The diversity of language teaching in the European Union. A Report to the European Commission Directorate General for Education & Culture

Transcription

1 The diversity of language teaching in the European Union A Report to the European Commission Directorate General for Education & Culture Call for tender EAC/28/06: Contract No / LE2-75EPR Final Report September

2 2

3 The diversity of language teaching in the European Union Final Report A Report to the European Commission Directorate General for Education & Culture Call for tender EAC/28/06: Contract No / LE2-75EPR Final Report September 2007 Authors: Miquel Strubell, Sergi Vilaró, Glyn Williams & Gruffudd Owain Williams. Addresses for correspondence: Glyn Williams, Centre for European Research, Plas Porthamal, Llanedwen, Llanfair PG, Ynys Mon LL61 6PJ, Wales, UK. Tel ; Fax ; sos004@bangor.ac.uk Miquel Strubell, Universitat Oberta de Catalunya, Estudis de Llengües i Cultures, Av. Tibidabo 39-43, E Barcelona, Catalonia. Tel ; Fax ; mstrubell@uoc.edu 3

4 Contents Acknowledgements... 6 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY... 7 MAIN REPORT Chapter 1. Introduction Liberalisation within educational systems The model...12 Chapter 2. Results. Analysis by country of developments in the diversity of language teaching between the and academic years General trends...14 a. ISCED b. ISCED c. ISCED Languages other than English studied per pupil Simultaneous language learning Learning of languages other than linguae francae Summary Effectiveness Motivation...33 Chapter 3. Country reports. An analysis of developments in the diversity of language teaching; and a compilation and analysis (effectiveness of measures, trends)...34 Chapter 4. Case analysis. Examples of best practices from the point of view of measures taken to diversify the language teaching on offer Chapter 5. Conclusions and Recommendations on measures to be taken to help broaden the range of language teaching offered, with a view to more accurately reflecting the linguistic diversity of the EU Conclusions Recommendations Bibliography List of tables 1. Distribution of states by level of educational flexibility School population of small states Average number of foreign languages studied per school year. ISCED-1 level Percentage of pupils studying languages other than English in 1999/2000 and 2004/2005. ISCED-1 level

5 5. Change in number of languages (and languages other than English = FLOTE) studied per pupil between 1999/2000 and 2004/2005. ISCED-1 level Change in number of languages taught and proportion of pupils learning at least one foreign language between 1999/2000 and 2004/2005. ISCED 2 level Change in number of languages taught and in the proportion of pupils learning more than one foreign language between 2000 and ISCED-2 level Change in percentage of pupils studying languages other than English between 1999/2000 and 2004/2005. ISCED-2 level Change in average number of languages (and languages other than English) studied per pupil, in the same school year, between 1999/2000 and 2004/2005. ISCED-2 level Average number of languages learnt per pupil by rank order, 2004/2005. ISCED- 2 level Changes in the number of languages taught and the proportion of pupils learning at least one foreign language between 2000 and ISCED-3 level Changes in the number of languages taught and the proportion of pupils learning more than one foreign language in the same school year, between 2000 and ISCED-3 level Change in number of languages taught and proportion of pupils learning more than one language between 1999/2000 and 2004/2005. ISCED-3 level (filtered) Changes in the incidence of languages other than English taught between 1999/2000 and 2004/2005 by state. ISCED-3 level Change in average number of languages (and languages other than English) studied per pupil, in the same school year, between 1999/2000 and 2004/2005. ISCED-3 level Average number of languages learnt per pupil, by rank order, 2004/2005. ISCED Percentages, and change between 1999/2000 and 2004/2005, of pupils studying two or more languages in the same school year, by state. Descending order by 1999/2000 figure. ISCED-2 level Percentage change between 1999/2000 and 2004/2005 in pupils studying two or more languages in the same school year, by state. ISCED-3 level Percentage of pupils studying other than linguae francae (English, French, German, Spanish, Russian), 1999/2000 and 2004/2005. ISCED-2 and ISCED-3 levels...30 List of diagrams 1. Changes in proportion of lower secondary school pupils studying at least two foreign languages in the same school year, between 1999/2000 and 2004/2005. ISCED 2. Indicator: educ_enrllng Changes in proportion of upper secondary school pupils studying at least two foreign languages in the same school year, between 1999/2000 and 2004/2005. ISCED 3. Indicator: educ_enrllng

6 Acknowledgements We would like to acknowledge the contribution made to the study by the following: the Experts Committee, Hugo Baetens Beardsmore, Colin Baker and Dolors Solé. Their comments were always valuable. The Eurydice network correspondents who responded to our queries, and the various state officials who provided additional data. Finally, Berta Cordero of DG E&C, who was always generous with her advice. 6

