Debates between Lord Agnew of Oulton and Lord Sherbourne of Didsbury during the 2017-2019 Parliament

Schools: Modern Languages

Debate between Lord Agnew of Oulton and Lord Sherbourne of Didsbury
Tuesday 9th April 2019

(5 years, 7 months ago)

Lords Chamber
Read Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Sherbourne of Didsbury Portrait Lord Sherbourne of Didsbury
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what progress they have made in ensuring that more pupils study modern languages in primary and secondary schools.

Lord Agnew of Oulton Portrait The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Education (Lord Agnew of Oulton) (Con)
- Hansard - -

My Lords, the take-up of modern foreign languages at GCSE is too low. While the percentage of those studying an MFL GCSE has increased from 40% in 2010 to 46% last year, more needs to be done. To this end we have, among a number of initiatives, created nine MFL hubs and have worked closely with Ofsted on its proposed new inspection framework. This has increased focus on the EBacc curriculum, which includes languages.

Lord Sherbourne of Didsbury Portrait Lord Sherbourne of Didsbury (Con)
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

I share my noble friend’s concern. The latest survey I have seen shows that half the schools in England and Wales have dropped A-level courses in modern languages. Part of the problem is that our universities are not turning out enough graduates who can teach modern languages, and that is because universities themselves are dropping degree courses in modern languages. What are we doing about that?

Lord Agnew of Oulton Portrait Lord Agnew of Oulton
- Hansard - -

My noble friend is right; however, noble Lords will remember that we in this House passed the Higher Education and Research Act 2017. We have a market-driven higher education system where student choices drive demand. The role of government is to create the right conditions for providers to respond to economic and strategic priorities. To this end, universities need to do more to explain the longitudinal earnings outcomes of language degrees. For example, in a study that my department released in June of last year, language students at the median point, five years after graduation, earned more than those studying law, physical sciences or biological sciences. That sort of awareness needs to get out to potential undergraduates.