culture. The second concerns language policy in the UK and France. [Twitter = @em_humps].
Janice Carruthers is Professor of French Linguistics at Queen’s University Belfast. She has published widely on the French temporal system, the structure of oral narrative, variation in French, the syntax of spoken French, corpus methodology, and language policy. Her research has been funded by the AHRC and Horizon Europe.
Leanne Henderson is a Lecturer in Education Studies at Queen’s University Belfast and was a Research Fellow on the AHRC Priority Area Leadership Fellow (Modern Languages) research project. Her research focuses on student experiences of education policy, curriculum and assessment, particularly in relation to language learning and educational transitions. [Twitter = @Leannehend]
Comments