7 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1. The language learning context has changed significantly in recent years. European Union enlargement, globalisation and the associated economic restructuring produce new social, cultural and economic contexts for the knowledge of languages, forcing the role of language teaching and learning in education to be rethought. 2. Linguistic diversity is one of Europe s key advantages within the knowledge economy, but the hegemony of English might undermine this advantage. 3. Alongside political and economic changes is the process of liberalisation in education. Centralised systems with a common policy are giving way to decentralised systems based on a market-led conception of education. Policies increasingly emphasise school and school district autonomy. 4. According to a liberalisation model schools with high autonomy are well placed to expand the number of languages taught. States whose official language/s is not a lingua franca are likely to favour diversification in languages taught. In contrast centralised systems are better placed to expand the number of pupils learning specified foreign languages. The model presupposes that there are enough language teachers to cope with demand, and an absence of competition for curricular time. 5. This model was tested by developing scales of school autonomy and using Eurostat data to place each state in one of three autonomy classes. This schema was applied to Eurostat data on the number of languages taught and the proportion of pupils studying languages at two points: 1999/2000 and 2004/ The model held up fairly well at both ISCED-2 1 and ISCED-3 2 levels. However, when languages which were studied by very few pupils were filtered out, the picture changed. Many states, mostly new EU members, were broadening the range of languages taught through pilot projects which involved relatively few students, whereas some older member States, having moved on from piloting to establishing policy on this issue, were teaching an expanded number of pupils. 7. In 21 out of 25 countries the number of languages offered at ISCED-1 3 level increased significantly over the period. At ISCED-2 level the number of languages offered increased in 8 out of 24 countries. At ISCED-3 level the number of languages offered increased in 6 out of 22 countries. 8. In most countries the proportion of ISCED-1 level pupils learning a foreign language increased over the period, mainly thanks to an earlier introduction to this subject. At ISCED-2 level the average number of languages studied per pupil increased over the period in 14 out of 27 countries. At ISCED-3 level an increase was observed in 20 out of 26 countries. 9. Progress in both expanding the number of languages taught, and the number of pupils studying languages, has largely focused on the teaching of English. Many states pay little attention to the study of languages other than English at ISCED- 1 level, though a cluster of states is making the effort to increase the number of languages taught. ISCED-2 and ISCED-3 levels present similar pictures though 1 Lower secondary school 2 Upper secondary school 3 Primary school 7

8 the countries involved are different, each establishing its own language learning objectives at each level in the respective systems. 10. One way of increasing the teaching of languages is to introduce the learning of several languages in the same school year. Some states (Belgium, Finland, Luxembourg, etc.) do this because they have several official state languages; in other states tend to offer language studies as a specialism within the school system. The inclusion of all regional or minority languages in the data would reveal a greater intensity of such learning. 11. In very few states do substantial numbers of pupils study foreign languages other than the linguae francae (English, French, German and Spanish). These tend to be cases which offer languages of (a) neighbouring states (such as Italian in Malta), (b) national minorities (Hungarian in the Czech Republic) or (c) the former metropolis (such as Russian in Bulgaria or Danish in Iceland). 12. A survey of language teachers revealed general support for linguistic diversity, but also concern about competition between languages, and between subjects for timetable time and between schools for pupils. There is also concern that teachers are obliged to pay in-service training costs. 13. The main motivating factor for expanding the study of languages is clearly language prestige: the perceived value of a language for (upward) social mobility. This highlights the relationship between the individual and the labour market, and more could be made to underline the value of languages in business. The added value of working across languages and cultures for reflexive learning and innovation also needs to be promoted. Training to teach one language helps facilitate the learning and teaching of others, for the skills involved are transferable generically. 14. Various examples of good practice were encountered that can be replicated. Though states confront similar problems associated with developing new contexts for language teaching, each case is different and problems are resolved in different ways. 15. Legislation to introduce a greater number of compulsory languages, and/or to introduce languages at an earlier age, is clearly the most efficient method for expanding the teaching of languages. 16. Recommendations are based on an overall understanding of language planning. Some focus on intra- and/or inter-state developments, covering the responsibilities of both the central state and the individual school and its administrative context. Others place the onus on the European Commission, acting either alone or in association with Member States. 8

9 Chapter 1. Introduction The context for the learning of languages has changed significantly in recent years. It is generally acknowledged that language plays a central role in cultural reproduction and cultural diversity, democratic citizenship and social inclusion. As such it is key to promoting social cohesion. However there is also another context (Council of Europe, 2005). The weakening of the regulatory capacity of the state has broken the relationship between the state and its national market, and has enhanced the process of globalisation. This places new demands on the relationship between linguistic ability and the needs of employees and firms. New opportunities emerge for those who have a range of linguistic competences, particular segments of the labour market are opened, and additional salary bonuses are offered. A knowledge of languages assumes a new attractiveness. However, states are obliged to upgrade the role of language learning and teaching within their educational policies. States are increasingly aware that a labour force with an enhanced degree of linguistic diversity gives a competitive edge within the global economy. But what level of competence is necessary, and in which languages? Such questions demand a reassessment, of teaching methods and of learning outcomes. The notion of the single state with one economy, one language, one culture, and one state labour market, all of which are interrelated, is dissolving. As the state s powers roll back, the economy is opened up, and the orthodox relationship between languages and labour markets is broken. Language prestige (the value of language for upward social mobility), develops a new meaning, for instead of being focused on issues of state language purity, it relates language to opportunities in the global labour market. A form of labour market segmentation develops: the state language is relevant for employment in intra-state labour markets, while other languages are necessary for the global labour market. States whose languages do not serve as lingua franca within the global economy will face a specific form of diglossia, the state language and the lingua franca having different functions within a segmented labour market. A few European languages - English, French, German and Spanish - act as the main linguae francae within the global economy. Alongside languages such as Arabic, Chinese or Japanese, they are recognised as being particularly important within the large multinationals, whereas most smaller export companies prefer to operationalise local languages (CILT 2006). The value of languages, not only for individual social mobility, but also for business and for entire states, is increasingly acknowledged. One of Europe s key advantages in engaging with the knowledge economy is its linguistic diversity. However, the rapid expansion of English as the dominant lingua franca in Europe may not bode well for the exploitation of this linguistic diversity (Ammon 2001). One economist (Grin 2005: 8) has forcefully argued that the hegemony of English would be inefficient in terms of the allocation of resources, unjust in terms of the distribution of resources, dangerous for linguistic and cultural diversity and worrying by reference to its geopolitical implications. Others suggest that languages have a value in generating knowledge; this extends beyond the position of any particular language within the labour market, for contact between people of different cultures and languages can help to stimulate creativity and innovation (Williams, in press). This runs parallel with a heightened demand for new forms of learning based on the principles of knowledge generation and management (and similar constructivist principles): reflexive learning, learning by doing, etc. Such developments have prompted various declarations by the European institutions about the value of multilingualism. The Lisbon Agenda (2000) 4 emphasised the importance of 4 9

10 communication and mobility in relation to linguistic competence within the knowledgebased economy. The European Parliament has made several political declarations about the importance of multilingualism (see also Podesta 2001; Mari & Strubell 2002; Nic Shiubnne 2004). Such engagement culminated in the Commission Communication Promoting Language Learning and Linguistic Diversity: An Action Plan Liberalisation within Educational Systems Alongside the impact of neo-liberalism in driving the knowledge economy, education is also being liberalised. This is hardly surprising. Many developments in educational legislation and policy exemplify such processes. The notion of a highly centralised command system of education, generating a common policy for all students and schools, is giving way to decentralised systems, based on a market-led conception of education. States strive to offer an education that responds to public demand. Choice within an open set of offers is paramount: indeed, education is, to an extent, becoming commodified. States also seek to tailor provision to individual pupils needs. Thus accountability and responsibility move from the central state to the individual and the community. This transfer to the local or regional level gives a bigger say to parents and pupils in key decision-making. The school has increasing autonomy in such factors as financial matters, staff recruitment, curriculum and time-tabling. In this new context, the handling of language teaching by each system, treated as ideal types, would be expected to give very different outcomes. Within a flexible system we would expect curriculum to respond to the principles of supply and demand. We would expect the school and the parents to drive demand so that any choice of languages, given enough qualified teachers, could be offered. This would favour an increase in the range of languages. Neighbouring schools would be free to cooperate to share resources, something that is increasingly possible through the use of new technology. However, leaving the choice of subject (and language) to the consumer may result in fewer pupils choosing to study (one or more) foreign languages. This outcome is more likely in systems where the state language is English or another lingua franca. If the main determinant of language or subject selection is the prestige of the language (its value for future social mobility), given the overriding value of English in the global market, and the limited good that is available, pupils may well drop languages other than English and choose another subject. Moreover, in regions which have their own non-state language, which is taught alongside the state language and a foreign language, there may well be little time available for introducing a fourth language. In states whose languages is another of the limited number of linguae francae French, German or Spanish this sytem may well lead to the selection of English, but not of any other language. Thus, the greatest uptake of the greatest number of languages is likely to occur in states with flexible educational systems whose languages are not a lingua franca. The languages chosen are likely to be linguae francae. In contrast, centralised educational systems operate by top-down command, the subjects being uniform across the entire educational system and being determined through the imposition of a uniform curriculum. Centralised control may include the method of teaching or the choice of textbooks. It may not even extend to include the administration of education. Thus, where some states may claim that their educational systems are decentralised, this may well mean only that centralised policy is administered at local/regional level. However, the state does insist on the learning of languages, and will also tend to impose which languages are to be taught. Choice within each school is restricted. We would expect the choice of languages to be restricted to those which have been taught for some time within the educational system (and for whom, as a result, there 5 COM (2003) 449 final. 10

11 will be sufficient enough qualified teachers). These will tend to be European linguae francae. There is little scope for experimentation in expanding the number of languages taught, outside pilot schemes. However, since language learning is obligatory, we would expect a high level of uptake among the pupils. European states are engaging with this process in different ways and at different rates. Even granting that each educational system will retain its cultural distinctiveness, these developments will probably lead towards a degree of convergence. The emerging liberalisation framework drives specific educational developments; in particular, it obliges the state to cede responsibility and to allow more flexibility to the school and those who administer it. There is also a shift in accountability, leading to new dimensions of inspection and measurement to ensure quality performance. Some states decide nonetheless to retain control over aspects of education, most notably the core curriculum. They strive to balance the advantages of the model of flexibility with the need to ensure certain levels of provision. The theoretical heightened demand for language provision and uptake places considerable strains on various aspects of the educational system. In the new Member States this process is further complicated by a change in the range of languages. Furthermore, many of the new Member States have to come to terms with new conceptions and new frameworks for development, in transition from the Soviet command system to the more liberal system of the older EU Member States. Expanding language teaching often means surmounting difficulties associated with curricular and timetable overload. Several strategies may overcome such difficulties. Firstly, extending the time span for studying languages, usually by introducing language teaching earlier, at the primary level. Secondly, intensifying the teaching of languages by using them to teach other disciplines: CLIL and/or immersion education. This is widely and successfully used in many bi- or trilingual schools in regions such as Wales and Catalonia (despite receiving little mainstream attention); and in some pilot schools a third language is introduced. A similar system has operated for years in Luxembourg, involving French, German and Luxembourgish. The brief for the present study was to evaluate the legislative and policy developments in the various countries under study by reference to the teaching of languages at ISCED-1, 2 and 3 levels 6, and to evaluate their effectiveness using two measures: the proportion of 6 ENGLISH: ISCED means the International Standard Classification of Education 1997 adopted by the Unesco General Conference at its 27 th session in November 1997: ISCED 97 LEVELS Empirically, ISCED assumes that several criteria exist which can help allocate education programmes to levels of education. Depending on the level and type of education concerned, there is a need to establish a hierarchical ranking system between main and subsidiary criteria (typical entrance qualification, minimum entrance requirement, minimum age, staff qualification, etc.). [ ] ISCED 1: Primary education: This level begins between four and seven years of age, is compulsory in all countries and generally lasts from five to six years. ISCED 2: Lower secondary education: It continues the basic programmes of the primary level, although teaching is typically more subject-focused. Usually, the end of this level coincides with the end of compulsory education. ISCED 3: Upper secondary education: This level generally begins at the end of compulsory education. The entrance age is typically 15 or 16 years. Entrance qualifications (end of compulsory education) and other minimum entry requirements are usually needed. Instruction is often more subject-oriented than at ISCED level 2. The typical duration of ISCED level 3 varies from two to five years. Source: Eurydice. Key Data on Teaching Languages at School in Europe Edition. European Commission: Education and Culture. Page See also 11

12 pupils learning (several) languages and the number of languages taught. This was to be accompanied by the collection of examples of good practice, and the provision of recommendations for further development. This brief was operationalised by developing a model of educational systems, based on the above principles, to explore the relationship of components of the model with growth in the number of language students and languages taught; supplementing the empirical evaluation of effectiveness through an on-line survey of a limited number of language teachers from each of the relevant countries; and by consultation with published materials and officials in developing models of good practice. The purpose of this part of the Report is not simply to provide details of the findings, but also to try and account for them, and to provide some insight into possible future developments The Model The measures for the different indicators needed to compare levels of flexibility derive from the Eurydice Key Data source (Eurydice, 2005). They involved curriculum flexibility, financial autonomy for the overall school budget and on-going operational resources, and autonomy for teacher recruitment and employment. Three-point linear scales were constructed for each dimension and two evaluators independently assigned scores to each indicator from the available information. Disagreements were debated with a further evaluator and resolved. The end product allowed the states to be grouped into three groups of (approximately) equal size corresponding to high, medium and low categories of flexibility (table 1). High Medium Low Table 1: Distribution of states by level of educational flexibility Belgium (Flemish community), Denmark, Estonia, Latvia, Hungary, Netherlands, Finland, Sweden, UK, Slovakia, Norway Belgium (French and German communities), Spain, Italy, Ireland, Cyprus, Lithuania, Poland, Slovenia, Bulgaria Germany, Greece, France, Luxembourg, Austria, Malta, Portugal, Liechtenstein, Iceland, Romania, Czech Republic Note, however, that the states which do not display a high level of school or community autonomy include five whose population is so small that any devolution or autonomy is of limited value (table 2): Table 2: School population of small states State Total school population Malta 60,000 Cyprus 95,000 Liechtenstein Ca. 7,000 Iceland 45,000 Luxembourg 45,000 In these countries specific school decisions, and many policy decisions, will often be made through direct consultation. 12

13 Our working hypothesis is that flexible systems which devolve responsibility to the community and the individual school will have more scope for increasing the number of languages taught and for recruiting pupils to study them. The notion of supply and demand dictates that schools will respond to the wishes of the pupils and parents. The motivation for selecting language as an area of study relies on the acceptance of the notion of language prestige. It is measured by the Eurobarometer survey data on the perceived openness of state populations to learning languages (European Commission 2006). However, this model is qualified by at least three factors. Firstly, if the state language is a lingua franca, and if the awareness of the value of language for the economy is limited to language prestige, the perceived need for other languages will probably be limited. Secondly, there is considerable pressure for curriculum time: whatever the degree of flexibility, schools will tend to apply the principle of limited good. They may regard foreign language teaching as less important than some other subjects, especially science and mathematics. Thirdly, even where there is every desire to teach specific languages, sufficient teachers for that language may not be available. 13

14 Chapter 2. Results. Analysis by country of developments in the diversity of language teaching offered in the EU between the and academic years The data used to establish whether or not a state had increased the number of languages taught, and the number of pupils learning/being taught languages, derived from the Eurostat sources employed by the Eurydice unit. Wherever possible, gaps in this data were filled by data solicited directly from the respective countries. A note of caution is necessary here. If comparable data were available for all cases for the relevant years it would be relatively easy to undertake a comparative empirical analysis. This is not the case. Furthermore we have reservations about the validity of some of the available data. Eurostat itself sometimes gives different total figures; from one year to the next there are sometimes sudden inexplicable changes. Statistics are sometimes absent or suspect, and all this should be kept in mind in the following discussion. Nonetheless we do use this data in discerning between i. Countries where the proportion studying at least one foreign language in the same school year has notably increased; ii. Countries where the proportion of pupils studying two or more foreign languages in the same school year has notably increased; iii. Countries where the proportion of pupils studying foreign languages in the same school year remained high throughout the period; and Countries where the proportion of pupils studying foreign languages has notably decreased General Trends a. ISCED-1: The picture for primary education is fairly clear. There are considerable improvements at this level, with all countries making a considerable effort to increase the teaching of at least one foreign language to primary students. In 1999/2000 all but 12 7 countries were already teaching a foreign language to most of their primary pupils. By 2005 this number was down to 9 8. The change in nearly all cases has been to introduce teaching a foreign language at an earlier age than before. However, in most cases the only language increasingly taught is English. Secondly, in 1999/2000 five countries 9 had more than 10% of their primary pupils learning more than one language. By 2004/2005 this number had not changed. In many cases new activities are based on pilot projects involving (until, perhaps, they become mainstreamed) a relatively small number of pupils. Somewhat disconcerting is the fact that in some countries there is a reduction in the teaching of specific languages at this level, sometimes in a trade-off with an increase in the teaching of English. 7 Belgium, Bulgaria, Czech Republic, France, Iceland, Ireland, Latvia, Lithuania, Netherlands, Slovenia, Slovakia and UK. 8 Belgium, Czech Republic, France, Iceland, Ireland, Netherlands, Slovenia, Slovakia and UK. 9 Estonia, Finland, Iceland, Luxembourg and Sweden. 14

15 Table 3: Average number of foreign languages studied per school year. ISCED-1 level / / / /2005 Luxembourg France Estonia Latvia Malta Czech Republic Norway Iceland Austria Belgium Sweden Portugal Finland Denmark Spain Lithuania Romania Bulgaria Italy Slovenia Poland Netherlands Cyprus Germany Hungary Slovakia Greece Ireland Eurostat Data 2004 (ISCED-1). Indicator: educ_enrllng1 However, in terms of linguistic diversity, Luxembourg is the only country where most pupils at this level study a language other than English (in 2004, 93% study German and 76% study French). In Estonia 23% studied a foreign language other than English (mainly Russian, but also German and, in a few cases, French). In Italy only 6% studied a foreign language other than English. At the other extreme, in Malta and Norway English was the only compulsory foreign language. Let us see which languages (other than English) are studied by a substantial ISCED-1 proportion (table 4). We have chosen 10% as the cut-off point. 10 The lack of available statistics explains why Croatia and Turkey are not in the table, and why data for France is limited to 1999/ Big increase in 1999/ /2002 figure /2002 figure 14 Big increases in 2000/2001 and 2003/ Big increase in 2003/ Big increases in 2000/2001 and The average peaked in 2000/2001 at Big increase in 1999/ Big increase in 2003/ /2002 figure 21 Big increase in 1999/ Big increases from 2001/2002 to 2003/

16 Table 4: Percentage of pupils studying languages other than English in 1999/2000 and 2004/2005. ISCED / / / / 2005 German French Croatia 17% Luxembourg 79% 83% Czech Republic 18% 13% Romania 33% 22% Hungary 17% 20% Russian Luxembourg 95% 100% Estonia 11% 15% Poland 19% 17% Danish Iceland 20% 16% The range of languages taught is limited, and primarily involves German and French. This limitation partly relates to the difficulties associated with asking primary school teachers with a limited degree of language competence and language teaching experience to assume the task of teaching languages as a new activity. Clearly, this would not apply to Luxembourg which has a long experience of language teaching at the primary level. Table 5 shows the relationship between the change in the number of languages studied per pupil and the change in the incidence of the teaching of languages other than English (FLOTE) between 1999/2000 and 2004/2005. Interestingly the countries which show an increase on both counts (Group A) are the countries with the lowest degree of school/district autonomy. This is the consequence of the tendency for most countries to take a central decision concerning the teaching of languages in primary schools. In many cases such developments required legislative changes. In contrast those countries that reveal an increase in the number of language studied, but show no increase in the teaching of languages other than English, have a very high degree of autonomy. This suggests that schools in this category tend to opt for English as the desirable language for their children, and that this decision is taken democratically at a local level. In conclusion, many countries have started introducing a foreign language in primary education at a younger age than before, though only a handful do so from grade 1. The widespread increase in the study of foreign languages at primary levels has basically benefited English, in some places at the expenses of other languages. Only in Luxembourg and Belgium is English hardly taught (probably because of the pressure on the timetable in coping with Luxembourgish, German and French in the former case, and Dutch, German and French in the latter). 16

17 Table 5: Change in number of languages (and languages other than English = FLOTE) studied per pupil between 1999/2000 and 2004/2005. ISCED-1 level 23 Change since 1999 in the average number of foreign languages studied Change in FLOTE value Increase (11) Decrease or no change (14) Increase (21) Group A: Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Cyprus, Germany, Greece, Italy, Spain, Sweden Group C: Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, Iceland, Ireland, Latvia, Lithuania, Netherlands, Norway, Slovakia, Slovenia Decrease or no change (4) Group B: Luxembourg, Malta Group D: Hungary, Romania b. ISCED-2: The following matrices present the analysis of pupils studying one and more than one language at ISCED-2 level. It should be noted that there are several countries for which there is insufficient available data to undertake a reliable analysis. Table 6: Change in number of languages taught and proportion of pupils learning at least 1 language between 1999/2000 and 2004/2005. ISCED-2 level Change since 1999/2000 in the number of foreign languages available Increase (8) Decrease or no change (15) Change since 1999/2000 in the proportion of pupils studying at least one foreign language Increase (9) Decrease or no change (14) Group A: Italy, Malta Group C: Estonia, France, Iceland, Ireland, Slovenia, Spain Group B: Austria, Belgium, Czech Republic, Finland, Latvia, Lithuania, Slovakia Group D: Bulgaria, Denmark, Greece, Luxembourg, Norway, Poland, Sweden, UK Eurostat Data 2005 (ISCED-2) The data in table 6 suggests that those countries where schools and districts have the highest degree of autonomy have tended not to increase the number of foreign languages offered. However, this may be a reflection of the extent to which they were already offering a range of languages. 23 Insufficient data from France, Hungary, Liechtenstein, Portugal, Turkey and the UK. 17

18 Table 7: Change in number of languages taught and proportion of pupils learning more than one language between 1999/2000 and 2004/2005. ISCED-2 level Change in the number of foreign languages available Increase (8) Decrease or no change (16) Change in the proportion of pupils studying >1 foreign language Increase (14) Decrease or no change (10) Group A: Estonia, France, Italy, Malta, Slovenia Group C: Iceland, Ireland, Spain Group B: Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Denmark, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Portugal, Sweden Group D: Czech Republic, Finland, Greece, Norway, Poland, Slovakia, UK Eurostat Data 2005 (ISCED-2) Note: Highlighted are countries whose state language (or one of them) is a lingua franca (English, French, German or Spanish). Apart from Malta and the United Kingdom, all countries taught almost all students at this level at least one foreign language. Consequently, it is more informative to consider the relationship between the increase in the number of languages taught and the proportion of pupils studying more than one foreign language (table 7). Of the countries that indicate a growth, both in the number of languages taught and the number of pupils studying languages (Group A), only France has a language that is a lingua franca. However, the group of countries with the highest incidence of autonomy are those countries which do not show any increase either in the number of foreign languages offered or in the proportion of pupils studying more than one language (Group D). By the same token the countries which do not show an increase in the number of foreign languages available have a higher degree of school/district autonomy than those countries that have increased their offer. This suggests that, as a generalisation, the decision to increase the number of languages on offer is taken centrally. In this group the education systems of three countries (Estonia, Latvia and Slovakia) have a high level of autonomy, two have medium autonomy (Slovenia and Italy); and one (Malta) has a low level of autonomy. Overall, this group has a considerably higher level of school/district autonomy than any of the other three groups. Three of the six countries which have a lingua franca as a state language, and for which we have data, are among countries that have not increased the number of languages taught (Belgium, UK and Austria). These are countries that are satisfied with the knowledge which their pupils will have of their own and other linguae francae. In contrast, Spain, Ireland and France have increased the number of languages offered but it is only France that has increased the proportion of pupils learning more than one language. They include centralised countries that take global decisions regarding the curriculum, and those that devolve such decisions. When we filter out those cases where the number of pupils studying the additional languages is small for both the first and latest date 24 the number of languages taught 24 While we are removing these cases, we would like to note that such cases are entirely consistent with the promotion of multilingualism. 18

19 reduces dramatically; only two countries (Italy and Portugal) can claim to have introduced a greater number of languages into their system at a significant level. Table 8 presents the languages (other than English) that are studied by a substantial ISCED- 2 proportion. We have again chosen 10% as the cut-off point. Table 8: Change in the percentage of pupils studying languages other than English between 1999/2000 and 2004/2005. ISCED-2 level 1999/ / / /2005 German French Bulgaria 15% 16% Cyprus 100% 93% Croatia - 32% Denmark 5% 12% Czech Republic 45% 29% Germany 22% 23% Denmark 60% 90% Greece 92% 59% Estonia 30% 20% Ireland - 69% Finland 22% 16% Italy 36% 46% France 18% 14% Luxembourg 97% 100% Greece 23% 36% Malta 37% 43% Hungary 71% 41% Norway 18% 18% Latvia 24% 17% Portugal 54% 81% 25 Lithuania 33% 26% Romania 89% 86% Luxembourg 96% 100% Spain 44% 39% Norway 47% 30% Sweden 22% 18% Poland 19% 17% United Kingdom 51% 44% Romania 12% 11% Russian Slovakia 47% 33% Bulgaria 25% 27% Slovenia 22% 30% Estonia 52% 61% Sweden 40% 27% Latvia 40% 45% United Kingdom 21% 26 15% Lithuania 56% 58% Danish Romania 12% 11% Iceland 96% 97% Italian Swedish Malta 52% 61% Finland 90% 92% Spanish France 31% 34% Sweden 12% 29% Evidently, the most popular languages are German and French. However, the teaching of German declined in 12 of the 19 countries where it was widely taught during the period in question. Similarly, the teaching of French declined in 5 of the 14 countries where it was widely taught. In contrast the teaching of Spanish increased in both France and Sweden. It is also relevant that only in 2 of the 19 countries where it is widely taught that more than half of the pupils at this level studied German, compared with six of the fourteen states where French is widely taught. In table 9 we present those countries which have increased or decreased the average number of languages studied per pupil, including and excluding the study of English. There are no countries that have increased the teaching of languages other than English, and have also shown a decrease in the average number of languages taught per pupil in the same school year over this period (Group B). This is because of the predominant influence of English on the data. Those cases where there was a decrease in the studying of /2002 and 2003/2004 respectively /2002 data 19

20 languages other than English per pupil, and a decrease in the overall number of languages studied per pupil (Group D), are those cases where there has been an overall decline in the number of pupils studying languages and, perhaps, a decline in the number of languages studied. Those cases that show a decline in the average number of languages other than English studied, and an increase in the average number of languages studied (Group C), are those cases where English plays a heavy role in language teaching. Among them are two new EU Member States from Eastern Europe. Such countries are facing profound problems of educational and political restructuring, and are very sensitive to the need for language education, but often lack the facilities that would make the transition to multilingual education easier. Finally, the countries which show an increase on both measures (Group A) have a more balanced approach to language teaching per se. Table 9: Change in average number of languages (and languages other than English) studied per pupil, in the same school year, between 1999/2000 and 2004/2005. ISCED-2 level Change in the average number of foreign languages studied per pupil Increase (14) Decrease or no change (13) Group A: Change in FLOTE Value Increase (10) Decrease or no change (17) Austria, Bulgaria, Croatia 27, Denmark, Germany, Italy 28, Luxembourg, Malta, Portugal 29, Slovenia Group C: Belgium, France, Latvia, Lithuania Group B: Group D: Czech Republic, Estonia, Greece 30, Cyprus, Finland, Hungary, Iceland, Norway, Poland, Romania, Slovakia, Spain, Sweden Similar 2004/2005 data for ISCED-2 is presented in tabular form in table 10: Table 10: Average number of languages learnt per pupil, by rank order, 2004/2005. ISCED-2 level Average FLOTE average Average FLOTE average Luxembourg France Finland Italy Malta Spain Iceland Slovenia Denmark Croatia Data only for 2002/2003 and 2004/ /2001 data 29 Data only from 2001/2002 to 2004/ /2001 data. 20

21 Estonia Bulgaria Romania Germany Cyprus Belgium Greece Slovakia Portugal Poland Lithuania Czech Republic Sweden Ireland 1 00 Not applicable Latvia Hungary Norway UK 0 68 Not applicable Here the countries are ranked in accordance with their success by reference to the average number of languages taught per pupil in the same school year. It also shows which countries place the greatest emphasis on the teaching of languages other than English. In 11 countries all pupils (or nearly all) study at least one foreign language other than English each year during ISCED-2. This means that these countries have found ways of accommodating two foreign languages (and in Luxembourg, three) within the school timetable each year throughout lower secondary education. However, in all other countries, all pupils study at least one foreign language. Since this nearly always involves the teaching of English, it would be interesting to know which subjects use the teaching space devoted to the teaching of the second language in other countries. c. ISCED-3: The picture that ISCED-3 offers is different (tables 11 and 12). Table 11: Changes in the number of languages taught and the proportion of pupils learning at least one foreign language between 1999/2000 and 2004/2005. ISCED-3 level Change in the number of languages available Increase (6) Decrease or no change (16) Change in the proportion of pupils studying at least one foreign language Increase (15) Decrease or no change (7) Eurostat Data 2004 (ISCED-3) Group A: Hungary, Ireland, Latvia, Slovenia Group C: Romania, Spain Group B: Austria, Bulgaria, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, France, Iceland, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Slovakia, Sweden Group D: Belgium 31, Estonia, Greece, Italy, Malta 31 Data for 2000/2001 to 2004/

22 Table 12: Changes in the number of languages taught and the proportion of pupils learning more than one foreign language in the same school year, between 2000 and ISCED-3 level Change in the number of languages available ( ) Increase (6) Decrease or no change (16) Change in the proportion of pupils studying more than one foreign language Increase (17) Decrease or no change (5) Group A: Ireland, Romania, Spain, France Group C: Cyprus, Lithuania Group B: Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Iceland, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Poland, Slovakia, Slovenia, Sweden Group D: Greece, Italy, Malta Eurostat Data 2004 (ISCED-3) Of the countries for which data is available, all had 65% or more of their pupils studying a foreign language at ISCED-3 level. By 2004/2005 all but Malta had 82% or more of the students at this level studying a language. However, not all of them had increased the proportion studying a foreign language during the five-year period. Indeed, seven countries had either decreased the proportion or had not increased it. Also, only six countries Hungary, Ireland, Latvia, Slovenia, Romania and Spain - had increased the number of languages studied. Hungary, Ireland, Latvia and Slovenia were the only countries to increase both the proportion studying foreign languages and the number of languages studied during this period. However, several countries were already offering a substantial number of languages while also having all or virtually all students studying at least one foreign language. The four countries (Group A) that have shown an increase on both counts during the period in question have a relatively high degree of autonomy. They contrast with those countries which have not increased the number of languages offered but have increased the proportion of pupils studying a foreign language (Group B), and the two countries that have increased the number of languages offered without increasing the proportion studying a foreign language (Group C). However, all four groups have a strong degree of internal variation in the incidence of autonomy. The difficulty of making any convincing claims about the relationship between autonomy and changes in the pattern of language teaching at this level is partly the consequence of the high incidence of language teaching. Given this high level of achievement it is more revealing to consider the relationship between an increase in the number of languages offered and the proportion of students studying more than one language (table 12). Here the 4 countries which showed an increase on both counts in table 12 are Ireland, Romania, Spain and France. The group with the highest degree of school autonomy is that which displays an increase in the number of languages offered and either no change or a decrease in the proportion studying more than one language (Group C). Three countries Ireland, France and Spain whose official languages are linguae francae have increased both the number of languages offered and the proportion of pupils learning more than one language. More significantly, the same 3 of the 4 countries in this group are among the long-standing Member States. 22

23 When the data is filtered in order to remove the languages with small numbers of learners, the change is not large (table 13). This is partly because some countries persist with their pilot projects for the entire five years while others simply remove these languages from their offer. It is only Italy, Cyprus, Romania, Slovene and Slovakia that have consolidated some of these offers. In contrast Denmark, Belgium, Estonia, and Malta have reduced the number of languages offered. Almost two thirds of the countries have not increased the number of foreign languages offered but have increased the proportion of pupils studying more than one language. Table 13: Change in number of languages taught and proportion of pupils learning more than 1 language between 1999/2000 and 2004/2005. ISCED-3 level (filtered) Change in the number of foreign languages available Increase (4) Decrease or no change (18) Change in the proportion of pupils studying > one foreign language Increase (17) Decrease or no change (5) Group A: Iceland, Ireland, Spain Group C: Cyprus Group B: Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, France, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Poland, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Sweden Group D: Greece, Italy, Lithuania, Malta 2.2. Languages other than English studied per pupil The languages (other than English) are studied by a substantial proportion of students at ISCED-3 level are presented in table 14. Yet again we have chosen 10% as the cut-off point. Table 14: Changes in the incidence of languages other than English taught between 1999/2000 and 2004/2005. ISCED-3 level 1999/ / / / 2005 German French Bulgaria 24% 31% Austria 25% 25% Croatia 42% Bulgaria 15% 13% Czech Republic 63% 56% Cyprus 86% 31% Denmark 39% 4% Denmark 15% 10% Estonia 36% 36% Germany 13% 13% France 24% 18% Greece 13% 30% Hungary 50% 49% Ireland - 64% Latvia 39% Italy 34% 28% Lithuania 35% 26% Luxembourg 73% 82% Luxembourg 66% 75% Portugal 25% 32 22% Norway 13% Romania 63% 68% Poland 56%? Spain 18% 27% Slovakia 65% 62% Sweden 16% 12% Slovenia 54% 53% Russian /2002 data 23